A Black Security Guard Was Killed By Police As He Tried To Stop A Shooting

  
Via:  cjfrommn  •  2 years ago  •  79 comments

A Black Security Guard Was Killed By Police As He Tried To Stop A Shooting
Witnesses say Roberson was wearing his uniform, including a hat emblazoned with the word "security," and was holding a firearm he was licensed to carry.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


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.

H arris 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 .


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
cjfrommn
1  seeder  cjfrommn    2 years ago

Sad to say it but some people are not supposed to be officers. I post this type of stuff because there are people that comment as if this stuff doesnt happen to black people. 

I cant remember the last time a national story of a white security officer killed by police came across my news feed. And there will be the run and jump on this thread to post the black and black crime stuff, sadly it is true but this is a different beast. this goes back to the shared commonality of a few white officers having less impulse control when it appears a black man is involved. 

What this also does is strain and stress the positive relations that good white officers have in the community. Those good honest decent fair and patient white officers now have to rebuild the trust they have built up over a UNNECESSARY shooting like this. 

As i have said before there are some who dont have to get it because they dont have to worry about it.

But i have to say i appreciate those who dont have to worry about it that can acknowledge it would be pretty shitty to know you can die at the hand of police officer while just doing you job. 

hopefully a big hit lawsuit will result in better training and also allow good officers to push out racist acting / bad cops over this incident. in the end it is a sad day for all involved.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  cjfrommn @1    2 years ago

Since we don't have all the facts, it's pointless to cast it as racism. White cops get shot and killed and no one seems to care.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
1.1.1  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  WallyW @1.1    2 years ago

nice try wally- we do have all the facts-- 

the facts that common sense was not used. the fact that displaying a gun in public is not illegal if you are licensed to carry because the right to defend yourself does exist. And much less he had a security shirt plus WITNESSES that yelled to the cop who he was.

i knew your type would show up -- its so funny to me-- when your type show up.  by the way i didnt say this specific case was based on a racist cop-- i pointed out that this case DOESN'T HELP PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IT WAS. 

and since you want to talk about facts-- feel free to post a link to a white security guard shoot by police that can prove this does occur. 

i noticed your sentence about the "white cops get shot" and for shits sake man, we just had one white cop die at the hands of that killer at the bar last week. Your need to try to spin and switch doesnt work today! But i am glad you have shown up to expose to others members how willing you are to putting your self in "that box " over there!

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.2  WallyW  replied to  cjfrommn @1.1.1    2 years ago

If you weren't there yourself as an eyewitness, then you have no idea as to what actually transpired. I believe little of what I read, unless it's confirmed by other sources. I will always give police the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence, until all the evidence and testimony is in. It's obvious you have some kind of anti-white cop axe to grind.

 
 
 
Willjay9
1.1.3  Willjay9  replied to  WallyW @1.1.2    2 years ago

Dude stop! We do have facts! Eyewitnesses have stated that he was no threat to the officers, they stated that they constantly yelled at the cops that he was security, not to mention HE'S IN UNIFORM CLEARLY SHOWING HES SECURITY! This was no accident! The officer is clearly at fault....what more "facts" do you need?!

 
 
 
Willjay9
1.1.4  Willjay9  replied to  WallyW @1.1.2    2 years ago

"I will always give police the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence"

Too bad this cop didnt think that otherwise Jemel would still be alive....smdh

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.5  epistte  replied to  Willjay9 @1.1.3    2 years ago
Dude stop! We do have facts! Eyewitnesses have stated that he was no threat to the officers, they stated that they constantly yelled at the cops that he was security, not to mention HE'S IN UNIFORM CLEARLY SHOWING HES SECURITY! This was no accident! The officer is clearly at fault....what more "facts" do you need?!

Anything to negate the cop's negligence for killing an innocent person.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.2  zuksam  replied to  cjfrommn @1    2 years ago

Mistakes happen but killing a Uniformed Security Guard is a big One. I just hope he loses his job, any Cop who mistakenly kills an innocent person should automatically lose their job. It's not the kind of mistake that's forgivable, it really is a one strike and you're out kind of mistake.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.1  epistte  replied to  zuksam @1.2    2 years ago
Mistakes happen but killing a Uniformed Security Guard is a big One. I just hope he loses his job, any Cop who mistakenly kills an innocent person should automatically lose their job. It's not the kind of mistake that's forgivable, it really is a one strike and you're out kind of mistake.

The cop who shot him needs to be charged with a minimum of negligent manslaughter.  This is not just an oops mistake.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.2.2  zuksam  replied to  epistte @1.2.1    2 years ago

If it can be proven that it was more than a horrible mistake then he should be charged with whatever charge fits the crime. I'd just like to see all cops who shoot an innocent person automatically lose their job. Whether it was a mistake or a crime is something to be determined by an investigation and if it's a crime they should be charged but they should have lost their job as soon as it was clear the Victim was innocent of any wrongdoing.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
1.2.3  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  zuksam @1.2    2 years ago

i agree, whats worse is that many people dont know the true ins and out of the protections set in place to bog down a conclusion that is clear and present. 

in many cases something that should be a no brainer for a chief and a simple administrative process is diluted in rules , law and policy which takes the effective sting and shock off this incident over the course of time. 

And as you noticed from a few members they are already good at doing that type of deflecting. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.4  epistte  replied to  zuksam @1.2.2    2 years ago
If it can be proven that it was more than a horrible mistake then he should be charged with whatever charge fits the crime. I'd just like to see all cops who shoot an innocent person automatically lose their job. Whether it was a mistake or a crime is something to be determined by an investigation and if it's a crime they should be charged but they should have lost their job as soon as it was clear the Victim was innocent of any wrongdoing.

