Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes it does because if he was actually following the law he would have never been in the situation to begin with. It's terrible what happened but he brought it on himself.
Your position does not seem sound at this point. The spokes person for State Police investigating the shooting stated he was legally armed. There are also reports that he did not have a concealed weapons license. But at the time of the shooting the weapon was obviously not concealed.
So I would wait a while before declaring him in violation.
If 95 of 100 black guys I've known in my life have spoken like they're from the ghetto, and I'm going to meet the 101st, if I assume he's going to sound like he's from the ghetto am I being racist or using a basic understanding of statistics and common sense?
Or, much more docile - if 90% of basketball players I've known in my life have been black, and you ask me to bet $10,000 on the race of the next one I meet, which race should I bet on and why?
Get new sources and you'll see. It was actually mentioned in the very first article posted in the other thread. From the very first article linked in the very first post in the other thread:
Why is it relevant whether the victim had a concealed carry license?
Lets assume he was required to have one, but did not. Are we going to excuse the killing of heroes by the police because it turns out, totally unbeknownst to the police and determined after the fact, that he had no concealed carry license?
I'm sorry, my determination as to whether the police did/did not act appropriate does not hinge on whether it turns out he had license to carry a firearm unless that fact somehow materially affected how the police acted. It is no more relevant than his criminal history (if any) because the police did not even know who he was at the time. I'm not going to justify potentially wrongful police behavior just because the guy wasn't licensed. Wrongs don't cancel one another out, you know.
with all the nonsense chicago and suburban chicago police see they are not going to mess around. they will shoot and ask questions later. with all the gang nonsense they see they probably do sees blacks as a threat. that's not fair but life aint fair.
I'm not sure how you turn this into a gun control debate.
I have debated many many gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates on here and in person. I have never encountered a more hive-minded bunch. The hardliners control the narrative of the gun community and the moderates do what they are told and stay in their place.
There is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction among those folk, however, on the NRA's "police are always innocent" stance.
It actually began with the NRA's non-response to the Philandro Castile incident, despite the fact that Castile was black. There is growing disgruntlement among people who are legally armed about these cases.
Why is it relevant whether the victim had a concealed carry license?
Lets assume he was required to have one, but did not. Are we going to excuse the killing of heroes by the police because it turns out, totally unbeknownst to the police and determined after the fact, that he had no concealed carry license?
I'm sorry, my determination as to whether the police did/did not act appropriate does not hinge on whether it turns out he had license to carry a firearm unless that fact somehow materially affected how the police acted. It is no more relevant than his criminal history (if any) because the police did not even know who he was at the time. I'm not going to justify potentially wrongful police behavior just because the guy wasn't licensed. Wrongs don't cancel one another out, you know.
Fair point, however I'd also want to understand 2 things:
1. Does the bar have a "no guns" sign and or policy? If so, then even a concealed carry permit is invalid at the establishment.
2. Although the police didn't know him, are police aware of which bars have armed guards? Its probably pretty rare, and those that do are probably off-duty cops.
For those two reasons, I'd think that in most situations an officer would be fairly confident as to whether or not someone at the location who was security or a bouncer was allowed to legally carry or not.
Why is it relevant whether the victim had a concealed carry license?
Lets assume he was required to have one, but did not. Are we going to excuse the killing of heroes by the police because it turns out, totally unbeknownst to the police and determined after the fact, that he had no concealed carry license?
I'm sorry, my determination as to whether the police did/did not act appropriate does not hinge on whether it turns out he had license to carry a firearm unless that fact somehow materially affected how the police acted. It is no more relevant than his criminal history (if any) because the police did not even know who he was at the time. I'm not going to justify potentially wrongful police behavior just because the guy wasn't licensed. Wrongs don't cancel one another out, you know.
TepLimey,
It's the same phenomenon we see in the case of the Dallas man who was killed in his apartment by a police officer who went through the wrong door. The police quickly got a warrant to search that man's apartment and then claimed there was a small amount of marijuana in his apartment.
What difference did that make?
It makes the victim a "criminal," and a lot of people--such as you see right in this thread--have the opinion that whenever police kill a "criminal," the facts of how it happened are irrelevant...a "criminal" is dead, and that's always a good thing.
Like I said, I'm not happy someone died, but at the end of the day the man who the police killed was committing a criminal act by carrying a loaded weapon in public without a license. A law was clearly and intentionally broken. The person breaking the law knows the stigma and alarm raised by such an act. Although the consequences for him were tragic, they were certainly not an unknown, especially in todays tense times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Bottom line is that a cop shot someone who was illegally in possession of a weapon. In other words, he was seen as a threat to the general public welfare since he had no business carrying a gun in public and was refusing to obey the LEO commands.
Roberson had a Firearms Owners' Identification Card, which allows Illinois residents to legally possess firearms or ammunition...
Now Im sure if he can legally possess the firearm, he can legally carry it. If there is a separate carry license for Illinois, Im sure someone that actually knows the Illinois law will chime in. Since this is the 2nd thread an no one has said that yet, Im assuming no one that has posted so far actually knows the law.
Since it wasnt concealed, it wasnt illegal.
The cop jumped the gun, so to speak.
Somehow the state police missed the witness and the two other cops that tried to stop the 3rd cop from firing on him in their report.
No, you want me to come across as "justifying" his death because your anti-gun mentality needs to have someone to make a villain so that you can scare people and point at all of the horrible "gun nuts" or whatever your chosen pet name is.
Like I said, I'm not happy someone died, but at the end of the day the man who the police killed was committing a criminal act by carrying a loaded weapon in public without a license. A law was clearly and intentionally broken. The person breaking the law knows the stigma and alarm raised by such an act. Although the consequences for him were tragic, they were certainly not an unknown, especially in todays tense times.
According to the spokes person for the state police he was legally carrying. He did not have a concealed carry permit but the weapon was obviously not concealed.
And anyway that would all appear irrelevant to the shooting. At worst a technical violation.
Fair point, however I'd also want to understand 2 things:
1. Does the bar have a "no guns" sign and or policy? If so, then even a concealed carry permit is invalid at the establishment.
2. Although the police didn't know him, are police aware of which bars have armed guards? Its probably pretty rare, and those that do are probably off-duty cops.
For those two reasons, I'd think that in most situations an officer would be fairly confident as to whether or not someone at the location who was security or a bouncer was allowed to legally carry or not.
But there are people with concealed carry licenses in that jurisdiction, and those of us with concealed carry licences--black and white--are concerned that police are shooting too quickly in these situations.
Interestingly, people on C-D are a whole lot more pro-cop about this than the real gun-totin' folks over in the gun forums are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
