Suburban security guard stops shooter, gets killed by police

[Gun Nut]

source for the claim that the guy "didn't resist or reject the advance of the police"?

My source is the same as everyone else's.. I just.. you know... actually read it.

I just ... you know ... actually read that the earth is flat. And I assign that the same credence as your "I read that...".
FYI, citing a source would mean naming or linking to it... you know... like this:

THE EARTH IS FLAT

If you need some help creating links or finding the sources of what you read, please say so - there are many here who can help you.

So you reject the article in full... so the guy wasn't even black... wasn't even at the bar... and that bar does not even exist. gotcha. Why join a discussion about a fictitious story, then?

It is highly likely that the information we all are missing (what happened to cause the cop to shoot) is not being publicly released because it is crucial to the outcome of the investigation.

If you believe that the Muller investigation, for example, is valid, then you accept that all important information about an investigation may not be tweeted about. Twitter is not the authoritative source of reality... nor is the linked article.

 

[scombrid]

false equivalence... "Having security" is not equal to "waving a gun around in a cop's face"

The security guard couldn't be "waving a gun around in a cop's face" as he was in a position of subduing the shooter.

Oh no. He clearly had two guns then. One to "wave around in a cop's face" and another to have jammed in someone's back.

 

[laughing dog]

source for the claim that the guy "didn't resist or reject the advance of the police"?

My source is the same as everyone else's.. I just.. you know... actually read it.

I just ... you know ... actually read that the earth is flat. And I assign that the same credence as your "I read that...".
FYI, citing a source would mean naming or linking to it... you know... like this:

THE EARTH IS FLAT

If you need some help creating links or finding the sources of what you read, please say so - there are many here who can help you.

So you reject the article in full... so the guy wasn't even black... wasn't even at the bar... and that bar does not even exist. gotcha. Why join a discussion about a fictitious story, then?

It is highly likely that the information we all are missing (what happened to cause the cop to shoot) is not being publicly released because it is crucial to the outcome of the investigation.

If you believe that the Muller investigation, for example, is valid, then you accept that all important information about an investigation may not be tweeted about. Twitter is not the authoritative source of reality... nor is the linked article.

Regardless, that does not justify your persistence in literally making things up to justify the shooting.

More importantly, we know at this time that an easily identifiable "good guy" was shot and killed by the police. Most normal people would consider that an outcome to avoid unless there is information that arises to justify the shooting death of a "good guy".

It is also highly likely that if there is crucial information that exonerates this officer's actions, it would have been leaked by this time. Of course, that is just conjecture - something you feel is useful.

According to this recent report

The officer from neighboring Midlothian who killed Roberson saw a man decked out in “plain black clothing with no markings readily identifying him as a security guard, armed with a gun,” state police Public Integrity Task Force said in the preliminary findings.

“According to witness statements, the Midlothian Officer gave the armed subject multiple verbal commands to drop the gun and get on the ground before ultimately discharging his weapon and striking the subject,” state police said in a statement late Tuesday.

Witnesses have told reporters that onlookers screamed at the officer that Roberson was a security guard.

(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/14/jemel-roberson-security-guard-police-officer-shooting-robbins-midlothian-illinois/1998737002/). The statement by the officer is either false (his vest did have markings) or the officer did not properly assess the situation, especially with witnesses telling him that Mr. Roberson was a security officer.

Unless Mr. Roberson was aiming the gun at the officer, this shooting should be not considered justified. This officer made a series of mistakes that ended up in an unnecessary death of a good guy.

 

[Gun Nut]

false equivalence... "Having security" is not equal to "waving a gun around in a cop's face"

The security guard couldn't be "waving a gun around in a cop's face" as he was in a position of subduing the shooter.

Oh no. He clearly had two guns then. One to "wave around in a cop's face" and another to have jammed in someone's back.

"jamming a gun in someone's back" is not what a trained security guard does... This guy not only had NO training (assumed from the fact in the article that he had NO permit to be carrying that gun), but apparently ACTED like anything but a security professional.

.. and that is the common theme that I see. Not the color of people's skin... but the "shade" they act with.. that gets them shot.