If it was a deadly mistake then the charge is involuntary manslaughter, the same as a drunk driver killing someone. If he has a past of racist beliefs then the charge could go as high as 2nd-degree murder.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.2.5  zuksam  replied to  epistte @1.2.4    2 years ago
If it was a deadly mistake then the charge is involuntary manslaughter

What you're talking about is the Law and Criminal penalties, what I'm talking about is Rule of Employment. We shouldn't have to Criminally Charge and Convict a Cop in order to Fire him. Everyone else in America works under the rule that if they make a big enough mistake at work they can and will be terminated so why the hell wouldn't a Cop have to face the same consequences. Killing an innocent person is not the type of mistake you want to see repeated so whether it's a crime or not shouldn't matter when deciding to fire the cop.   Innocent person killed by cop = cop's employment terminated, PERIOD    You're so concerned with getting vengeance you're failing to see that the biggest hurdle to getting rid of Bad Cops is the Idea that they must be  Proven Guilty of a Crime to get fired and that means they must be Convicted first, this is not a good employment policy.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
2  The People's Fish    2 years ago

If i shot someone breaking in to my house I'd certainly not have the gun in my hand when the police showed up. Bad Idea! They just don't think before they shoot.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
2.1  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  The People's Fish @2    2 years ago

nice try bad fish- the shirt he had on said security. 

and because you are at home, the police dont have a right to be there so THERE interest regardless of the gun,  should be of locating you. 

and if you are trying to suggest that you had a burglar at gun point and then put the gun down because the police showed up and would try to convince me that the burglar wouldn't run-- then you are commenting as a fool. 

you have the right to have a gun on your property. and they are bound by policy and procedure to secure a deadly use of force incident a certain way-- one way would be to clarify if you are the home owner and second would be to verify the information YOU GAVE THE DISPATCH. 

on the flip side you kinda RE-ENFORCE this idea that citizens are scared of the police --hummm i think you actually made a case for this validity of this incident--thanks?

 
 
 
The People's Fish
2.1.1  The People's Fish  replied to  cjfrommn @2.1    2 years ago

I just don't trust the cops, i wouldn't be anywhere near a cop with a gun in my hand. Just not a good idea.

 
 
 
zuksam
2.1.2  zuksam  replied to  The People's Fish @2.1.1    2 years ago
Just not a good idea

I agree. We here about these types of deaths all the time so it's not a matter of right or wrong, it happens. The common sense thing to do is as soon as the Cops show up put the gun down and put your hands up just as a precaution. You can do the smart thing and live or you can say to yourself "this isn't right" as the bullets rip through your chest. People really need to stop underestimating the stupidity of the Police.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  zuksam @2.1.2    2 years ago
. The common sense thing to do is as soon as the Cops show up put the gun down and put your hands

Yup, It seems like that should have been common custom

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The People's Fish @2.1.1    2 years ago
I just don't trust the cops, i wouldn't be anywhere near a cop with a gun in my hand

As shown recently in Texas, you can be sitting in your own living room with no gun in your hand and still be gunned down by police.

What I believe needs to be changed is the seemingly secretive "brotherhood of blue" who seem to put more energy into protecting bad apples than ridding themselves of them. I think we should celebrate the heroes on the force with more fanfare while also exposing the bad apples and doing their own regular house cleaning cracking down on those who would abuse their power or seem overly excited at the prospect of firing on a suspect who's not obeying their verbal commands. If we were more diligent in weeding out those with a propensity to overstep their authority and use deadly force even when their own life isn't in any jeopardy, we'd have far fewer dead civilians.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.5  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 years ago
Yup, It seems like that should have been common custom

The security guard was on duty and he was restraining the suspect. 

 
 
 
cjfrommn
2.1.6  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  The People's Fish @2.1.1    2 years ago
I just don't trust the cops, i wouldn't be anywhere near a cop with a gun in my hand. Just not a good idea.

well then make sure you let the burgler go. sheesh 

 
 
 
epistte
2.2  epistte  replied to  The People's Fish @2    2 years ago
f i shot someone breaking in to my house I'd certainly not have the gun in my hand when the police showed up. Bad Idea! They just don't think before they shoot.

It's is getting to be the case where the cops themselves are as much of a problem as the criminals. I wish I could say that the good cops would stop the bad ones but that doesn't seem to be true. When the bad cops make a mistake it seems to be much more common for the good cops to deploy the thin blue line and protect their fellow rogue officers.  They may see that their support of their fellow cops is a good act but it does not engender positive feelings among those that they are sworn to protect and serve.

 
 
 
MUVA
3  MUVA    2 years ago

Maybe there should be a investigation first then people can judge all the facts.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3    2 years ago
Maybe there should be a investigation first then people can judge all the facts.

So they can find a reason to defend the shooting of a uniformed security guard? Maybe they can find evidence that he smoked weed 3 years ago and he was late paying his car insurance.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.1  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.1    2 years ago

No so we can see all the facts then make a informed judgement maybe there is a body cam.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
3.1.2  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  MUVA @3.1.1    2 years ago
No so we can see all the facts then make a informed judgement maybe there is a body cam.

a body cam doesn't change what witness saw and the action take place. there is nothing that will allow for this dead man to come back to work. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  cjfrommn @3.1.2    2 years ago

No, but a body cam can help sort out the facts. The latest news has the police stating he was all in black and they screamed several times for him to drop his gun and get on the ground. There was a report of a baseball type cap with the word "Security" on it.  And other witnesses have stated he was wearing a vest with "Security" on it.

I can feel for the police, from the reporting they knew they were rolling up on an active shooter situation with multiple victims. I'm concerned that we will never learn the truth here and all we are left with is an innocent man is dead.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
3.1.4  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.3    2 years ago
No, but a body cam can help sort out the facts. The latest news has the police stating he was all in black and they screamed several times for him to drop his gun and get on the ground. There was a report of a baseball type cap with the word "Security" on it.  And other witnesses have stated he was wearing a vest with "Security" on it.

an active shooter doesn't mean that legal gun owners are not present it means a gun was used in the commission of a criminal act that involves more then one victim. 

so there is no excuse for a officer to not assume that a bar doesn't have security. much less would be the people he would seek out to get real time information of the situation. and in this case the simple observation of a man with a gun to the back of someone who is clearly pinned to the ground. Would suggest that maybe this person with the gun has a legitimate reason to have the gun displayed.  

I surely would not suggest the officer is not supposed to have his gun at the ready or even pointed but to get such tunnel vision as to disregard the patrons around him that YELLED he was the security officer. It shows a level of incompetence of the highest degree. 

