Good guy with a gun

[BallistixOnZ490]

The most important question here is clearly, what race was he?

De'Shawna defensively picked up La-fayfay's gun and shot La-fayfay in the head, only in turn to be shot himself by Tyronne who mistook him to be the aggressor.

Poor De'Shawna, he loved his mother. Who knows where his later found hidden stash of cocaine had come from? La-fayfay had likely placed it there to set him up.

 

[godinman]

Why didn't the responding officer try to engage verbally with Johnny Hurley? I think we can guess the guy wasn't pointing the weapon at the officer who shot him.

It seems this officer turned up to the scene literally all guns blazing.

The police should be bending over backwards for this guys family and give him a proper send off.

This is what I don't like about the American police, while I understand the stakes are a lot higher when guns are involved, when mistakes are made they don't take full responsibility for it. The officer in question should have some form of punishment. He shot an innocent man due to his attitude. I can see how an understandable case can be made in defense of the cop. But at the end of the day he shot an innocent man! Even if he didnt realise it at the time I'd feel pretty crappy if that was me. Shooting an innocent man who had defended your cop brother.

The highlighted section sort of makes the rest of your post pointless.

 

[Angilion]

Why didn't the responding officer try to engage verbally with Johnny Hurley? I think we can guess the guy wasn't pointing the weapon at the officer who shot him. [..]

Guessing is one thing. Evidence is another.

Here's another guess. A scenario from two different viewpoints:

Viewpoint 1:

Out of the blue, you witness a murder and good evidence that the killer intends to kill more people. You're not trained for this, let alone experienced in anything like this sort of situation. This is way out of your experience. You're highly stressed, but you keep it together and act. You kill the killer.

You're highly stressed. Primal situation, flight or fight instincts activated, adrenaline banging through you and now on top of that you've just shot someone. Five or six times. They're almost certainly dead. You're not in a calm, rational frame of mind. What next? Their gun. Get it away from them. Maybe unload it. Make it safe.

You hear a shout and instinctively turn towards it...

Viewpoint 2:

You're called to a shooting. Multiple shots fired, active shooter. You might be killed at any second. Keep that thought in your mind. Other people might be killed if you don't stop the killer. Mass shootings have happened before in your country and will probably happen again. This could easily be another one. It's your duty to prevent that. Keep that thought in your mind too. But mainly that you might be killed at any second. This second, maybe. Or the next. Or the next.

You find two bodies on the ground and a person holding a gun.

You "engage verbally" with them, ordering them to drop the weapon.

They turn to face you. With a gun in their hand. With two bodies on the ground nearby. You have a fraction of a second before they can shoot you...



Guns remove most or all of the time to think.

 

[BowdonUK]

...

This is a trained policeman with firearms experience. He's not the average person who would be highly stressed. The cops have weapons training purely to counter any stress.

It's not like the cop was on the scene when the shooting started. He could have stayed way out of range, or at least in a defensive posture.

We don't know if the guy he shot was holding the gun towards the police officer.

The guy could have just picked up the gun to move it away from the suspect he just killed and the cop could have arrived at that moment.

If you were a cop and got called to an active shooter would you drive within range and immediately engage him... OR would you drive within sight to try and scout him out? Remember you have the element of surprise.

The highlighted section sort of makes the rest of your post pointless.

My guess is just a guess. We don't know what happened at the point of contact. But what we do know is the cop chose to instantly engage him.

 

[Angilion]

This is a trained policeman with firearms experience. He's not the average person who would be highly stressed. The cops have weapons training purely to counter any stress. [..]

The cop is the second viewpoint in my guess, not the first. I didn't explicitly state that because I thought it was obvious from the description of the viewpoints.

Police training in the USA is not always very good. They might or might not have have good and relevant training recently. Or at all. In some places, police firearms training is target shooting at a range. In any case, all the training in the world won't give you more time.

If you were a cop and got called to an active shooter would you drive within range and immediately engage him... OR would you drive within sight to try and scout him out?

In an urban environment, if you're within sight of someone armed with a rifle you're almost certainly within their range. As is anyone else in sight who might be killed while you're staying out of range.

I'm not saying that my guess is absolutely what happened. I'm saying it's possibly what happened.

 

[Caracus2k]

Why didn't the responding officer try to engage verbally with Johnny Hurley? I think we can guess the guy wasn't pointing the weapon at the officer who shot him.

Here's some research done on the matter , and yes I am aware that in this case the male was holding the shooters larger/ more unwieldly AR-15 at the time. But he was after all still armed with a handgun.

Reasonableness-and-Reaction-Time.pdf (researchgate.net)

“Suspects” in the research were 30 male and female CJ students, averaging about 22 years old and mostly Caucasians. The test subjects were 24 male volunteers recruited from an active-shooter training class at a regional SWAT conference. They averaged nearly 10 years’ policing experience, with nearly five years on SWAT, and were considered “elite...particularly [in] the use of deadly force.” They averaged about 34 years old and slightly more than half were Caucasian.

Armed with a Glock training pistol that fired marking cartridges, each officer progressed through a series of 10 rooms in an abandoned school, presumably in response to a “generic ‘person with a gun’ call.” In each room, the officer confronted a suspect armed with a similar pistol at a distance of 10 feet. In some cases, the suspect’s gun was at his/her side, pointed at the floor. In others, the gun was pointed at the suspect’s own head in a suicidal pose.