This is going to sound racist, because it probably is... but "being black" is not a problem for black people... it's "acting black". I guess I may be a little "culturist".. which is to say, white people that act "gangsta" are just as likely to get themselves shot.

that "gangsta" culture that gets so many people hurt is the issue. It is literally a set of behaviors specifically designed to LOOK criminal... be tough acting... against any authority... "fuck the police" attitude. wear a hoodie (to hide your face) and your pants low (due to the weight of the guns on you).. copying rappers style, who themselves are copying actual gangsters.
It just does not mix well with other cultures that are not based on being as "criminal looking as possible".

But I am not saying this particular black gentleman (whom I know nothing about) was acting in any particular way, except clearly was not acting like "the good guy with a gun"

 

[laughing dog]

This is going to sound racist, because it probably is... but "being black" is not a problem for black people... it's "acting black".

First part - bingo, 2nd part is utter nonsense. I guess I may be a little "culturist".. which is to say, white people that act "gangsta" are just as likely to get themselves shot.

My guess is you have clue what training Mr. Roberson had or what training security guards receive. It is pretty clear you have no idea how a "good guy with gun" acts in this situation.

Mr. Roberson was not breaking any laws. There is no indication that Mr Roberson was not threatening the police officer. Yet here you are persistently insisting Mr. Roberson deserved his fate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh no. He clearly had two guns then. One to "wave around in a cop's face" and another to have jammed in someone's back.

"jamming a gun in someone's back" is not what a trained security guard does... This guy not only had NO training (assumed from the fact in the article that he had NO permit to be carrying that gun), but apparently ACTED like anything but a security professional.

No, he had a licence for the gun and his ability to successfully disarm and restrain an armed attacker while stopping anyone he was assigned to protect from getting killed seems like fairly solid evidence that he had training to do his job.

The police officer who killed him would appear to be the one who lacked proper training.

 

[Gun Nut]

This is going to sound racist, because it probably is... but "being black" is not a problem for black people... it's "acting black".

First part - bingo, 2nd part is utter nonsense. I guess I may be a little "culturist".. which is to say, white people that act "gangsta" are just as likely to get themselves shot.

My guess is you have clue what training Mr. Roberson had or what training security guards receive. It is pretty clear you have no idea how a "good guy with gun" acts in this situation.

Mr. Roberson was not breaking any laws. There is no indication that Mr Roberson was not threatening the police officer. Yet here you are persistently insisting Mr. Roberson deserved his fate.

Yes he was breaking laws... specifically, a law that liberals are very concerned with. The law he broke was that he did NOT have a licesnse to carry a gun on him. He was ILLEGALLY CARRYING A GUN.

It's almost impossible for the cop to have known that during the incident... it is something they would have found out fairly quickly, though.

My only reason for having brought that up before (and besides you being wrong about this guy breaking no laws despite me pointing that out earlier), is that it indicates he likely didn;t know what the fuck he was doing and put himself in danger by not acting like someone who is authorized to carry (like, for example, not shoving his gun into someone's back who is laying on the ground while the cops were on their way - just one example we know about).

 

[Gun Nut]

Oh no. He clearly had two guns then. One to "wave around in a cop's face" and another to have jammed in someone's back.

"jamming a gun in someone's back" is not what a trained security guard does... This guy not only had NO training (assumed from the fact in the article that he had NO permit to be carrying that gun), but apparently ACTED like anything but a security professional.

No, he had a licence for the gun and his ability to successfully disarm and restrain an armed attacker while stopping anyone he was assigned to protect from getting killed seems like fairly solid evidence that he had training to do his job.

The police officer who killed him would appear to be the one who lacked proper training.

You are simply flat-out wrong. reread the article. He had the required paperwork to own a gun. He did NOT have the required paperwork to carry the gun in public or for a job. To get that permit (concealed carry), you must take and pass a class that teaches you how to handle yourself in exactly these types of situations.

 

[Ford]

Am I the only one who thinks that it's odd that a guy who calls himself Gun Nut is so cool with the cops shooting someone because they have a gun?

I think it's extra super odd that someone who calls himself that is trying so hard to justify the shooting of a man who was doing what gun nuts in general think is the right thing to do.

In addition to doing his job (he was an armed security guard, after all), he did what the NRA narrative said you're supposed to do in this situation. He - an armed citizen - saw a potential mass shooting beginning, drew his sidearm, and confronted the bad guy. He won his conflict, subduing the villain and undoubtedly averting a situation where many innocent people could have died. If the cop had correctly assessed the situation, this guy would not only be alive, and not only be a hero, but be an example for the gun nut crowd of "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Instead, he's dead. The bad guy is alive.

