MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Black Security Guard Uses Gun to Prevent Violence, Cops Show Up and Kill Him

"Everybody was screaming out, 'Security!' He was a security guard."

RobersonScreenshot via WGN9Jemel Roberson was working as a security guard at Manny's Blue Room Lounge in Robbins, Chicago, last weekend when a fight broke out. He acted heroically—using his gun to protect innocent people. Then the police killed him.

The incident transpired around 4:00 a.m., after several drunken customers were ejected from the bar. Witnesses told WGN9 that one of these people came back with a gun and started shooting. Roberson, a 26-year-old black man, was armed, and returned fire. He was able to detain the shooter by pinning him to the ground and placing his knee on the suspect's back. But when the police arrived, they thought Roberson was the assailant, even though he was wearing a vest that said "security."

"Everybody was screaming out, 'Security!' He was a security guard," Adam Harris, a witness, told reporters. "And they still did their job, and saw a black man with a gun."

The police shot and killed Roberson. He was the only casualty; the shooter and three other people were injured.

Midlothian Police released a statement describing the incident as follows: "A Midlothian officer encountered a subject with a gun and was involved in an officer-involved shooting. The subject the officer shot was later pronounced deceased at an area hospital." They plan to investigate.

Roberson was the father of a nine-month-old baby. His family is pursuing a lawsuit, and has created a GoFundMe page to help with burial expenses.

This is an example of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun, only to be murdered by another bad guy with a gun: the state, in this case. And while we don't yet know just how irresponsible the cops' behavior was here, we know it resulted in an innocent man's death—and that multiple people were warning police not to shoot.

An innocent person's death is always tragic, but those who support the Second Amendment should be especially perturbed that responsible gun use got a man killed by cops.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via WGN9

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • creech||

    I guess it is only on tv that the good cop (Danny Reagan, for instance) doesn't blast a suspect immediately upon seeing a gun. Heck, if they gun down someone for a "furtive move" I guess the actual sight of a gun, no matter where it is pointed, sends our "well trained first responder hero" into his or her Dirty Harry response.

  • ||

    Heck, if they gun down someone for a "furtive move" I guess the actual sight of a gun, no matter where it is pointed, sends our "well trained first responder hero" into his or her Dirty Harry response.

    Dirty Harry is too honorable, too reputable. You mean something more like a Sledge Hammer response.

  • Dillinger||

    +1 shoot first ask questions never

  • Longtobefree||

    In all fairness, Detective Callahan never shot a good guy.
    And if you actually watch and listen to Magnum Force, he gives one of the best arguments against vigilantes ever put on film.

  • ||

    +1 Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot!

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    A buddy said the first thing they taught in his concealed carry class is "drop it". Now we see why.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Dirty Harry held a disarmed bank robber at gun point for arrest, as I remember the movie. And didn't shoot the bank security either. Dirty Harry showed more restraint in use of force than than the cop who shot Castille, AndyLopez, Timur Rice, you name it. Stop blaming Dirty Harry.

  • steve sturm||

    I have no idea what Roberson was doing - specifically, with his gun - that would have justified the cop shooting him.

    Something I've thought about is how does a 'good guy with a gun' let the cops know he is the good guy when they arrive on the scene? Here, Roberson wasn't even shooting, what happens if/when a good guy is actually engaged in shooting at the bad guy? Are cops trained to conclude that everybody shooting or carrying a gun is a threat? How are they to assess - on the spot - whether the guy with a gun they encounter is good or bad?

    Obviously, yelling 'I'm a good guy' isn't realistic, and I wouldn't expect a cop to automatically accept that claim from anyone yelling it. And according to the reports, having bystanders yell 'he's security' isn't enough either (although it's unclear whether they yelled this before he was shot, or in reaction to his being shot).

    I don't have an answer, all I know is that if good guys with guns use those guns to stop a crime, there are going to be more of these tragic situations.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are cops trained to conclude that everybody shooting or carrying a gun is a threat?

    I believe that is indeed the case. Officer safety is the number one priority. Anyone with a gun must be considered a threat to officer safety. About the only thing that can get a cop fired is not killing someone who could be perceived as a potential threat to officer safety. Even if they're not. Better a thousand innocent people die than one cop be harmed.