According to prior instruction, one-fifth of the suspects followed the officer’s order to surrender peaceably. The rest, designated as attackers, were told to try to shoot the officer any time they chose “after an initial command to put down the gun was given.” In all cases, officers had their gun up and on target at the outset of the encounter and were instructed to “attempt to shoot first” as soon as they perceived a move to shoot them.

Later, the research team conducted a meticulous frame-by-frame analysis of video recordings of 159 of the shooting exchanges.

The model examining the average firing times of the suspects revealed that an average of 0.38 seconds elapsed from the initial movement until they fired. The model examining the reaction times of the officers found that they responded in an average of 0.39 seconds

In reality police officers don't have that much time to make a decision and the 'wait and see/ verbal challenge' model when you think you are dealing with an active shooter is a good way to get yourself shot first.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

'Trained US policeman' = Trigger happy redneck with gun.

 

[Caracus2k]

'Trained US policeman' = Trigger happy redneck with gun.

I'm not sure casual racism is a good argument tbh. American police training may be inconsistent and I am sure big improvements can be made but there is a fairly solid body of research concerning the issues of human reaction times and firearms.

GRAEME McLAGAN: In the last ten years police in Britain have shot dead 24 people. They have shot and injured 30 more. Some were armed and dangerous. Others were completely innocent. Many of these cases have become marred in controversy with claims that police opened fire recklessly. Now, in the age of the suicide bomber, the stakes have been raised.

LORD STEVENS: If the decision of the firearms officer is wrong, the likelihood is that hundreds of people could lose their lives.

McLAGAN: New scientific evidence reveals what's going on in the brain and body of a firearms officer when they shoot someone.

BILL LEWINSKI: If the officer started reacting as soon as they saw movement, this is where the bullet would strike. Every officer that we tested in our study, every single one, would shoot in the back 100% of the time.

McLAGAN: The science shows why even highly trained officers can get things wrong.

break/

McLAGAN: Dr Lewinski's team timed hundreds of volunteers, copying movements used by suspects and police officers in shooting encounters. This gave a timeframe for a suspect making an action and for a police officer's reaction to it.

LEWINSKI: In the time span of two seconds, the average subject can fire 9 bullets at an officer in the time span it takes an officer to draw, point the gun and fire. If the officer only draws and fires from here, the subject will shoot 7 bullets at the officer. The reality is, in the real world the man who starts first wins.

McLAGAN: When Lewinski applied these timings to the Dan May case the results were remarkable. In the time it took the officer to react the suspect had already turned away before the officer's bullet hit him.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Redneck is racist?

Its the US equivalent of Chav.

 

[VincentHanna]

Redneck is racist?

Its the US equivalent of Chav.

Well we've got people claiming Gammon is racist, so Redneck would also be, under that ridiculous notion.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Well we've got people claiming Gammon is racist, so Redneck would also be, under that ridiculous notion.

If the term was made by white people to describe other white people then its not racism but classism. And you have however many American shows that endear redneck / southern culture like that honey boo boo trash.

Usually gun loving, owning and wielding trigger happy types tend to fall into that category.

 

[VincentHanna]

"White Trash" is another

 

[PlacidCasual]

Redneck is racist?

If we follow the unimpeachable logic of racism, it is racist if anyone thinks it's racist. Intent or context has nothing to add to the assessment.

Just in case there is any doubt, read the above with the assumption that sarcasm is present.

 

[Maccy]

The most important question here is clearly, what race was he?

How on earth is this the most important question here?

 

[The Running Man]

How on earth is this the most important question here?

If he's black expect riots, kneeling down, investigations, allegations of institutional racism etc.


If he's white, we will be informed that this is NOT the time for All Lives Matter and that he died of white privilege and therefore it is inconsequential.

 

[Maccy]

If he's black expect riots, kneeling down, investigations, allegations of institutional racism etc.


If he's white, we will be informed that this is NOT the time for All Lives Matter and that he died of white privilege and therefore it is inconsequential.

How about ignoring colour for a change? Can you do that?

 

[The Running Man]

How about ignoring colour for a change? Can you do that?

The press will largely ignore the repercussions based upon colour.

I wonder if BLM would be able to ignore colour, to my knowledge they are and have been the ones rioting/looting etc if only they could ignore race and look at the facts.

 

[Efour]

How about ignoring colour for a change? Can you do that?

well thats the very definition of racism from a white man, you should be ashamed... how dare you...

 

[Maccy]

The press will largely ignore the repercussions based upon colour.

I wonder if BLM would be able to ignore colour, to my knowledge they are and have been the ones rioting/looting etc if only they could ignore race and look at the facts.

I don't know why you care so much...oh wait just seen who I'm quoting...

@Efour shush you

 

[Angilion]

How on earth is this the most important question here?

It will determine the large scale social and political effects. So yes, it's the most important question for very practical reasons.

How about ignoring colour for a change? Can you do that?

Followers of an extremely powerful ideology choose not to, so it can't be ignored because they prevent it being ignored. By current standards, you (and, for a rather more famous example, Martin Luther King Jr) are hyper super duper racist because you're not racist.