 

[Elixir]

Twitter is not the authoritative source of reality... nor is the linked article.

That doesn't seem to stop you from making up shit that is NOT in that article, presenting it as fact and failing to cite or link to a source.
You are either a very dishonest broker in this conversation or embarrassed by your own inability to create links. If the latter, once again I offer help.

BTW, I spend most of my days in conversation with actual tactical officers who are members of NTOA, CBP, USSS, FBI and SOF operators - plus some people like you who have taken classes, sent a lot of lead downrange, and consider themselves competent tactical operators. Most all of them - even the latter category - with whom I have discussed this event at all, agree that it appears that the cop flat out fucked up. Is there some reason I should believe you?

 

[scombrid]

Oh no. He clearly had two guns then. One to "wave around in a cop's face" and another to have jammed in someone's back.

"jamming a gun in someone's back" is not what a trained security guard does... This guy not only had NO training (assumed from the fact in the article that he had NO permit to be carrying that gun), but apparently ACTED like anything but a security professional.

.. and that is the common theme that I see. Not the color of people's skin... but the "shade" they act with.. that gets them shot.

This is going to sound racist, because it probably is... but "being black" is not a problem for black people... it's "acting black". I guess I may be a little "culturist".. which is to say, white people that act "gangsta" are just as likely to get themselves shot.

that "gangsta" culture that gets so many people hurt is the issue. It is literally a set of behaviors specifically designed to LOOK criminal... be tough acting... against any authority... "fuck the police" attitude. wear a hoodie (to hide your face) and your pants low (due to the weight of the guns on you).. copying rappers style, who themselves are copying actual gangsters.
It just does not mix well with other cultures that are not based on being as "criminal looking as possible".

But I am not saying this particular black gentleman (whom I know nothing about) was acting in any particular way, except clearly was not acting like "the good guy with a gun"

You sure know a lot about how the guy was acting for having not been there. Waving the gun in the cops' faces, jamming it in someone's back, acting black...

 

[laughing dog]

This is going to sound racist, because it probably is... but "being black" is not a problem for black people... it's "acting black".

First part - bingo, 2nd part is utter nonsense. I guess I may be a little "culturist".. which is to say, white people that act "gangsta" are just as likely to get themselves shot.

My guess is you have clue what training Mr. Roberson had or what training security guards receive. It is pretty clear you have no idea how a "good guy with gun" acts in this situation.

Mr. Roberson was not breaking any laws. There is no indication that Mr Roberson was not threatening the police officer. Yet here you are persistently insisting Mr. Roberson deserved his fate.

Yes he was breaking laws... specifically, a law that liberals are very concerned with. The law he broke was that he did NOT have a licesnse to carry a gun on him. He was ILLEGALLY CARRYING A GUN.

You are wrong. He did not have a concealed gun permit. That does not necessarily mean he was breaking the law by having an unconcealed gun.

It's almost impossible for the cop to have known that during the incident... it is something they would have found out fairly quickly, though.

Correct, so it is irrelevant to the police officer's decision.

My only reason for having brought that up before (and besides you being wrong about this guy breaking no laws despite me pointing that out earlier), is that it indicates he likely didn;t know what the fuck he was doing and put himself in danger by not acting like someone who is authorized to carry (like, for example, not shoving his gun into someone's back who is laying on the ground while the cops were on their way - just one example we know about).

Actually, your response is consistent with your penchant for making stuff up because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[ZiprHead]

This guy not only had NO training (assumed from the fact in the article that he had NO permit to be carrying that gun), but apparently ACTED like anything but a security professional.

First of all, nowhere has it been said the guard was carrying the weapon concealed. Second of all, carrying in the place of business is legal in Illinois.

Open carry of firearms is generally illegal, except when hunting, or in a fixed place of business with the owner's permission, or in one's abode

 Gun laws in Illinois

 

[marc]

a black shirt with the words "Security" on it is not a "Uniform"... I have one of those, except it says "Insecurity".

?? a Gun Nut that is insecure? Trying to be a cliche eh?