I can feel for the police, from the reporting they knew they were rolling up on an active shooter situation with multiple victims. I'm concerned that we will never learn the truth here and all we are left with is an innocent man is dead.

i can feel for other officers who know they would not have fired there gun or didn't. But for this specific officer i cant make any excuses for him much less feel for him in anyways but disgust!

Yes in the end, it is sad for this victims family for sure. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.1.5  Drakkonis  replied to  cjfrommn @3.1.4    2 years ago
I surely would not suggest the officer is not supposed to have his gun at the ready or even pointed but to get such tunnel vision as to disregard the patrons around him that YELLED he was the security officer. It shows a level of incompetence of the highest degree. 

I take it that this is a common situation you've been in a number of times? That is, you're a police officer and you've arrived at a scene where you knew someone with a gun was or had been actively shooting and therefore can tell the rest of us, with complete confidence, exactly what happened and why. Not only that, but how this officer did everything wrong? Based on nothing more than a news story?

It isn't my intention to defend the policeman. It could be that he is as guilty as you claim. But it may not be, either. I prefer to wait on the investigation. That said, I can imagine what may have happened. Everyone there knew, before the officer arrived, what the deal was. The officer, who probably knew little or nothing other than that a man with a gun was shooting, arrived to see a man with a gun threatening the life of another person. I want you to think about that. Where do you think the officer's attention is going to be? You complain about tunnel vision but for myself, I can tell you that my entire focus would be on the thing in that other man's hand that could end me in less than a second. People screaming at me may not even register. The news story I saw in your links don't mention exactly what happened other than the officer shot the guy. Did the officer tell him to put the gun down or did he just walk up and shoot the guy? Was the officer by himself? If he told the man to drop the gun and the man didn't, then as unfortunate as it is, I don't see the officer as guilty. That the man was a security guard doesn't mean he is free to disregard commands by a police officer. But as I said, I'll wait to see what the investigation reveals.  

I don't mean to offend you, but were this to go to trial, I would hope that you or anyone like you would not be on the jury. People deserve a fair trial and you have already made your judgement based on the scant details offered in a news article. That isn't fair. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
3.1.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.5    2 years ago

[deleted]

It is really a sad commentary that such racist ideals rule over evidence and investigation....

If an officer is going into an active shooter scenario, he give an order to drop the weapon when coming upon a subject with a gun. their focus is on the weapon, not the clothes the person is wearing. if at any time the officer gets the impression that the person with the gun is doing anything than obeying his command, policy says take out the threat.... Remember this is an active shooter scenario which means that there are already bodies and people getting shot. Standard procedure is to get control and secure the scene and eliminate the threat to other citizens as expeditiously as possible. They are not going in asking questions....

That's why I was trained the way I was, NEVER hold someone at gunpoint waiting for police, your asking to be shot.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.1.7  Drakkonis  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.6    2 years ago

Personally, had I been the security guard, as soon as I had my knee in the suspect's back, I would have put away the gun. When the police arrived, I would have backed off the man and held my hands up and obeyed any commands given. As I read about this story, I wondered what training, if any, the security guard had? Did they just hand him a shirt and a hat that said "Security" and called it good? I also wonder why he apparently didn't have any restraining devices such as hand cuffs or zip ties. I would think that would be standard issue for a security guard. 

As for your statement about color, I tend to agree in general. It seems to be the overriding factor in the opinion of those who think the officer murdered the guy. To be clear, maybe he did. I don't have enough information to make a judgement at this time. Yet, it does seem that many here aren't interested in the details of this case beyond the skin color of the participants. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
3.1.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.7    2 years ago

Well, I WAS trained that way, By police, which is required to take an armed security position here where I live. (at least with the company I worked for) they were the ones who taught me in such a situation, do not be the guy with a gun in his hand when the police enter. they will shoot anyone that appears as aggressive and a person with a gun in that scenario is assumed to be aggressive. You get one chance to put it down then you are neutralized as a threat, hopefully not killed.

Fortunately I never had to experience such a situation. But in the few times I had to employ my weapon, I never held cover after the suspect was controlled. And down on the floor with a knee in your back is controlled and in custody.

the seeder claims some experience and training but never directly states if he was security or law enforcement. With what he has stated here, he would never be hired onto any of the security services or law enforcement agencies around here.... and if he was, he's keeping his opinions well hidden.

But no, there is nothing in the posted article as to the actual facts except for the guy was shot and he was security officer with a suspect in custody and he was black. And the article makes the same argument he is positing, he was killed because he was black.

There isn't a whole lot more anywhere else but I have seen reports where the law enforcement officers arriving on the scene did identify themselves and order him to put his gun down, then witnesses who were there but not actually in place to see say they just shot him....

Rush to judgment is all it is.... and the racial bias of the reporter, Andy Campbell; the site it was posted to, Huffpo; and the seeders completely on display.....

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.1.9  Drakkonis  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.8    2 years ago

All my training is military. 20 years in the Army. Doesn't quite translate to civilian life, you know? About all that can be said is I know how to handle a weapon.  But since I have a permit to carry, I run various scenarios through my mind. I think about what my actions should be in various situations. In all of them it doesn't really necessitate training to know that you don't want to be the guy with the gun when police show up. This guy was probably a pretty decent human being but, unfortunately, regardless of anything else, it seems to me that this guy had no actual training. It seems to me that, at least to a degree, part of the problem with this sad event is that someone was allowed to act as an armed security guard without training. People want common sense gun laws. I agree with that. Why would it not be common sense to require armed security personnel some basic level of training? 

Rush to judgment is all it is.... and the racial bias of the reporter, Andy Campbell; the site it was posted to, Huffpo; and the seeders completely on display.....

Yes. It's human nature and we all do it in both large and small ways. All of us are constantly making judgements concerning everything we see from moment to moment. As it happens, I believe there is a problem with the way the police often conduct themselves. I think they often use lethal force when there are safe alternatives. The people in here who are incensed over what this officer did, in my opinion, are actually talking about the meta issue of unnecessary police violence. That is what they are concerned with, not the actual specifics of the case. That seems to be the problem with most people. They cannot be both concerned with the larger issue and whether or not actual evidence in a particular event merit their damnation. It is the larger issue that counts for them, not specific details of a particular event. They don't want to concern themselves with the details. They only want it to confirm their   

 
 
 
cjfrommn
3.1.10  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.5    2 years ago
I take it that this is a common situation you've been in a number of times?

yes i have east st. paul is notorious for these situations. So i have responded as a primary officer and as a assist officer over my years. in most cases it did stem from a BEEF in a bar and guns out in the parking lot. in most cases the shots fired occurred and the party that did it left before we arrived. only 4 times do i recall gun violence in a bar where people were actually victims. and most of that was gang related. 

