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

[marke]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/24/us...ing/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1


What an absolute joke. How can anyone even question at this point why people are protesting the American police system. This is like the second incident in 10 days where the police have seen a black man and presumed guilt.

The police encountered a man with a gun acting aggressively following an altercation which sent two people to the hospital with gunshot wounds. Two stupid illogical conclusions can be drawn here: All police are racist and wicked and police officers should not draw their guns in a situation in which the gunman has not yet shot anyone in a hostile situation right in front of them.

Or better conclusions can be drawn. Police risk their lives protecting innocent people from violent thugs and no aggressive person holding a gun should show that gun in a crowd where someone has just been shot, unless he wants to risk being shot himself.

 

[Higgins86]

The police encountered a man with a gun acting aggressively following an altercation which sent two people to the hospital with gunshot wounds. Two stupid illogical conclusions can be drawn here: All police are racist and wicked and police officers should not draw their guns in a situation in which the gunman has not yet shot anyone in a hostile situation right in front of them.

Or better conclusions can be drawn. Police risk their lives protecting innocent people from violent thugs and no aggressive person holding a gun should show that gun in a crowd where someone has just been shot, unless he wants to risk being shot himself.

You realize that the Police have changed the narrative for a third time right? That he may not have brandished his weapon at all?

https://www.wcpo.com/news/national/...ve-on-why-black-man-was-shot-to-death-in-mall


Not that I didn't call this pages ago....

 

[Higgins86]

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.

Wasn't holding a gun according to the latest police narrative edit :

 

[Higgins86]

So we're all following

- He was the shooter
- Until he wasn't
- He was involved in the altercation
- But now it looks like that may also be false
- He brandished his weapon
- Now its " he had his weapon in his hand" but wasn't pointing it as previously stated.

Can't wait to see where this rabbit hole ends....:shock:

 

[pinqy]

Wasn't holding a gun according to the latest police narrative edit :

But Lursa’s comment was made thinking Bradford was, so I was addressing those circumstances.

 

[Dittohead not!]

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

When cops do it, it's called surveillance.
And you're right, this was not the time for surveillance.

 

[Lursa]

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.

I cant answer the bold but I also wrote that I'd based it on what I observed at the moment. The 'entire' picture.

In this case, it seems my 'assumption' would have been correct :doh IMO, just executing someone because 'you dont know' is wrong. It takes the totality of a situation and a cop is supposed to be trained to take that in and make good judgements. We dont have all the details here yet but either way...it seems an innocent party was killed.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Seems some people always jump to the conclusions that the police attacked wrongly. Do people really believe police arrive at work each morning saying to themselves, "boy I hope I get a chance to shoot a black person today"? That's just crazy. Tough job, dangerous job, stressful job. Cops in America and killed by gunfire about 30 times a year on average. Persons die from police gunfire between 800 to 1000 times a year on average, the majority of which are white by about 2-1. There are almost half a million violent crimes in America each year. 12,000 people are murdered each year from gunshot, 66,000 are shot and survive a violent attack. There are roughly 3X as many whites killed by blacks as blacks killed by whites. The vast majority of homicides are persons killed by members of their own race upwards of 88%. The majority of these crimes are taking place in cities and committed as street crimes and gang related. 59 % of those arrested are white, 38% are black. Homicides are 49.7% committed by blacks and 48% by whites. Most of these crimes are committed by people who know their victims.
My point in all of this is being a cop is dangerous and as violent as our country can be in some areas I'm sure police officers are very stressed. If anything what we need is more training with how to handle the job. Also when a shooting occurs we as a people need to wait on the facts and let the system work before we jump to conclusions regarding fault and whether is was a justified shooting. I am not saying do not question the police and ask for answers.

 

[Higgins86]

Seems some people always jump to the conclusions that the police attacked wrongly. Do people really believe police arrive at work each morning saying to themselves, "boy I hope I get a chance to shoot a black person today"? That's just crazy. Tough job, dangerous job, stressful job. Cops in America and killed by gunfire about 30 times a year on average. Persons die from police gunfire between 800 to 1000 times a year on average, the majority of which are white by about 2-1. There are almost half a million violent crimes in America each year. 12,000 people are murdered each year from gunshot, 66,000 are shot and survive a violent attack. There are roughly 3X as many whites killed by blacks as blacks killed by whites. The vast majority of homicides are persons killed by members of their own race upwards of 88%. The majority of these crimes are taking place in cities and committed as street crimes and gang related. 59 % of those arrested are white, 38% are black. Homicides are 49.7% committed by blacks and 48% by whites. Most of these crimes are committed by people who know their victims.
My point in all of this is being a cop is dangerous and as violent as our country can be in some areas I'm sure police officers are very stressed. If anything what we need is more training with how to handle the job. Also when a shooting occurs we as a people need to wait on the facts and let the system work before we jump to conclusions regarding fault and whether is was a justified shooting. I am not saying do not question the police and ask for answers.