 

[Elixir]

This guy not only had NO training (assumed from the fact in the article that he had NO permit to be carrying that gun)

Since you seem to be only semi-literate, I have posted the entire text from the OP article below, and hope you can get someone to read it to you:

A black security guard this weekend prevented a potential mass shooting at the bar where he worked — and was then gunned down by an Illinois police officer who mistook him for a criminal.

WGN TV reports that 26-year-old armed security guard Jemel Roberson was working at Manny’s Blue Room Bar in Robbins, Illinois on Sunday morning when he was attacked by a gun-wielding man whom witnesses say had been kicked out of the bar earlier in the evening.
Roberson returned fire on the man and managed to subdue him and pin him to the ground.

However, when a Midlothian, Illinois police officer showed up on the scene, he opened fire and killed Roberson because he thought Roberson was the true assailant.

“Everybody was screaming out, ‘he was a security guard,’ and they basically saw a black man with a gun and killed him,” witness Adam Harris tells WGN TV.

The Midlothian Police Department has so far released very little information about the shooting and is only confirming that one of its officers was involved. According to WGN, the State Police Public Integrity Task Force is running an investigation of the officer’s decision to open fire on Roberson.

Pastor Patricia Hill of Chicago’s Purposed Church tells WGN TV that she’s horrified to see another young black man fatally shot by police despite the fact that he had risked his own life to prevent a potential mass shooting.

“Once again it’s the continued narrative that we see of shoot first, ask questions later,” she said.

Now I ask for your source that says the security guard had no training and was carrying illegally (which you stated as fact in patented alt-right ALLCAPS). I have not stated that "he had a license for the gun" or that "he was exceptionally well-trained" because neither of those "apparent facts" are mentioned in the OP article, which I have to assume is the one you keep talking about. But you keep telling us that it says things that it does not, and stating your unfounded conclusions as facts.
I strongly suspect that rather than read the article, you watched a video (which I did not) and inferred some of what you say from that. If that's the case, you should post or provide a link to the video you watched.
Be honest, and perhaps you can get some traction here, rather than playing the fool.

 

[James Brown]

Yes he was breaking laws... specifically, a law that liberals are very concerned with. The law he broke was that he did NOT have a licesnse to carry a gun on him. He was ILLEGALLY CARRYING A GUN.

It's almost impossible for the cop to have known that during the incident... it is something they would have found out fairly quickly, though.

Is it your position that if someone is carrying a gun without a license (assuming that this man didn't), then the police should shoot that person to death?

 

[Jarhyn]

Why don't you ever cite or link to your "sources"?

Even taking it at face value, the scene he described is not an acceptable grounds for the police opening fire. One person in control of a situation, especially when the guy doesn't resist or reject the advance of the police, is not a "threat".

source for the claim that the guy "didn't resist or reject the advance of the police"?

My source is the same as everyone else's.. I just.. you know... actually read it. I also googled other sources, but they all had the identical story.

His gun stayed on the perp. He did not shoot the perp. We can be reasonably sure he didn't yell "if you get any closer, I'll shoot". Unless you provide evidence he did, the default position to take is that he didn't, and there is no sane situation involving a security guard securing a shooter, where the guard threatens police.

 

[RavenSky]

Key: "man with a gun". If you're in a situation where the police are coming you do not want a gun in your hand!

BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!

What do we hear with shootings? The place should have had security. Well, this place had a shooting, security apprehended one of the shooters, security was killed by the police.

false equivalence... "Having security" is not equal to "waving a gun around in a cop's face"

false claim... "waving a gun around in a cop's face" is your bullshit claim, not a fact

 

[RavenSky]

Am I the only one who thinks that it's odd that a guy who calls himself Gun Nut is so cool with the cops shooting someone because they have a gun?

No.

I'll leave it at that, though.

 

[Elixir]

A good example of why giving guns to teachers would be a crazy idea and why if everyone carried a gun we would be less safe.

A good point. If the cops are going to show up five minutes later and start shooting the people who are pointing guns at others, having the teachers subdue the attackers and point guns at them within the first five minutes is a bad idea for those teachers.

After the latest California massacre I had a discussion with my workmate who is a rabid gun nut and Trump supporter. I asked him this very specific question:

"If everyone eighteen years and older had been carrying concealed would there have been more or less gun fatalities?"

He had to think for a few moments before answering "less."

Maybe you should have asked the same question about the Las Vegas scenario.