That is, you're a police officer and you've arrived at a scene where you knew someone with a gun was or had been actively shooting and therefore can tell the rest of us, with complete confidence, exactly what happened and why.

sure, in most cases security is there to meet us. in most situations security at some bar calls knew who caused the problems. as noted above they are gang members that fight in the club and get thrown out and then pop the trunk and let fire go right there. in this case it is clear the officer was advised by more then a handful of patrons telling him the man was security. having a gun displayed is not illegal. and a qiuck look at the illinoios statute of deadly use of force indicates that this security officer did not put this officer at risk of "Great or substantial bodily harm" due the fact as reported by both parties that the security officer had his gun pointed down at the suspect. 

Not only that, but how this officer did everything wrong? Based on nothing more than a news story?

YES - its called tunnel vision. this officer arrived and did not make a determination WHO the person with the gun was. Even after he was advised. along with the fact that OTHER OFFICERS he knew would arrive. So standing at the ready with gun pointed doesn't mean he had to fire. the factor that also comes into play is his need to know WHY there is a man proned out. a simple primary officer , assist officer controlled approach could have been used. a good example of this, is a felony traffic stop where officers approach and stand two by two as they advance to the car with ONE PERSON GIVING directives and getting the response. There is no legal reason this security guard was bound to comply with the directives of that officer. 

It isn't my intention to defend the policeman. It could be that he is as guilty as you claim. But it may not be, either. I prefer to wait on the investigation.

And for some odd reason you seemed to have intentionally disregarded my comment about the difference of my comments. I stated before that i dont need to use the government administrative process to provide my comments based on the experience of knowing a life was taken UNNECESSARILY.

That said, I can imagine what may have happened. Everyone there knew, before the officer arrived, what the deal was. The officer, who probably knew little or nothing other than that a man with a gun was shooting, arrived to see a man with a gun threatening the life of another person. I want you to think about that.

And i have stated ..................that it does not mean that officer with out determing WHY this incident in front of him appears that way.  HE CHOOSE NOT TOO> he decided that he didnt care enough to VERIFY what the multiple witnesses yelled at him. which was ?   " he is security dont shoot him"

Where do you think the officer's attention is going to be?

focused on the two on the ground. and because they are on the ground, the officers need to know why should have made him do two things. 1. listen to the witnesses and keep his gun out and verbally verify who the guy on top is. or 2. wait for other officers to make a approach so that the security officer can verbally share he has the suspect below him. He failed to do either! As reported by witnesses there, that the officer gave commands and did not wait for that security officer to reply. 

You complain about tunnel vision but for myself, I can tell you that my entire focus would be on the thing in that other man's hand that could end me in less than a second.

what the fuck do you think training is about..most cases it is about NOT REACTING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE SCOPE. in this situation a person with a gun in public that is not a threat to this officer. And not the police or chief has indicated that reports suggest this security officer made any moves or actions which might meet the legal standard of the Illinois statute for use of deadly force. 

People screaming at me may not even register.

it should, because they were THERE BEFORE HIM AND ARE WITNESSES. Thus they would provide a better way to make judgement in real time.

The news story I saw in your links don't mention exactly what happened other than the officer shot the guy.

the link is just one of many. 

Did the officer tell him to put the gun down or did he just walk up and shoot the guy?

primarily information released by the state police indicates he was shot from a far. 

Was the officer by himself? If he told the man to drop the gun and the man didn't, then as unfortunate as it is, I don't see the officer as guilty.

well then you have never been a permit holder either i guess. the right to bear your firearm in public is allowed. and it is not against the law to do so in protection of yourself. this officer assumed this person did not have that and thus determined he would then use that to justify suggesting he was a threat. and again i direct you to the state statute and the fact that NO WITNESSES have come forward to suggest this security officer had his weapon pointed except at the suspect below him.  Also note: a man prone on the ground could be a victim or suspect why would this police officer not want to know why? 

That the man was a security guard doesn't mean he is free to disregard commands by a police officer.

bullshit... he has the right to maintain his safety until it is determined the threat to his life does not exist. and i know that good officers would have wanted to figure out 1ST before shooting someone what the role is in this incident. Meaning if he wasnt security , doesnt matter. the directives the officer gave were in conflict of the role of the security officer. and a simple verification by vebal usage would have most officers walking up gun out and pointed and once clear on WHO this guy with the gun was, would have pulled out there handcuffs. and assisted security in detaining this suspect. this could have been done WITH the officer cuffing him after putting away his firearm or the security who would put his away once he saw the officer had the suspect covered.  

But as I said, I'll wait to see what the investigation reveals.  

And you are more the welcome too. and in many ways the investigation will provide information which administratively will help this officer. but again i dont need one to know the lost of the life of this citizen was unnecessary. 

I don't mean to offend you, but were this to go to trial, I would hope that you or anyone like you would not be on the jury. People deserve a fair trial and you have already made your judgement based on the scant details offered in a news article. That isn't fair

well lets make something clear. a jury consist of people who are filtered based on how much they do or dont know about a case or incident. I would know i would not make a jury based on my background. what i do know is that YOU have a job or experience in something that I DONT. so for example, maybe you know copiers. have worked copiers for 10 years and have fixed them, delivered them, used them and so on. 

a new guy gets hired and you know he goes through his training and time goes by. You come in one day, and he is bitching because he got wrote up for misusing a printer that resulted in a loss of a customers product. and being a nice guy you let him vent. but as you listen you hear things that go against what you know plus might even be against the information of the code of conduct policy. Do you get it. so i hear this guy vent and tell you about how i support this guy because this is what i think. And yet you know i am not correct because this is something YOU KNOW.   

again i am glad you want to wait for the investigation.  that will allow you to know if the conduct of this officer will be determined to be in or out of administrative policies or procedure or legal.