The only people here who jumped to conclusions were the police lol.

 

[JoanDavis]

Also since when is being armed in America a crime?

If you are white and armed - then that is OK.

If you are black or hispanic and armed - then you have committed a crime and deserve to be shot.

If you are muslim and armed - then you are a terrorist and deserve to be shot, sent to guantanamo bay and tortured.

Simple isn't it?

 

[pinqy]

If you are white and armed - then that is OK.

If you are black or hispanic and armed - then you have committed a crime and deserve to be shot.

If you are muslim and armed - then you are a terrorist and deserve to be shot, sent to guantanamo bay and tortured.

Simple isn't it?

Hmmm are you also of the opinion that if a cop pulls over a white person it’s justified, but if a person of color gets pulled over it’s racist profiling?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The only people here who jumped to conclusions were the police lol.

When you respond to a shooting and see a man with a gun, concluding that he's the shooter seems pretty logical. How often do you ordinarily see someone with a gun in a shopping mall?

 

[SkyFox76]

When you respond to a shooting and see a man with a gun, concluding that he's the shooter seems pretty logical. How often do you ordinarily see someone with a gun in a shopping mall?

I suppose it depends where the mall is. From my reading Alabama is an open carry state, however it's also been said the mall restricted firearms. But under Alabama law ccw falls in a gray area when it comes to private businesses. Added I've seen reports that there were other people who had pulled out their weapons. Possibly video shows some of those people? If an officer runs into a situation like this and sees 4-5-6 people with weapons drawn does he shoot all of them? Will they all be aware the police have arrived so they can drop their weapons?

From my standpoint this shows the absolute risk of drawing your weapon when a shooting takes place. Nobody knows who's who. A second person shooting at the perp could be mistaken by another party (who couldn't see the perp from their angle) as the shooter or an accomplice. That second person could mistake the 3rd person as an accomplice. Being that good guy with a gun in an area like a mall or bar can earn them a toe tag pretty quick as we saw recently with the security guard.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I suppose it depends where the mall is. From my reading Alabama is an open carry state, however it's also been said the mall restricted firearms. But under Alabama law ccw falls in a gray area when it comes to private businesses. Added I've seen reports that there were other people who had pulled out their weapons. Possibly video shows some of those people? If an officer runs into a situation like this and sees 4-5-6 people with weapons drawn does he shoot all of them? Will they all be aware the police have arrived so they can drop their weapons?

From my standpoint this shows the absolute risk of drawing your weapon when a shooting takes place. Nobody knows who's who. A second person shooting at the perp could be mistaken by another party (who couldn't see the perp from their angle) as the shooter or an accomplice. That second person could mistake the 3rd person as an accomplice. Being that good guy with a gun in an area like a mall or bar can earn them a toe tag pretty quick as we saw recently with the security guard.

Absolutely! Once the shooting starts, who are the bad guys, who are the good guys? It's not like an old western movie where the bad guys wear black hats and can't hit the broadside of a barn, while the good guys wear white hats and are all dead eye dicks. Real life is quite different, and a shooting scene is likely to be chaotic.

So, yes, being a "good guy" with a gun can easily earn you a toe tag.

 

[Peter King]

You didn't read the article, did you?

The guy who was killed was involved in the shooting and was armed with a handgun in that crowded mall. I would hardly call him a good guy.

You mean he legally had his licensed gun out when people started shooting in the mall? There is no evidence he was involved in the incident that started the shooting. For all we know he fired at the real perpetrator. He was licensed to own that gun, he was allowed to carry in public in Alabama but sadly he was just a black man with a gun, shot dead without even giving him the chance to lay down the weapon.

His father, a former correctional officer battling cancer said he son had respect for the police and would have obeyed any demand by the police to lay down his gun (his legal gun with which he was committing no crime).

Also, according to local news reports several shoppers had drawn their weapons/guns when the shooting started, sadly the black young man with the gun was gunned down immediately and then the police did a victory lap for themselves saying they had killed the shooter. Which was not the case. And yes, he was involved in a shooting, in the shooting that left him dead.

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean he legally had his licensed gun out when people started shooting in the mall? There is no evidence he was involved in the incident that started the shooting. For all we know he fired at the real perpetrator. He was licensed to own that gun, he was allowed to carry in public in Alabama but sadly he was just a black man with a gun, shot dead without even giving him the chance to lay down the weapon.

His father, a former correctional officer battling cancer said he son had respect for the police and would have obeyed any demand by the police to lay down his gun (his legal gun with which he was committing no crime).

Also, according to local news reports several shoppers had drawn their weapons/guns when the shooting started, sadly the black young man with the gun was gunned down immediately and then the police did a victory lap for themselves saying they had killed the shooter. Which was not the case. And yes, he was involved in a shooting, in the shooting that left him dead.

I am predicting a 4-5 million or so dollar settlement or verdict in favor of the estate of the innocent victim

 

[Lursa]

Well here's a case where it wasnt a black guy...

These 2 cops shot this rancher 12 times...because he had his rifle out to shoot his bull hit on the highway.

https://itmattershowyoustand.com/20...xNEVnDpvX1O0XQO7etRJvytScS7XOBwi0OFZcbhp6wP6o

 

[Aberration]

The law does not support the mere presence of a firearm creating a deadly threat. Any of us who shot someone because a gun just happened to be present would be in jail on murder.

Unfortunately the courts have allowed an extra-judicial standard of reasonable person to be established for police. The standard is so low that as long as they can articulate why they pulled the trigger, that’s all that’s needed.

It has nothing to do with race, which is what BLM got so wrong. We could fix this is we recognized it’s a problem we all have to suffer.

 

[Mycroft]

You mean he legally had his licensed gun out when people started shooting in the mall? There is no evidence he was involved in the incident that started the shooting. For all we know he fired at the real perpetrator. He was licensed to own that gun, he was allowed to carry in public in Alabama but sadly he was just a black man with a gun, shot dead without even giving him the chance to lay down the weapon.

His father, a former correctional officer battling cancer said he son had respect for the police and would have obeyed any demand by the police to lay down his gun (his legal gun with which he was committing no crime).

Also, according to local news reports several shoppers had drawn their weapons/guns when the shooting started, sadly the black young man with the gun was gunned down immediately and then the police did a victory lap for themselves saying they had killed the shooter. Which was not the case. And yes, he was involved in a shooting, in the shooting that left him dead.

Perhaps you have some knowledge that I haven't seen? I've seen no indication that he was shot "without even giving him a chance to lay down the weapon".

Actually, there is evidence, as shown by the police statements, that he WAS involved in some way with the incident.

I can only go by what has been presented here. What has been presented does not make me think he's a "good guy with a gun".

 

[Aberration]

Perhaps you have some knowledge that I haven't seen? I've seen no indication that he was shot "without even giving him a chance to lay down the weapon".

Actually, there is evidence, as shown by the police statements, that he WAS involved in some way with the incident.

I can only go by what has been presented here. What has been presented does not make me think he's a "good guy with a gun".

Your comment confuses me. How is evidence that he may possibly somehow in some as yet defined way be involved in the incident, evidence of the police giving him an opportunity to lay his arm down?

What has been presented here doesn’t make me think he presented a deadly threat.

 

[Mycroft]

Your comment confuses me. How is evidence that he may possibly somehow in some as yet defined way be involved in the incident, evidence of the police giving him an opportunity to lay his arm down?

Not my problem if you are confused. My comment didn't make any such connection.

What has been presented here doesn’t make me think he presented a deadly threat.

What has been presented doesn't give any indication that he did not present a deadly threat.

 

[justabubba]

Perhaps you have some knowledge that I haven't seen? I've seen no indication that he was shot "without even giving him a chance to lay down the weapon".

Actually, there is evidence, as shown by the police statements, that he WAS involved in some way with the incident.

I can only go by what has been presented here. What has been presented does not make me think he's a "good guy with a gun".

to the portion of your post i emphasized, the fellow was involved as the victim of the police shooting

in contrast, the cops cannot shoot straight when it comes to explaining what happened

 

[SkyFox76]

Perhaps you have some knowledge that I haven't seen? I've seen no indication that he was shot "without even giving him a chance to lay down the weapon".

Actually, there is evidence, as shown by the police statements, that he WAS involved in some way with the incident.

I can only go by what has been presented here. What has been presented does not make me think he's a "good guy with a gun".

What about witnesses that say the officer made no commands before he opened fire?

 

[Mycroft]

What about witnesses that say the officer made no commands before he opened fire?

Let's have an investigation, okay?

I remember a case once where a witness said a guy had his hands up and that he said "Don't shoot!". The subsequent investigation determined that the witness lied. That the guy, in fact, charged at and attacked the police officer who killed him.

 

[SkyFox76]

Let's have an investigation, okay?

I remember a case once where a witness said a guy had his hands up and that he said "Don't shoot!". The subsequent investigation determined that the witness lied. That the guy, in fact, charged at and attacked the police officer who killed him.

Of course we need an investigation. Although you seem to have already deemed Bradford in negative context without know what his involvement was.