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.
You folks keep saying that. However the only thing I can find in the reports is a statement by the spokes person for the State Police that he was legally armed.
He was legally allowed to OWN a gun, he was not legally allowed to CARRY THE GUN IN PUBLIC.
First, there were apparently police already on scene who already understood the facts of the situation and themselves tried to stop the late-coming cop from firing.
Second, there is no point at this time in postulating whether the bar had a sign--that's not relevant to the idea that police should intelligently assess the situation before firing their guns.
Third, a good many legal concealed gun owners fully intend to be "the good guy with the gun" when things like this happen (I'm not one of them--my gun is to cover my and my wife's retreat as we get the hell out of Dodge). They won't be official security guards or off-duty police.
While I respect your opinion, and your intent for having a CCL, I'll just have to respectfully disagree that those two factors could and should come into play for a cop entering the scene. Not saying its 100% the driving factor, but it should be a consideration to come into play.
A few years ago Chicago Police shot unarmed Laquan McDonald over a dozen times, lied about him coming at them etc. and paid off his family with millions of dollars.
Finally got exposed and charges were brought something like 2 years later.
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.
The lady cop was charged. It could be she will beat the charge but likely they will nail her with something.
And the apartment was the scene of the shooting and therefore had to be fully processed.
While I respect your opinion, and your intent for having a CCL, I'll just have to respectfully disagree that those two factors could and should come into play for a cop entering the scene. Not saying its 100% the driving factor, but it should be a consideration to come into play.
Oh, you do not believe police should intelligently assess the situation before firing their weapons?
Oh, you do not believe police should intelligently assess the situation before firing their weapons?
You actually disagree with that premise?
No, thats the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
I believe that knowing if a building has a no-guns policy, and knowing if they hire security with ccl permits SHOULD be part of their intelligent thought process.
I used to work somewhere that hired off-duty officers for security. They carried, and it wasn't even a place that in my opinion needed security, but I also know for a fact that on duty officers in that area knew that there were off duty cops who were armed at this location.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Yes - i Am not at good place to dig it out. If you want it quick search on the spokes persons name.
Starts with an A.
I guess I'll just wait for you to find it because this completely contradicts what you are saying and its from a spokes person for the county police:
The other thread on Jemel Roberson is clogged up with fluff.
Let's hear it. What do conservatives and the NRA think about the Jemel Roberson case?
Not a conservative (I'm an anarchist) but...
1. The NRA is a liberal Marxist organization that is hell-bent on restricting private property rights. A violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
2. Roberson is a classic case of a public policing failure...much like the case of Richard Black this past summer in Colorado. Private policing is the only sane, moral, and logical choice.
I don't know, that was never my position, and I don't even see what you are trying to get at here.
He was killed while taking a huge legal risk, he saved lives, but did so recklessly. There are no winners in this scenario.
What Im trying to get at is that this guy had a gun to do a job, and he took down people that were about to commit another mass shooting in a bar. This is what the pro-2a people have been saying in terms of PREVENTING mass shootings, is a good guy with a gun. More guns on the street.
He was there, took down the would be shooter, and was killed before the police even found out whether or not he was legally carrying. He could have been legally carrying and probably would have been killed by a wreckless cop.
So because he had a gun to be the good guy in this situation, but didnt have the CCL permit, is he no longer the "good guy with a gun" that the 2A advocates say this country needs to prevent mass shootings?
Is this what you guys use to avoid defending him?
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.
