• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outcry after police shoot African-American security guard 'hero'

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,666
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the BBC

Outcry after police shoot African-American security guard 'hero'

An armed security guard at a bar in suburban Chicago was killed by police as he detained a suspected gunman, according to officials and witnesses.

After gunfire erupted around 04:00 local time on Sunday, Jemel Roberson, 26, chased down an attacker and knelt on his back until police arrived.

Moments after police came on the scene, an officer opened fire on Roberson, who was black, killing him.

Friends say Roberson was a musician who had dreams of joining the police.

COMMENT:-

I rather suspect that all of those who were pushing the "All it will take is one good man with a gun" line while completely discounting those who were saying "Yep, and the odds that the wrong person - including that 'one good man' - is going to get killed because the police won't bother to identify who the actual shooter is." are going to respond to this item with their usual, highly nuanced, "But that's DIFFERENT!!!".
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
81,563
Reaction score
49,801
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
From the information that we have thus far, it sounds like the cop just shot the dude dead despite being told that he was security and despite him wearing a vest that said security. If that is indeed the case, this cop needs to be tried for murder.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,551
Reaction score
22,561
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
From the reports so far, he was wearing a hat that clearly stated "security" and the witnesses were also screaming out he was a security guard. This needs to be fully investigated and the police officer who shot Roberson needs to be held accountable.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,666
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the reports so far, he was wearing a hat that clearly stated "security" and the witnesses were also screaming out he was a security guard. This needs to be fully investigated and the police officer who shot Roberson needs to be held accountable.

We don't seem to be getting much reaction out of the "One Good Man With A Gun" crowd, do we?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,658
Reaction score
46,840
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
COMMENT:-

I rather suspect that all of those who were pushing the "All it will take is one good man with a gun" line while completely discounting those who were saying "Yep, and the odds that the wrong person - including that 'one good man' - is going to get killed because the police won't bother to identify who the actual shooter is." are going to respond to this item with their usual, highly nuanced, "But that's DIFFERENT!!!".

I dont really understand your point.

It's up to the individual to take that risk and anyone that gets a cc permit (altho it's not required in every state to carry) is informed very clearly about this risk. Why do you see some disconnect here? BTW....that's exactly what happened here: a good guy with a gun DID stop a bad guy with a gun. So what is your point? That he should not have done so/not had the ability to carry and do so?

OTOH, none of us is legally obligated to help anyone else, with or without our firearms. Perhaps in this instance, the security guard was, I dont know that. But it's made very clear to us that not only is there a high risk of being shot by LE, we will also very possibly end up in court and even if we win, possibly lose our house in court costs. And very possibly being charged if one of our bullets his an innocent bystander. (which cops are rarely if ever held accountable for) It's not worth it...save your own ass.

CC permit holders are not cops. We know that. And that's not why we carry (I cant speak for 100% of course). We carry to protect ourselves and our families.
 
Last edited:

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,658
Reaction score
46,840
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
We don't seem to be getting much reaction out of the "One Good Man With A Gun" crowd, do we?

Btw I dont use that phrase nor think that way because I dont believe that armed citizens are cops nor should act like them. We certainly are not legally obligated to intervene.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,666
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I dont really understand your point.

Then you didn't bother to read as far as the "... while completely discounting those who were saying "Yep, and the odds that the wrong person - including that 'one good man' - is going to get killed because the police won't bother to identify who the actual shooter is." bit.

It's up to the individual to take that risk and anyone that gets a cc permit (altho it's not required in every state to carry) is informed very clearly about this risk. Why do you see some disconnect here? BTW....that's exactly what happened here: a good guy with a gun DID stop a bad guy with a gun.


Indeed, and ended up dead because the police shot him.

So what is your point?

The point is that the police shot "the good guy with the gun".

That he should not have done so/not had the ability to carry and do so?

Obviously you didn't actually bother to read my comment.

OTOH, none of us is legally obligated to help anyone else, with or without our firearms. Perhaps in this instance, the security guard was, I dont know that.

This has something to do with the fact that the police shot and killed a clearly marked security officer while the bystanders were telling them not to do it?

What?

But it's made very clear to us that not only is there a high risk of being shot by LE, we will also very possibly end up in court and even if we win, possibly lose our house in court costs.


So the professional good guys with guns are being told exactly what those who argue that EVERYONE should be a "good guy with a gun" want to ignore - that you stand a very good chance of being killed by the police because [a] there is an active shooting situation, you have a gun, [c] you are shooting, and [d] not being a white guy ups the odds that the police will kill you.

And very possibly being charged if one of our bullets his an innocent bystander.

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it was a good guy with a gun that was killed by the police.

(which cops are rarely if ever held accountable for)

A regrettable situation, don't you think? Or is that just one of the prices you have to pay for freedom?

It's not worth it...save your own ass.

An understandable risk assessment.

CC permit holders are not cops. We know that. And that's not why we carry (I cant speak for 100% of course). We carry to protect ourselves and our families.

And, if you are using your gun to do that then you stand a chance of having to protect yourself and your family from the police who don't bother to find out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys before opening fire.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,658
Reaction score
46,840
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Then you didn't bother to read as far as the "... while completely discounting those who were saying "Yep, and the odds that the wrong person - including that 'one good man' - is going to get killed because the police won't bother to identify who the actual shooter is." bit.



Indeed, and ended up dead because the police shot him.



The point is that the police shot "the good guy with the gun".



Obviously you didn't actually bother to read my comment.



This has something to do with the fact that the police shot and killed a clearly marked security officer while the bystanders were telling them not to do it?

What?



So the professional good guys with guns are being told exactly what those who argue that EVERYONE should be a "good guy with a gun" want to ignore - that you stand a very good chance of being killed by the police because [a] there is an active shooting situation, you have a gun, [c] you are shooting, and [d] not being a white guy ups the odds that the police will kill you.



Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it was a good guy with a gun that was killed by the police.



A regrettable situation, don't you think? Or is that just one of the prices you have to pay for freedom?



An understandable risk assessment.



And, if you are using your gun to do that then you stand a chance of having to protect yourself and your family from the police who don't bother to find out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys before opening fire.


TL: DR

way too much effort

I wrote my opinions clearly. Take 'em or leave 'em
 

Kreton

Doesn't know
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
12,262
Reaction score
5,648
Location
Over that way
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are a few things that mud up the water here.

1. Why didn't the officer listen to the witnesses at the scene.
2. Why did the officer assume he was the shooter?
3. Why didn't the man obey the instructions while holding a gun at an active crime scene?
4. How long did the officer give the man to respond to his instructions?
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,666
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There are a few things that mud up the water here.

1. Why didn't the officer listen to the witnesses at the scene.
2. Why did the officer assume he was the shooter?
3. Why didn't the man obey the instructions while holding a gun at an active crime scene?
4. How long did the officer give the man to respond to his instructions?

  1. Because he saw a "Black with a gun"?
  2. Because the person with the gun was "Black"?
  3. Was the man given a chance to "obey the instructions"? Did the man actually hear "the instructions"? Did the man think that the police were talking to him, after all, he was only doing the job that he was paid to do?
  4. About as long as it took to pull the trigger the first time?
 

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
1,374
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
  1. Because he saw a "Black with a gun"?
  2. Because the person with the gun was "Black"?
  3. Was the man given a chance to "obey the instructions"? Did the man actually hear "the instructions"? Did the man think that the police were talking to him, after all, he was only doing the job that he was paid to do?
  4. About as long as it took to pull the trigger the first time?

  1. And you know this, how?
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,666
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
And you know this, how?

Did you know that a sentence that ends with a question mark "?" is NOT a statement?

Did you know that you cannot "prove" a question?

PS - Please excuse the typo in my list of potential answers, it should have read


  1. Because he saw a "Black with a gun"?
  2. Because the person with the gun was "Black"?
  3. Was the man given a chance to "obey the instructions"? Did the man actually hear "the instructions"? Did the man think that the police were talking to him, after all, he was only doing the job that he was paid to do?
  4. About as long as it took to pull the trigger the first time?
 

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
1,374
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Did you know that a sentence that ends with a question mark "?" is NOT a statement?

Did you know that you cannot "prove" a question?

PS - Please excuse the typo in my list of potential answers, it should have read


  1. Because he saw a "Black with a gun"?
  2. Because the person with the gun was "Black"?
  3. Was the man given a chance to "obey the instructions"? Did the man actually hear "the instructions"? Did the man think that the police were talking to him, after all, he was only doing the job that he was paid to do?
  4. About as long as it took to pull the trigger the first time?
The way they were posed led me to believe that you were asking rhetorical questions.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
56,557
Reaction score
23,729
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do we know if this guy smoked weed 7 years ago? Does he have a criminal record the right can use? Come on people, we need to give the right something to counter this with.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ad-chicago-police-son-christmas-a8639246.html

The NRA needs to know for a fact he wasn't committing a crime before they publicly declare killing him was wrong. If he so much as used too much water and got a HOA ticket this debate cannot happen.

Come on leftists, help your right wing brothers out.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Top Bottom