Suburban security guard stops shooter, gets killed by police

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some thoughts, based on this article.

- the family hired notorious hearse chaser Lee Merritt. They are out for money.
- there is disagreement whether he had any clothing identifying him as security guard.

- he was told to drop the gun but refused.


Also, I wonder if the original shooter will be charged with felony murder.

This looks like a tragic mistake. The police did not intentionally kill a security guard, nor is there any indication at all that race played a role, contrary to Underseer's hobby horsing.

Looks like Gun Nut got it right--the guy didn't handle the situation properly.

You mean the security guy that subdued a shooter without killing him didn't handle the situation right? If someone can subdue an armed man without shooting them, it sounds like they did something right. It would also imply they would know better how to not fuck around with the police once they show up.

Multiple orders to drop the gun and he didn't--utter stupidity.

Yeah, your insistence that this is what the guy did regardless of what the other witnesses said is utter stupidity. Of course the Police will spin this otherwise.

 

[Jarhyn]

You mean the security guy that subdued a shooter without killing him didn't handle the situation right? If someone can subdue an armed man without shooting them, it sounds like they did something right. It would also imply they would know better how to not fuck around with the police once they show up.

Multiple orders to drop the gun and he didn't--utter stupidity.

Yeah, your insistence that this is what the guy did regardless of what the other witnesses said is utter stupidity. Of course the Police will spin this otherwise.

When someone is saying to do something idiotic, and you don't do the idiotic thing, and they shoot you for it, that is entirely on the idiot that said to do idiotic things; it isn't on you for not being an idiot.

If they DID insist he drop the gun, the police were being idiots and asking for something entirely unrealistic an unreasonable, prior to securing the shooter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I understand where you're coming from in principle, but the fact is that in a live-fire situation, having a weapon in one's hand marks you as a bigger threat in the mind of the LEO. Nothing excuses illegal police shootings, but we should try to understand what's going on in those situations rather than applying good principles that don't really take into account things like human fear or limited situational awareness.

Police officers are supposed to trained to deal with fear and to assess the situations.

One of my sons served in Afghanistan. One of his duties was to go on walking tours in villages where every male was armed. They were under strict orders to only shoot when actually attacked (i.e. fired upon). If soldiers in a combat situation can withhold their fire until fired upon, I think police officers can hold their fire until at least a gun is pointed towards them.

I completely agree. Training is paramount ... but training out raw feelings is notoriously difficult. That point doesn't seem terribly germane here, because the policeman in this case seems to have acted in a criminally irresponsible manner rather than out of direct fear.

I'm glad your son came home safely.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Forgive my pointing out the obvious, the vast majority of security guards are not CCW on the job -- they wear their weapons openly.

I haven't yet read up on the training this guard had received, nor on his required certs for bearing arms on the job. If you have a link supporting your point I'd be happy to read about it. Don't take it personally, but I take everything I read online with healthy skepticism, especially when the discussion is ideologically-driven.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Forgive my pointing out the obvious, the vast majority of security guards are not CCW on the job -- they wear their weapons openly.

I haven't yet read up on the training this guard had received, nor on his required certs for bearing arms on the job. If you have a link supporting your point I'd be happy to read about it. Don't take it personally, but I take everything I read online with healthy skepticism, especially when the discussion is ideologically-driven.

That's already been shown to be wrong. The registration he had was all that was required for him to have a gun at his workplace.

I'm assuming that this was some talking point on the right wing blogosphere to once again demonize the black guy whom the cops shot in order to argue how it's not a bad thing that they did.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Your point is apt. I took a look through Illinois state law regarding CCW requirements. It offers several exemptions covering police officers, military personnel on duty ... and this passage here:

(5) Persons licensed as private security contractors,

private detectives, or private alarm contractors, or employed by a private security contractor, private detective, or private alarm contractor agency licensed by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, if their duties include the carrying of a weapon under the provisions of the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint Vendor, and Locksmith Act of 2004, while actually engaged in the performance of the duties of their employment or commuting between their homes and places of employment. A person shall be considered eligible for this exemption if he or she has completed the required 20 hours of training for a private security contractor, private detective, or private alarm contractor, or employee of a licensed private security contractor, private detective, or private alarm contractor agency and 20 hours of required firearm training, and has been issued a firearm control card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

The relevant section may be read in full here.