I respectfully have stated i dont need that to have as a factor for my reason to share that the death of this security officer was unnecessary.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
3.1.11  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.8    2 years ago
the seeder claims some experience and training but never directly states if he was security or law enforcement. With what he has stated here, he would never be hired onto any of the security services or law enforcement agencies around here.... and if he was, he's keeping his opinions well hidden.

you seem to have a failure to observe. i worked for the city of st. paul and for the ramsey county sheriffs office here in MN totaling 20 years. MN police post #was 17805 

https://dps.mn.gov/entity/post/Pages/default.aspx

i see in this commet to Drak that you have made up some things. 

1st off, the suspect was not in custody and a knee in his back does not constitute control. now there are major factors that come into play. size, stature of a person prone or security , weight and also the nerves of the person doing the job. 

for example, i wrestled all my life through college. so i am very comfortable with ground fighting and suspect resistance. this security officer might not have that type of back ground so his KNEE in the suspects back and his gun pointed at him might still make him not feel he is in control of this suspect based on the list provided. Along with the fact the suspect was NOT in handcuffs which common sense suggest a person would assume that person is detained and controlled. 

lastly i have suggested to him/her as with you that there are other sources/ links / websites that provided the same Illinois state police primarily report of facts known. 

 
 
 
Willjay9
3.2  Willjay9  replied to  MUVA @3    2 years ago

You know I noticed a lot of people who are claiming to want all of the facts first was suspiciously silent with that rhetoric when the Somali officer shot that white Australian woman! Why was that?

 
 
 
cjfrommn
3.3  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  MUVA @3    2 years ago

guess what.... an investigation is for  the administrative part of this incident. That's for the business side of government interaction. sadly it is not needed for those of us who KNOW that enough information exist to makes it clear that this was an UNWARRANTED RESULT of police action. 

and yet a person who types a comment like you appears to have one based on your typing it out. what appears to be that disassociation mentality.

it is not a surprise to see this type of comment but again, as i noted before someplace, if you dont have to worry about it, then it really cant be valued by a person such as yourself. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4  MrFrost    2 years ago

And there goes another good guy with a gun. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @4    2 years ago

Ya know, just what I was thinking

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.1.1  Willjay9  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1    2 years ago

It's looking more like a black man isn't allowed to be a "good guy with a gun"

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.2  epistte  replied to  Willjay9 @4.1.1    2 years ago
It's looking more like a black man isn't allowed to be a "good guy with a gun"

The 2nd Amendment, like rights such as voting, only applies to conservative white males. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    2 years ago

Robbins is a poor, all black suburb with a high crime rate. Most of the people in that bar at 4 .a.m. were lowlifes. 

My point is that the security guard deserved to be a hero. But because the cop was likely scared as he entered that building and was trigger happy, the young hero is dead. 

 
 
 
Willjay9
5.1  Willjay9  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 years ago

Also he was probably new to that area as well. Most clubs that need armed security usually have an understanding and know the police officers that patrol that area, not to mention the police who routinely patrol that area are well aware of the armed security guards in said clubs

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.1  epistte  replied to  Willjay9 @5.1    2 years ago
Also he was probably new to that area as well. Most clubs that need armed security usually have an understanding and know the police officers that patrol that area, not to mention the police who routinely patrol that area are well aware of the armed security guards in said clubs

Many armed security guards are moonlighting cops.   How would this play if he shot and kill a fellow officer from a neighboring city?

 
 
 
Willjay9
5.1.2  Willjay9  replied to  epistte @5.1.1    2 years ago

If the cop was black......probably the same thing 

 
 
 
Kavika
6  Kavika     2 years ago

Just think about this. The guy was licensed to carry, had on a security shirt, witnesses told the cops he was security and he had taken down a active shooter.....And what happens, he is shot dead by a cop. Unfuckingbelievable 

 
 
 
epistte
6.1  epistte  replied to  Kavika @6    2 years ago

He is a black guy with a gun, so apparently in the eyes of many cops he is automatically guilty until proven innocent.  Blue Lives Matter members will demand that the cop in question cannot be judged until we know all of the fact, including which church he went to, but that doesn't and didn't apply to the security guard that he shot and killed when he was pulling the trigger on an innocent man.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7  Buzz of the Orient    2 years ago

I wonder what ever happened to the cop in a squad car who killed a woman in pajamas who came over to talk to him. It was another example of a cop doing something entirely uncalled for. 

 
 
 
shona1
7.1  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    2 years ago

Evening Buzz....Her father is suing the arse off Noor and the City for $50 million. Noor is up on  third degree murder and second degree manslaughter charges..as he should be. His trial starts in April...The thing we noticed is how the cops closed ranks and even started up a fund raiser for Noor to pay for his legal expenses..That has not gone down to well here..We take a dim view when one of our citizens is murdered in cold blood by one of those that are meant to "protect and serve"...And we don't give a stuff what colour he is...We watch with great interest....

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @7.1    2 years ago

Thanks for that info, shona1.  Hope he's put away for a long time.

 
 
 
Willjay9
7.1.2  Willjay9  replied to  shona1 @7.1    2 years ago

"The thing we noticed is how the cops closed ranks and even started up a fund raiser for Noor to pay for his legal expenses"

You do realize that's business as usual for almost every case of police shooting right? Why did you think it was going to be any different?

 
 
 
shona1
7.1.3  shona1  replied to  Willjay9 @7.1.2    2 years ago

Morning...Because we thought your cops were better than that..but apparently not...and there is a thing called Human decency..seems to have lost its way over there is some aspects....which is rather sad...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  shona1 @7.1.3    2 years ago

I take it you don't have such issues "down under".  Why is that?

 
 
 
shona1
7.1.5  shona1  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.4    2 years ago

We have a completely different attitude to cops and guns..We tend not to shoot first and then ask questions later...We shoot if we have to and that is very rare. The cops shot dead the Terrorist in Melbourne last week as he had a knife and killed one bystander and injured 2 others. We are not as trigger happy as over there and that includes our cops. Even I would have serious doubts now approaching one of your cops for help etc after seeing and hearing all that goes on. Here I would not and do not hesitate at all...regardless of colour.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  shona1 @7.1.5    2 years ago

Ya, I guess that all factors in. Are there any other elements to the American incident, that may have played a part?

