• 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!

Good guys with guns kill good guy, gunmen still at large.

Lursa said:
Yup...and see what ya got?

Wrong guy dead...and you still keep saying they did the right thing :roll:
Click to expand...

And if cops had ESP they'd be making a lot more money. If Bradford wasn't running around brandishing a gun, odds are pretty good he wouldn't have been shot and the original shooter might not have been able to escape in the confusion.

It's a tragic situation that was made worse by an armed bystander, pure and simple.
 
Cordelier said:
And if cops had ESP they'd be making a lot more money. If Bradford wasn't running around brandishing a gun, odds are pretty good he wouldn't have been shot and the original shooter might not have been able to escape in the confusion.

It's a tragic situation that was made worse by an armed bystander, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

If the original shooter hadnt shot anyone....yeah, that's about how lame your posts have gotten.

You keep minimizing the right of a citizen to use their firearm legitimately and our right to believe we wont be executed *simply for that.* (the bold)

Your nose is so far up LE's butts it's sad.
 
Lursa said:
If the original shooter hadnt shot anyone....yeah, that's about how lame your posts have gotten.

You keep minimizing the right of a citizen to use their firearm legitimately and our right to believe we wont be executed *simply for that.* (the bold)

Your nose is so far up LE's butts it's sad.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to break this to you, Lursa, but running around brandishing a gun in the aftermath of a shooting isn't a legitimate use of a firearm.

Who the hell is LE?
 
Cordelier said:
I don't know how to break this to you, Lursa, but running around brandishing a gun in the aftermath of a shooting isn't a legitimate use of a firearm.

Who the hell is LE?
Click to expand...

Law enforcement.
 
We still don't know that Bradford was really a "good guy." We know he was a guy with a gun, in a crowded mall, and when there had been a shooting.

He should have dropped the gun when the cops showed up. He didn't. He's dead. Lesson learned, just a bit too late.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't know how to break this to you, Lursa, but running around brandishing a gun in the aftermath of a shooting isn't a legitimate use of a firearm.

Who the hell is LE?
Click to expand...

LE-law enforcement

And you continue to make assumptions about the actions of the dead guy.
 
Lursa said:
Yup...and see what ya got?

Wrong guy dead...and you still keep saying they did the right thing :roll:
Click to expand...

Let’s analyze this. First we have to know The exact kayout of where they were, relative positions, how many civilians and where.
Then, given those exact circumstances, we need to know what the officer’s decision process was.

Then we would know enough to accurately evaluate his actions.

Anything else is just Monday morning quarterbacking.

Note, though that since the officer could not have known who the shooter was, then the fact that Bradford was not the shooter is irrelevant as it is not a factor that could have been used in the decision to fire.
 
Cordelier said:
He was brandishing a gun, Lursa... the only assumption anyone can make from that was that he intended to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

I see you assume...again.

We already discussed this and are not in agreement. And since he was innocent...you are proven wrong.
 
Lursa said:
I see you assume...again.

We already discussed this and are not in agreement. And since he was innocent...you are proven wrong.
Click to expand...

seems to be a valid assumption
gun exposed immediately after a public shooting amidst the chaos
what would a better assumption have been
 
justabubba said:
seems to be a valid assumption
gun exposed immediately after a public shooting amidst the chaos
what would a better assumption have been
Click to expand...

Follow him. Address him, etc etc.

Cops are supposed to be trained to work in chaos...I know...when I was a NYC Park Ranger, NYPD trained us in mediation and conflict resolution and tested us under all sorts of distractions and simulations.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Follow him. Address him, etc etc.

Cops are supposed to be trained to work in chaos...I know...when I was a NYC Park Ranger, NYPD trained us in mediation and conflict resolution and tested us under all sorts of distractions and simulations.
Click to expand...

that was a tactic rather than an assumption. i 'assume' your assumption was to give him the benefit of the doubt that despite the drawn handgun immediately after the public shooting he was one of the good guys
 
justabubba said:
that was a tactic rather than an assumption. i 'assume' your assumption was to give him the benefit of the doubt that despite the drawn handgun immediately after the public shooting he was one of the good guys
Click to expand...

I'd assume from observation that there was no immediate danger to others and act accordingly...by not shooting him.

If that observation changed, so would my assumption.
 
Is anyone still taking any of this seriously, considering the suggestion of the OP is that cops cant be trusted to stop mass shootings?
 
Dittohead not! said:
We still don't know that Bradford was really a "good guy." We know he was a guy with a gun, in a crowded mall, and when there had been a shooting.

He should have dropped the gun when the cops showed up. He didn't. He's dead. Lesson learned, just a bit too late.
Click to expand...