I'm looking to see if he was issued a Firearm Control Card. If so, he didn't need a CCW.

Can't find it right now, though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's already been shown to be wrong. The registration he had was all that was required for him to have a gun at his workplace.

Not exactly. In Illinois, if one is carrying a firearm as a private security guard, one must have in personal possession a Firearms Control Card certifying that the state recognizes the guard as qualified with his weapon.

I can't find one way or the other whether Mr Roberson had one issued to him and on his person.

 

[Artemus]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's already been shown to be wrong. The registration he had was all that was required for him to have a gun at his workplace.

Not exactly. In Illinois, if one is carrying a firearm as a private security guard, one must have in personal possession a Firearms Control Card certifying that the state recognizes the guard as qualified with his weapon.

I can't find one way or the other whether Mr Roberson had one issued to him and on his person.

Maybe. However, is the claim that he was carrying an assumption? His co-worker says he kept his gun in his car. If he kept it in his trunk, it is not considered carrying in Illinois. Also, police did not state it was Roberson's firearm. It may have been the shooter's weapon and been wrestled from the shooter by security.

If you consider, security personnel likely know the laws about carrying a gun. So, he likely would not carry unless legal by leaving the gun in his trunk as a last resort.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xmqF7lUxHUk

 

[RavenSky]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

It's certainly looking that way. They initially reported it as killing the bad guy, but subsequently acknowledged it wasn't the shooter that they killed.

Anybody want to guess the complexion of the dead man? (His name was Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

Looks like he wasn't a good guy, but rather an accomplice of the shooter.

 

[laughing dog]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

Looks like he wasn't a good guy, but rather an accomplice of the shooter.

Why does it look like he was an accomplice to the shooter? Do you have link with such a report?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

Looks like he wasn't a good guy, but rather an accomplice of the shooter.

Where did you pull that from?

 

[Artemus]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

Looks like he wasn't a good guy, but rather an accomplice of the shooter.

Where did you pull that from?

When the lack of rational gun laws lead to a senseless death, the victim must be blamed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

Looks like he wasn't a good guy, but rather an accomplice of the shooter.

Why does it look like he was an accomplice to the shooter? Do you have link with such a report?

Have you actually been reading about what happened? Looks like he was with the shooter and then ran with a gun in his hand.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Looks like he was with the shooter ...

That is speculation, though.

 

[Derec]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

Looks like he wasn't a good guy, but rather an accomplice of the shooter.

Why does it look like he was an accomplice to the shooter? Do you have link with such a report?

From the CNN article Artemus posted:

But late Friday, police changed that story, saying that while Bradford was involved in "some aspect of the altercation" and was armed with a handgun, he likely did not fire the rounds that injured the two others.[...]
"Investigators now believe that more than two individuals were involved in the initial altercation," Rector said. "This information indicates that there is at least one gunman still at large."

May not be enough to conclude with certainty that he was an accomplice, but that is what is being suggested. It is certainly not enough to claim he was a "good guy with a gun" either.
He also wasn't "active duty army".

More than one speaker referred to Bradford's military service. But while Bradford noted on his Facebook page that he was a US Army combat engineer, he never completed advanced individual training and did not serve, said Lt. Col. Manny Ortiz, an Army spokesman.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like he was with the shooter ...

That is speculation, though.

Less of a speculation than that he was a GGwaG.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Less of a speculation than that he was a GGwaG.

"some aspect of the altercation" can mean good guy with a gun. Who knows? The police clearly didn't.

 

[laughing dog]

Why does it look like he was an accomplice to the shooter? Do you have link with such a report?

Have you actually been reading about what happened? Looks like he was with the shooter and then ran with a gun in his hand.

I have read it. Why do you think it looks like he was with the shooter?

 

[laughing dog]

Less of a speculation than that he was a GGwaG.

No, it isn't. I have no idea what role he played during this crime. At this writing, neither do the police. Which means you and LP are simply making groundless conjectures at this time.