 
 
 
shona1
7.1.7  shona1  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    2 years ago

Other than some people should not be in the Police force is about all...what other elements are there??

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  shona1 @7.1.7    2 years ago

There are quite a few suggestive comments here. Take a look at post #8 below. Tell me what you think

 
 
 
shona1
7.1.9  shona1  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.8    2 years ago

Yes well aware of the race issues there...That problem is one you mob will have to sort out...Black kills white unarmed woman, white kills black security guard and there have been many other similar incidents....But at the end of the day murder is murder and I don't care what colour you are...and you would "hope" it is seen as such..And if not then there truly is something dreadfully wrong in that country.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  shona1 @7.1.9    2 years ago
.But at the end of the day murder is murder and I don't care what colour you are...and you would "hope" it is seen as such..

Agreed.


Yes well aware of the race issues there.

The kind of issues that Australia dosen't have.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.10    2 years ago

No race issues in Australia?  You mean there are no race issues between the whites and the aboriginals?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.1.11    2 years ago
You mean there are no race issues between the whites and the aboriginals?  

I kind of wondering about that. I haven't heard anything from there. It's not a society with racial harmony?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.12    2 years ago

Best to ask Shona1, but I taught Australian Law from 2006 to 2012, and took note of the discriminatory restrictions about aboriginal land ownership.

 
 
 
shona1
7.1.14  shona1  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.10    2 years ago

Evening. Yes there are race issues here, always have been always will be..But we don't go blatantly shooting people of any colour other than if it is extremely necessary...Yes a white cop shot a Somali dead last week..No one batted an eye lid about "colour", no one cares. The headlines don't scream white cop shoots black man...This Terrorist appeared to be in a hurry to meet Allah, so we obliged..Stab people and if you are white, green, purple or pink we will not hesitate to shoot...But there is a prevalence in the States to shoot people of any colour no matter if they are armed or not...even people with their arms up or approaching a cop car etc are shot dead...and that is dreadfully sad.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
8  Hal A. Lujah    2 years ago

This discussion is just mental gymnastics from the protectors of racism on the right.  The same people who claim that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, will read all the facts in this case and claim we don’t have all the facts.  A uniformed security guard was murdered for being black.  Patrons were quick to identify who was the good guy and who was the bad guy when the cops showed up, but it didn’t matter because there was a black guy with a gun.  You conservatives are as predictable as the sunrise.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1  MUVA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8    2 years ago

Having a brother that was accused of a unjust shooting while serving in the FBI I like to see the facts.Remember hands up don't shoot?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
8.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MUVA @8.1    2 years ago

That’s nice.  What facts are you missing here?

Uniformed security guard - check

Licensed to carry - check

Police informed of who he was - check

Black man with a gun doing his job - check

 
 
 
Willjay9
8.1.2  Willjay9  replied to  MUVA @8.1    2 years ago

I'll ask this again please show me ANYWHERE on that FBI report that clearly states hands up dont shoot was a LIE!

The FBI report....NOT any article or report about their interpretation of the report!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
9  Nowhere Man    2 years ago

When I was armed security, we were trained in an active gun drawn restraint incident where you are essentially arresting the suspect, once you have them arrested, you put the gun away.

Doesn't matter White or Black.

In an active shooter incident the police are going to be responding/approaching the scene with drawn guns looking to stop a person with a gun....

Typical procedure when confronting a subject with a drawn gun pointing it at another is to order the gun down. If they don't comply then eliminate the threat.

Such scenes happen in less than a split second.

You DO NOT want to be the person involved pointing a gun at anyone.... Your chances of getting shot go up 75% in that scenario...

Identifying yourself is not going to work most of the time... The cops come in and secure the scene taking complete control and sorting it out later...

You are trained to NOT hold someone at gunpoint, take them down and handcuff them. If he was a licensed armed security office he had handcuffs, he should have used them.

If the cops arrived and he was handcuffing the suspect or sitting on a handcuffed suspect he would not have been shot.

That is they way I was trained, but I wasn't there I didn't see it, and a LOT of investigating needs to be done....

Sad that some don't need any investigation to condemn the police.

It was tragic and wrong, a horrible error, but when it comes down to it proper procedures for apprehending and controlling a suspect were not followed on the officers part and on the police's part shooting first without giving the officer time to respond in my opinion is down right criminal.

This is just from what is being reported at this point in time.

And in this type of situation NO media is going to know the truth and will not for at least 6 months..... (and that is if they are allowed to publish it)

Which means the poster and all commenters are speculating just like I am.... The biases are plainly evident.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
9.1  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Nowhere Man @9    2 years ago
When I was armed security, we were trained in an active gun drawn restraint incident where you are essentially arresting the suspect, once you have them arrested, you put the gun away.

security vs police-- so different policies and procedures. YOUR security directive could be different then his directive so YOUR two cents doesnt count then. 

Doesn't matter White or Black.

clearly it does.. so this two cents goes by the way side. 

In an active shooter incident the police are going to be responding/approaching the scene with drawn guns looking to stop a person with a gun....

yes they are but they are also taught that means they have to ASSES the situation based on making determinations of the people they either see, hear or locate. 

Typical procedure when confronting a subject with a drawn gun pointing it at another is to order the gun down. If they don't comply then eliminate the threat.

this is a bold face lie-- not complying does not contitute a threat. because permits to carry allow for citizens to display a legally maintained gun in public. which means that a security officer would not be needed to put his gun away until he has determined he can protect himself from the threat of the suspect who was SEEN using a gun. thus the police officer should have confirmed who was who which was easy to do based on the patrons suggestion. 

Such scenes happen in less than a split second.

And because they do, there is supposed to be the role of the responding officers to determine how to bring calm back from choas. This is done by taking in the real time information and using the obvious suggestions at the time. A grown man kneeling on another man proned to the ground with a gun in his back just might be a situation where ASKING why this is happening might be the first act of the assesment. MUch less making contact and assisting the person on top with such detainment. 

You DO NOT want to be the person involved pointing a gun at anyone.... Your chances of getting shot go up 75% in that scenario...

and again pointing a gun at anyone is not a reason to suggest deadly use of force is the only response a police officer can take UNLESS that gun was pointed at that officer. this was not the case as ALREADY suggested by both parties. 

Identifying yourself is not going to work most of the time... The cops come in and secure the scene taking complete control and sorting it out later...

WRONG again, this exactly what they always do. they respond to the scene to make sure they locate the actors that can assist them with real time. in this case , a simple observation and input by the crowd present made it clear the man on top security or not was NOT A THREAT TO THE OFFICER. 

You are trained to NOT hold someone at gunpoint, take them down and handcuff them. If he was a licensed armed security office he had handcuffs, he should have used them.

BULLSHIT-- you are now putting your own spin on this... the security guard just like an officer is not going to risk placing hand cuffs on a suspected gunman with out being able to have assistance by knowing the gun is secured first before attempting to cuff that suspect.  plus it has / was not determined that the gun was not with in reach of the suspect and to risk changing the balance and placement of both himself or his weapon that is a risk not taking. 

If the cops arrived and he was handcuffing the suspect or sitting on a handcuffed suspect he would not have been shot.

again the use of force statute for illinois doesnt not suggest having a gun out is the legal reason to shoot someone. again any person detained over a gun situation should not be cuffed until that officer or security officer DEEMS he has the proper support to do so safely. so this idea that A MAGIC CLOCK  is running on how long a legal owned permit holder can hold a suspect at gun point DOES NOT EXIST. much less as has been the case in many GOOD POLICE officer situations where they kept a gun pointed at a suspect until help arrived. 

That is they way I was trained, but I wasn't there I didn't see it, and a LOT of investigating needs to be done....

this is not a hard situation to determine what happened. the investigation will be hardest in determining the statements vs the video evidence. 

Sad that some don't need any investigation to condemn the police.

well its sadder to read a person like yourself assumes that this is not a situation where condemning the actions taking by this police officer is not considered reasonable when it is clearly stated that THE DEADLY USE OF FORCE was not warranted based on NON disputed facts already provided by the police chief. 

It was tragic and wrong, a horrible error, but when it comes down to it proper procedures for apprehending and controlling a suspect were not followed on the officers part and on the police's part shooting first without giving the officer time to respond in my opinion is down right criminal.

make up your mind. how do you know proper procedure for apprehending and controlling a suspect weren't followed. This security officer has every right to make a determination on the WELL BEING OF HIS SAFETY. That means he can do what helps him feel the safest given factors that suggest kneeling on him with his gun drawn until assistance arrived was his best option. I mean i can sit here and think of several factors that would suggest any attempt to cuff a gun suspect with out back up could have a negative result. 

This is just from what is being reported at this point in time.

And in this type of situation NO media is going to know the truth and will not for at least 6 months..... (and that is if they are allowed to publish it)

any information that is currently in the news has come from the public release by the police dept. no one is making stuff up> i would agree that depending on how a witness was interviewed there comments would be different. But the basic aspect of this killing is not in question. 

Which means the poster and all commentators are speculating just like I am.... The biases are plainly evident.

well this poster biases comes from a 20 year career in law enforcement here in st. paul and for the ramsey sheriffs office. So part of my reason for placing this story here is to remind people that bad and some racist cops take actions which ends in the death of citizens at a rate that is unacceptable.  Sadly GOOD HONEST FAIR COPS dont get the benefit of the doubt when actions like this officers results in killing of a citizen that was on the job and identified by witnesses as such. 

as noted above some place the RIGHT TO COMMENT about this is not based on the need for us to know about the policies or procedures of this officers dept. That is for the government and those tasked to use that as there guide to determine this officers fate. it is however fair to suggest that the failure of this officer occurred based on a his own rush to judgement.

So a lot of folks simply are tired of knowing that a shooting by a person who is supposed to react calm during chaos, look for the best result, based on the thousands of dollars spent on training and use common sense as a guide, failed to do so. And this is after we absolutely believe the comments of the witnesses, who provided enough reason for this officer to make a better judgement then the discharge of his duty weapon. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
9.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  cjfrommn @9.1    2 years ago

You are entitled to your belief just as anyone is.

And you can speculate to that belief just as anyone can....

What makes your speculation so incredible, is the twist involved to come to your conclusions based upon the evidence now in hand....

It is what it is. your bias is showing, a bias that cannot be logically defended given any real knowledge of the procedures involved....

So you reject any attempt to put this in reasonable terms, cause you have prejudged the cause and rationalized the intent without any basis in fact.

AND, that is a very sad statement of the current political atmosphere running through this country today....

Without any fact at all to back the claim, it is automatically an instance of race hatred....

That reflects on you my friend and not the police...

 
 
 
cjfrommn
9.1.2  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Nowhere Man @9.1.1    2 years ago

sadly you must have a short memory even with QUOTING your own words.

my comments to your posting is based on my work experience that you dont have. I dont have a problem with your two cents as a reply to this incident. what i do have is a problem with the specifics of your comments on Procedure you state which is not correct based on lacking the work experience, legally sworn experience and the judgement of "what you think " constitutes the correct arrest procedure based on an active shooter situation. Along with the fact that the suspect was identified as the shooter, which gives this security officer EVERY RIGHT TO DISPLAY AND USE HIS GUN UNTIL HE DETERMINED HE COULD CONTROL THE SUSPECT. 

That means that this officers action will not be deemed by those who can use common sense to determine his death was NECESSARY, it wasn't. And we dont need facts produced by a report by the police to determine that much.

now you and i can back and forth about what policy or procedure this officer will be judged by or what statute this officer will try to suggest justifies his action as a government employee. But at the end of the day, as a person looking at the death of another citizen at the  hands of the police.....this incident , his death and the reason his family will not have there father is directly due to officer incompetence. 

As far as the political bullshit part of your comment....thats just it, Bullshit.

again citizens are getting tired of officers who cut corners and seem to appear to be less then qualified to be the ones to turn to in an emergency.