You're another one assuming that the instant police show up everybody in the area is completely aware. It's not like they come in with a flashing red strobe on their heads. People are running all over, panicked, probably a lot of screaming. Also, from what I've read, witnesses who did see the cop, say he fired within seconds with no warning. If that's true then the lesson learned should be don't draw your weapon at all, unless you want to risk your own life. Good guy or not.
 
Cordelier said:
He was brandishing a gun, Lursa... the only assumption anyone can make from that was that he intended to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

The police came back to clarify that the "brandishing" comment was because the dead man had a gun in his hand. But there are also claims his gun was in his waistband. There have also been some reports that other people had weapons drawn.

So going out on a limb that since the police keep shifting the story, haven't released the name of the officer or any video, this isn't looking good on their part. And I say that because they've viewed the video and turned it over. But again that's according to them. If it showed a good shoot? They'd have at least made attempts to show it to the family to calm their doubts. IMO anyways.
 
SkyFox76 said:
You're another one assuming that the instant police show up everybody in the area is completely aware. It's not like they come in with a flashing red strobe on their heads. People are running all over, panicked, probably a lot of screaming. Also, from what I've read, witnesses who did see the cop, say he fired within seconds with no warning. If that's true then the lesson learned should be don't draw your weapon at all, unless you want to risk your own life. Good guy or not.
Click to expand...



and that's a very good lesson indeed.
 
SkyFox76 said:
The police came back to clarify that the "brandishing" comment was because the dead man had a gun in his hand. But there are also claims his gun was in his waistband. There have also been some reports that other people had weapons drawn.

So going out on a limb that since the police keep shifting the story, haven't released the name of the officer or any video, this isn't looking good on their part. And I say that because they've viewed the video and turned it over. But again that's according to them. If it showed a good shoot? They'd have at least made attempts to show it to the family to calm their doubts. IMO anyways.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's video that will clarify what happened somewhere there - either mall security cameras or someone with a phone. I'm not liking the way the story keeps changing, though... I'm starting to think maybe Calamity had a valid point after all.
 
Lursa said:
I'd assume from observation that there was no immediate danger to others and act accordingly...by not shooting him.

If that observation changed, so would my assumption.
Click to expand...

then it would seem your expectation of the shooting officer was to have instead stalked the man bearing the handgun to determine his subsequent actions to evaluate whether he was a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun
that seems like an unreasonable behavior expectation of someone in the midst of the chaos of an immediate public shooting incident
and one that could be costly to other innocents if the bearer of the handgun was one of the bad guys still positioned to shoot at will
 
justabubba said:
then it would seem your expectation of the shooting officer was to have instead stalked the man bearing the handgun to determine his subsequent actions to evaluate whether he was a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun
that seems like an unreasonable behavior expectation of someone in the midst of the chaos of an immediate public shooting incident
and one that could be costly to other innocents if the bearer of the handgun was one of the bad guys still positioned to shoot at will
Click to expand...

Is that what it's called when cops follow and try to apprehend a suspect? Or see where they are going? Stalking?

Huh

Unreasonable?

Huh
 
Lursa said:
Is that what it's called when cops follow and try to apprehend a suspect? Or see where they are going? Stalking?

Huh

Unreasonable?

Huh
Click to expand...

use any word you prefer, that is the action YOU suggested should have been adopted by the officer

and under the chaotic circumstances of a public shooting i do believe such expectation was unreasonable
 
justabubba said:
use any word you prefer, that is the action YOU suggested should have been adopted by the officer

and under the chaotic circumstances of a public shooting i do believe such expectation was unreasonable
Click to expand...

WIthout seeing the actual event...yup.

And good for you.
 
"They (put) us in supply closets and locked the doors. And then we sat there for five to 10 minutes, all freaking out," Lexie Joyner told CNN affiliate WBRC. "And then they opened the escape-route doors, and we escaped."
Click to expand...

LOL. Anyone that tries to confine me during an active shooter situation is getting ****ed up. What sheep people have become.
 
Anarchon said:
LOL. Anyone that tries to confine me during an active shooter situation is getting ****ed up. What sheep people have become.
Click to expand...

i'd gladly unlock the door long enough for you to leave that secure environment to face the unknown environment
would probably be smiling as i locked it back
 
Lursa said:
I'd assume from observation that there was no immediate danger to others and act accordingly...by not shooting him.

If that observation changed, so would my assumption.
Click to expand...
Wait...a man holding a gun running from a shooting, and your assumption would be that he’s not a danger? Oh, i’m sorry, not an “immediate danger.” Shots had just been fired but you’d assume the only person with a gun you see didn’t do it and was no threat.

Tell me how many law enforcement officers or military or even mall cops would agree that’s a good assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom