Good guy with a gun...

[GMDino]

Sad story.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-security-guard-detained-gunman-170407573.html

Quote:A black security guard was shot dead by a police officer as he held down a suspect in a shooting at the bar where he worked.


Jemel Roberson, 26, was working early Sunday at Manny’s Blue Room ― a bar in the predominantly black Chicago suburb of Robbins, Illinois ― when a patron who was part of a drunken group that had been kicked out returned with a gun at 4 a.m. and opened fire, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Several people were shot.

Roberson, who was armed at the time, grabbed one of the men, held him down and waited for police, according to witnesses.

“He had somebody on the ground with his knee in back, with his gun in his back like, ‘Don’t move,’” Adam Harris told WGN-TV.

But witnesses said Roberson became the victim as soon as police arrived. A responding officer with the Midlothian Police Department immediately shot
Roberson, who later died at a hospital.
View photos

Harris said the officer shot an innocent man and that people on the scene tried to warn police that Roberson was a security guard.
“Everybody was screaming out, ‘Security!’ He was a security guard ... and they still did their job, and saw a black man with a gun, and basically killed him,” Harris said.

Midlothian Police Chief Dan Delaney confirmed the shooting, telling reporters, “A Midlothian officer encountered a subject with a gun and was involved in an officer-involved shooting.” The department said the Illinois State Police Public Integrity Task Force would investigate the shooting in order to “ensure transparency and maintain public trust.”

Roberson was known as a musician at local churches who had dreams of becoming a police officer, people who knew him told ABC-7 and WGN-TV.

“How in the world does the security guard get shot by police?” asked Walter Turner, the pastor at New Spiritual Light Baptist Church, where Roberson played the organ. “A young man that was literally doing his job and now he’s gone.”

Calls to the Illinois State Police and Midlothian Police Department weren’t immediately returned. The Cook County Sheriff’s office is reportedly investigating the initial shooting.

From August 2016 to May of this year, at least 378 black Americans had been killed by police, and more than 3,357 people have been fatally shot by officers since 2015, HuffPost reported in May.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Yep sucks.
Young man wanted to be a PO. Lost him before he had a chance.

No one is perfect, always remember to put yourselves in the shoes of the officer. He has seconds to digest info and decide his course of action. This one just turned out to be the wrong decision.

Two things that are sticking out boldly to me. Where's the Officers name and what color is he?

I've looked at 7 different articles on this and none mention either, i'm just curious cause it sounds like they are playing the race card.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Somehow, just somehow, I think there's more to this story than what was reported in OP. Remember though, OP doesn't hate LEO's he just reports every article he sees in which he thinks they did something wrong. But he doesn't hate LEO's, please keep that in mind.

[fredtoast]

The problem is still not enough guns. the sight of a citizen carrying a gun is still so shocking to police that they respond with deadly force. However if every single person in public was forced to carry a gun police would not be as suspicious and would not shoot as quickly when they see an armed citizen.

When need to remove the choice from the 2nd Amendment. We need to add some teeth to it and require every person to go openly armed whenever they are out in public. Then there will be no shootings at all. Just like in the territory west of the Mississippi before it was divided up into States. Everyone carried a gun and there was zero gun violence.

[Benton]

(11-12-2018, 07:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is still not enough guns.  the sight of a citizen carrying a gun is still so shocking to police that they respond with deadly force.  However if every single person in public was forced to carry a gun police would not be as suspicious and would not shoot as quickly when they see an armed citizen.

When need to remove the choice from the 2nd Amendment.  We need to add some teeth to it and require every person to go openly armed whenever they are out in public.  Then there will be no shootings at all.  Just like in the territory west of the Mississippi before it was divided up into States.  Everyone carried a gun and there was zero gun violence.

I get the sarcasm, but it goes back to training and the line of thinking that 'everyone is armed, get control first and worry about what's actually going on later.' Many officers already have the mindset that everyone is armed and intent on doing them harm.

The problem with gun violence here is multi-faceted. But in regard to officer involved shootings, I think a good deal of it goes back to this mindset.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2018, 08:05 PM)Benton Wrote: I get the sarcasm, but it goes back to training and the line of thinking that 'everyone is armed, get control first and worry about what's actually going on later.' Many officers already have the mindset that everyone is armed and intent on doing them harm.

The problem with gun violence here is multi-faceted. But in regard to officer involved shootings, I think a good deal of it goes back to this mindset.

No, no, no.  As any good lawyer should, Fred has come to a conclusion based on limited evidence.  There is zero chance that there is more to what happened than is what reported in the original article.  There can be no other possibilities, therefore we can draw definitive conclusions immediately.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2018, 08:05 PM)Benton Wrote: I get the sarcasm, but it goes back to training and the line of thinking that 'everyone is armed, get control first and worry about what's actually going on later.' Many officers already have the mindset that everyone is armed and intent on doing them harm.

The problem with gun violence here is multi-faceted. But in regard to officer involved shootings, I think a good deal of it goes back to this mindset.

It's also why the narrative of a "good guy with a gun" is so wrong.  The police do not know who the bad guy is when they get there.  Why they chose to shoot this guy is unknown right now...but it just goes to show how more guns didn't save this guy who did everything right.

Although I'm pretty sure it will be that he didn't follow the officers commands quickly enough or something.

[Benton]

(11-13-2018, 12:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's also why the narrative of a "good guy with a gun" is so wrong.  The police do not know who the bad guy is when they get there.  Why they chose to shoot this guy is unknown right now...but it just goes to show how more guns didn't save this guy who did everything right.

Although I'm pretty sure it will be that he didn't follow the officers commands quickly enough or something.

That's not an uncommon problem... and I'll say it goes back to training.

Departments like bringing in guys out of the military. They've already got a lot o training, they know how to follow orders, etc. Unfortunately, that 'every situation is a war zone' mentality may not be the best approach when you're trying to get some drunk and disorderlies under control or responding to a domestic dispute or similar situations. And a once-every-six months inservice on deescalation tactics probably isn't going to do a great deal for guys who, for the most part, are trained to control first and deescalate second.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2018, 11:32 AM)Benton Wrote: That's not an uncommon problem... and I'll say it goes back to training.

Departments like bringing in guys out of the military. They've already got a lot o training, they know how to follow orders, etc. Unfortunately, that 'every situation is a war zone' mentality may not be the best approach when you're trying to get some drunk and disorderlies under control or responding to a domestic dispute or similar situations. And a once-every-six months inservice on deescalation tactics probably isn't going to do a great deal for guys who, for the most part, are trained to control first and deescalate second.

If you're off duty or plain clothes the first thing you do when uniformed officers arrive on scene is place your gun on the ground (in a safe place) and step away from it.  Then place your hands up with badge in hand.  

I have several questions about the incident in OP.  Was the guard in uniform?  Why was the guard pointing a gun at a subdued suspect he had physical control over?  Did the guard respond to police commands when they arrived on scene?  

How are people drawing definitive conclusions from the limited amount of evidence we have on hand? 

[GMDino]

(11-13-2018, 11:32 AM)Benton Wrote: That's not an uncommon problem... and I'll say it goes back to training.

Departments like bringing in guys out of the military. They've already got a lot o training, they know how to follow orders, etc. Unfortunately, that 'every situation is a war zone' mentality may not be the best approach when you're trying to get some drunk and disorderlies under control or responding to a domestic dispute or similar situations. And a once-every-six months inservice on deescalation tactics probably isn't going to do a great deal for guys who, for the most part, are trained to control first and deescalate second.

I posted a story a while back (maybe old version of the board) about how other countries train their police more about de-escalation and how to handle people versus how america trains.  Including more time for training.

Of course that involves time and money.  And if there is one thing the powers that be insist on it is NOT spending more money.  Especially for something as silly as training like that.

[GMDino]

(11-13-2018, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're off duty or plain clothes the first thing you do when uniformed officers arrive on scene is place your gun on the ground (in a safe place) and step away from it.  Then place your hands up with badge in hand.  

I have several questions about the incident in OP.  Was the guard in uniform?  Why was the guard pointing a gun at a subdued suspect he had physical control over?  Did the guard respond to police commands when they arrived on scene?  

How are people drawing definitive conclusions from the limited amount of evidence we have on hand? 

I don't think anyone has drawn a "definitive conclusion" but rather are putting forth possible scenarios...as you yourself did above.

What we do know is that the good guy got the bad the bad guy and then got shot by the police.  The why will come, but it still speaks to the argument that more people with guns at a scene doesn't necessarily make it safer.

[Benton]

(11-13-2018, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're off duty or plain clothes the first thing you do when uniformed officers arrive on scene is place your gun on the ground (in a safe place) and step away from it.  Then place your hands up with badge in hand.  

I have several questions about the incident in OP.  Was the guard in uniform?  Why was the guard pointing a gun at a subdued suspect he had physical control over?  Did the guard respond to police commands when they arrived on scene?  

How are people drawing definitive conclusions from the limited amount of evidence we have on hand? 

My comments are more general than in regard to this instance. As you've said, I don't think it's fair to draw many conclusions based off a handful of stories that are all citing the same press release. We likely won't know more until after an investigation.

But, my assumption is that the guard wasn't acting/responding like an officer because he's a security guard and not an officer. But that's just a guess. I don't think many people in the general public would follow the same actions an officer would if they were trying to restrain a drunk with a weapon.

[Benton]

(11-13-2018, 11:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: I posted a story a while back (maybe old version of the board) about how other countries train their police more about de-escalation and how to handle people versus how america trains.  Including more time for training.

Of course that involves time and money.  And if there is one thing the powers that be insist on it is NOT spending more money.  Especially for something as silly as training like that.

Part of that goes back to the lack of federal/state support. People generally don't realize how much money used to come back to the community in a variety of forms (LEO training grants, CDBGs, road construction, etc). Now, those dollars are largely gone outside of the Dept. of Ag. as we pump more and more money into overseas fighting and offsetting top earner tax cuts. Even when there are grants available, sometimes they aren't for things that really make sense. Like one of the local PDs recently cleaned out the closet. Part of the surplus was four gas masks sent by the feds after 9-11. The Chief couldn't remember the exact cost, but each one was around a couple hundred dollars. Hindsight is 20/20, but that's money that could have gone to things that were likely needed. It's doubtful there was going to be a gas attack on a town of 800.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2018, 11:48 AM)Benton Wrote: My comments are more general than in regard to this instance. As you've said, I don't think it's fair to draw many conclusions based off a handful of stories that are all citing the same press release. We likely won't know more until after an investigation.

But, my assumption is that the guard wasn't acting/responding like an officer because he's a security guard and not an officer. But that's just a guess. I don't think many people in the general public would follow the same actions an officer would if they were trying to restrain a drunk with a weapon.

True, he won't have the same training as an LEO, but he has his armed card, which means he's had firearms training.  Even so, is it not common sense to think that the uniformed officers arriving on scene have no idea who is who, especially if the guard is not in a uniform, and will thus treat anyone armed as potentially dangerous?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2018, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think anyone has drawn a "definitive conclusion" but rather are putting forth possible scenarios...as you yourself did above.

I haven't put forth any speculation about what happened, I've asked questions and pointed out the extremely limited information we have available.

Quote:What we do know is that the good guy got the bad the bad guy and then got shot by the police.  The why will come, but it still speaks to the argument that more people with guns at a scene doesn't necessarily make it safer.

Except the why can be rather important in either bolstering your argument or making it an irrelevancy.

[GMDino]

(11-13-2018, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I haven't put forth any speculation about what happened, I've asked questions and pointed out the extremely limited information we have available.]

(11-13-2018, 12:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's also why the narrative of a "good guy with a gun" is so wrong.  The police do not know who the bad guy is when they get there.  Why they chose to shoot this guy is unknown right now...but it just goes to show how more guns didn't save this guy who did everything right.

Although I'm pretty sure it will be that he didn't follow the officers commands quickly enough or something.

(11-13-2018, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're off duty or plain clothes the first thing you do when uniformed officers arrive on scene is place your gun on the ground (in a safe place) and step away from it.  Then place your hands up with badge in hand.  

I have several questions about the incident in OP.  Was the guard in uniform?  Why was the guard pointing a gun at a subdued suspect he had physical control over?  Did the guard respond to police commands when they arrived on scene?  

How are people drawing definitive conclusions from the limited amount of evidence we have on hand? 

We said the same thing. I started with "pretty sure" (not definitive) and ended with "or something" (not definitive). You asked if the same thing I said could have happened. Just because you framed it was a question and I framed as a possibility doesn't make any difference.

(11-13-2018, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except the why can be rather important in either bolstering your argument or making it an irrelevancy.

I suppose if he did something "wrong" to get himself shot it will come out. But he still did what we want a good guy to do and got shot by the police. Somehow that doesn't jive with the narrative the NRA wants out there. Have they spoken out in his defense yet?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2018, 12:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: We said the same thing.  I started with "pretty sure" (not definitive) and ended with "or something" (not definitive).  You asked if the same thing I said could have happened.  Just because you framed it was a question and I framed as a possibility doesn't make any difference.

Except you did it with a huge dollop of sarcasm.

Quote:I suppose if he did something "wrong" to get himself shot it will come out.  But he still did what we want a good guy to do and got shot by the police.  Somehow that doesn't jive with the narrative the NRA wants out there.  Have they spoken out in his defense yet?

Why would the NRA comment on an incident for which all the facts are not known?  Again, you don't know what "jives" or does not as you don't know the details of the incident.  Again, you draw conclusions based on limited evidence, I call it out.  

[GMDino]

(11-13-2018, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except you did it with a huge dollop of sarcasm.

That's your opinion. Probably (not definitive) based a biased opinion of the poster. Not a good way to conduct an investigation, IMHO.

(11-13-2018, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would the NRA comment on an incident for which all the facts are not known?  Again, you don't know what "jives" or does not as you don't know the details of the incident.  Again, you draw conclusions based on limited evidence, I call it out.  

They seem to have no problem commenting on other shooting events before the investigation is completed. Usually they stand up for good guys with guns. That's all.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2018, 12:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's your opinion.  Probably (not definitive) based a biased opinion of the poster.  Not a good way to conduct an investigation, IMHO.

Good thing that's not what's happening then.  In any event your history doesn't lend itself well to other conclusion.

Quote:They seem to have no problem commenting on other shooting events before the investigation is completed.  Usually they stand up for good guys with guns.  That's all.

Indeed?  I'm sure it's happened in the past, yet I don't seem to recall this being the kind of frequent occurrence you seem to be intimating.  Of course, it's not like you have an agenda you're trying to push with this thread that you feel a need to defend or anything.

[GMDino]

(11-13-2018, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good thing that's not what's happening then.  In any event your history doesn't lend itself well to other conclusion.



Indeed?  I'm sure it's happened in the past, yet I don't seem to recall this being the kind of frequent occurrence you seem to be intimating.  Of course, it's not like you have an agenda you're trying to push with this thread that you feel a need to defend or anything.

(11-13-2018, 12:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's your opinion.  Probably (not definitive) based a biased opinion of the poster.  

As an side and to end this bit of the discussion...when I want to be sarcastic I will (generally) post the     or  (more often)   to make it clear to the reader, as tone and inflection is lost in the written word.  Hope that helps.