And i have a very low tolerance for a person who comments about how this security officers is supposed to act like he has control of a suspect, when a cop cant have enough self control to not fire his duty weapon as the first action necessary to control a legally permitted gun holder with a person prone under him. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
9.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  cjfrommn @9.1.2    2 years ago
now you and i can back and forth about what policy or procedure this officer will be judged by or what statute this officer will try to suggest justifies his action as a government employee. But at the end of the day, as a person looking at the death of another citizen at the  hands of the police.....this incident , his death and the reason his family will not have there father is directly due to officer incompetence. 

As far as the political bullshit part of your comment....thats just it, Bullshit.

again citizens are getting tired of officers who cut corners and seem to appear to be less then qualified to be the ones to turn to in an emergency.

And i have a very low tolerance for a person who comments about how this security officers is supposed to act like he has control of a suspect, when a cop cant have enough self control to not fire his duty weapon as the first action necessary to control a legally permitted gun holder with a person prone under him. 

Several of the responding officers told him to put down his weapon, BEFORE HE WAS SHOT.... in every article I've seen posted on the issue....

Except of course the one you posted..... (from huffpost by the way no bias there at all)

Hence;

ALL of this is your OWN PERSONAL OPINION.....

Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.....

'nuf said.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
9.1.4  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Nowhere Man @9.1.3    2 years ago
Several of the responding officers told him to put down his weapon, BEFORE HE WAS SHOT.... in every article I've seen posted on the issue....

and yet THIS SECURITY officer did not have a reason to put his gun away because the suspect was not contained. to assume a gun that is present allows for the officer to shoot is not the legal standard. also this officer was told by others around him that the person holding the gun was the security officer. and IN NO REPORTS has anyone stated this security officer pointed or raised his gun to the police. they ALL say he had the gun to the suspect back pointed down. the legal definition is the officer has to demonstrate this security gaurd created a threat to this officer, he did not. 

Except of course the one you posted..... (from huffpost by the way no bias there at all)

ooh stop that shit....who cares where the news comes from when the basis for the story is the same. use of deadly for against a citizen who was in his legal rights to protect himself. 

Hence; ALL of this is your OWN PERSONAL OPINION.....

and absolutely it is. and yet it comes from my years doing the licensed job. and YOU?

Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand..... 'nuf said.

and yet you respond. the point is that i dont mind that you have an opinion about this case but to comment as if you have the experience of knowing policy and procedure as an officer to pass judgement on a legally permitted citizen in a gun incident doesn't fly because your opinion is not based on that  law enforcement experience. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
9.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  cjfrommn @9.1.4    2 years ago

I didn't say it "Allows" anyone to shoot did I.

I said, that I was trained as a security officer to not be the person holding a gun inside an active shooter incident when the swat team comes in....

Here, the uniforms secure the scene and cordon off the area the swat team does the entry....

Of course this in in the GPNW, not north central Illinois.... so policies could be decidedly different as to the type and measure of response.

Here, they wait for SWAT. And no you do not want to be on the other side of a swat entry holding a gun. And an active shooter incident is a mandatory SWAT response.

And I never said I had LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE I have Security Office Experience and yes that is a whole world of difference. All I know is what I was trained to do and how to respond to such a situation....

And that is my opinion. I guess we are trained differently here.

Thank you for your service, you are entitled to your opinion I am to mine, lets just leave it there. It's a tragic situation and the officer shouldn't have died My feeling is he should have had more training, it would have probably saved his life. The officer doing the entry..... I don't know how I feel about his actions and am not ready to call it murder, not yet at least.

Especially not a racist hater murder.

That is my basic issue you seem to want to call it a racist hate murder before all the facts are in....

Neither one of us were there so neither one of us knows for fact what transpired... And there is one thing we both know for fact, they will not release all the details until they have done a through investigation, if they release them at all.

 
 
 
cjfrommn
9.1.6  seeder  cjfrommn  replied to  Nowhere Man @9.1.5    2 years ago
Especially not a racist hater murder. That is my basic issue you seem to want to call it a racist hate murder before all the facts are in...

Well your reading comprehension is lacking .

no where did i say this specific officer was a racist or a murder, you made that all up in your head. 

one of the first things i did say is that THIS COPS ACTIONS does not help those who will and can assume he is either one of both of them.

and for shits sake man/woman---- you keep talking about the other officers and what they said......but DUH DUH DUH.....funny how none of them needed to shoot this security officer. 

so do you get where i expressed that .....................common sense is the key this cop choose not to use and decided to shoot instead of determine the role of the proned out guy and the guy kneeling on him..

and that is your failure.... which goes back to the fact that your training is based on private property expectations not law. You may have training on HOW your boss / company wanted you to respond to situations on that property especially if the police are called. 

but this incident was on public property and the laws , policy or procedure for this cop would be different then your private security rules.

but i know as a person with the same training and experience that this officers actions were not NEEDED. 

and i dont need to wait for investigation to tell me that. because the fact is this security guard should be alive. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
9.1.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  cjfrommn @9.1.6    2 years ago
because the fact is this security guard should be alive. 

This is the only thing we are going to agree on, so lets leave it at that.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
10  Buzz of the Orient    2 years ago

"I have no problem at all with the death penalty as long as it's carried out on the spot by the intended victim" (Neale Osborne)

Using the logic of a person respected by many of the members here, my question is:  If the security guard, realizing that the Police Officer was going to shoot him, had shot and killed the PO, would Neale have agreed with that?

 
 
 
TTGA
10.1  TTGA  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    2 years ago
If the security guard, realizing that the Police Officer was going to shoot him, had shot and killed the PO, would Neale have agreed with that?

Buzz, you're confusing an attempted (or actual) murder with an accidental shooting.  The two situations are not the same.  There is no way that the police officer in this case would ever be charged with murder since it would be impossible to show intent.  The most he could be charged with is Manslaughter.

In this case you seem to have a police officer who gave numerous instructions to the security officer to put the gun down.  His tunnel vision was totally focused on the man with the gun (in an active shooter situation).  When the instructions were not obeyed, he fired.  On the other side, the security officer had his tunnel vision totally focused on keeping the real active shooter secured.  Good chance that he never even heard the police officer or even saw him.  That's what the investigation will determine.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
10.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @10.1    2 years ago

What a lousy situation that was. What a waste.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ender
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
Tacos!
arkpdx


65 visitors