  • bacchys||

    Only Blue Lives Matter.

  • No Time for Fishing||

    To that policeman and his family his life does matter most, and though he has it still it is ruined now. Too many times a year policeman show up to such a scene and get shot themselves. Many policeman today are just not brave enough and calm enough to always make the right choice. The modern threat to policemans lives is very real. Good luck to finding an easy solutions. Cops bad, black man good is not honest, or a solution to the problem.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Any law enforcement officer who believes that his primary duty is to be able to return to his family at the end of his shift should resign the force and become an accountant. The motto is "To Protect and Serve" not "To go Home Safely no Matter What".

    The job is dangerous, though not nearly as dangerous as being a farmer or a fisherman (look up the statistics if you doubt this). People unwilling to accept the risk of being fishermen should not become fishermen. The same applies to law enforcement officers.

  • Jacksonian76||

    THIS^^^^
    Officers are trained to always go home no matter what. Firefighters are trained to protect lives at their own risk. Officers should be taught the same things as firefighters - and that means waiting a split second longer than they would like when they think someone has a gun to be certain that they are shooting at an actual threat.

  • LarryA||

    I'd hate to be a cop trained that way, considering I would spend most of my life off-duty and not in uniform, and might get to be a detective or undercover officer.

    Going to lose a lot of cops.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

  • ||

    The problem is the militarization of police and I mean this from a tactical sense. Police, for some time, have been an occupying and domineering force. They appear on the scene neutralize any and all potential threats. There is no reconnaissance or threat assessments, no plan of attack or retreat, no cost/benefit. Just show up neutralize the hell out of the situation and take the surviving pieces off to jail. What used to be satire has become MO.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    Nailed it.

  • Teddy Pump||

    BINGO-BANGO-BONGO!!!

  • Eddy||

    "I don't have an answer, all I know is that if good guys with guns use those guns to stop a crime, there are going to be more of these tragic situations."

    At least the original shooter - the criminal - might have accumulated a few murders to his credit before the police arrived. As opposed to the guard - the person paid to risk his life - being the only fatality.

  • ||

    At least the original shooter - the criminal - might have accumulated a few murders to his credit before the police arrived. As opposed to the guard - the person paid to risk his life - being the only fatality.

    I wonder how much the lack of guns in Chicago had to do with this?

    The guy that chased off the church shooter in Texas didn't end up getting shot by police. Almost like the officers in TX don't see a gun and automatically assume "He's gonna kill someone!"

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    THIS^^^

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I've told several officers in Red states that I'm packing during interactions (so as not to get shot...yeah, I know), and there reaction has been, "Why in hell would I care about that?"

    It's a Blue mindset.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    *their

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Really? I'd be scared shitless to do that, but I live in a blue state.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The cops just want to know where the gun is. Wife had a nice chat with a cop about her preferred methods of concealed carry.

    disclaimer. I am white. So is wife. YMMV.

  • ArmyATC||

    In some states it is a requirement to report carrying a gun in any encounter with law enforcement. In the state of Alaska pretty much the first words out of your mouth need to be "I have a gun in the car."

  • Naaman Brown||

    Not required to inform here in Tennessee.

    Plus we have had cops responding to situations where residents were detaining burglars at gun point. The cops took over detention of the burglar and did not shoot the resident.

    Cops in anti-gun blue states are trained see-gun-shoot.

  • TangoDelta||

    Never, never, never use the word "gun", always refer to it as a firearm because it slows the tone down where it needs to be. If anyone says "gun" Rambofficer will take it as a warning that he needs to shoot now and shoot indiscriminately.

    The correct way is to have your license and carry permit ready to hand to the officer the instant he gets to the window. Do this with one hand while keeping the other on the wheel. Once he takes it move the free hand to the wheel. From there, keep your hands on the wheel at all times and announce when and where you are moving your hands even when it's to give or retrieve something to or from the fraidy-cop. Remember, if he hears the word "gun" or can't see both your hands very clearly he will have tunnel vision until his magazines are empty and his tazer's battery is dead.

    Always remember, these are the most delicate of sociopathic snowflakes and even the slightest of slights is more than enough to set them off on a killing spree. Remember, it's not a mass murder if a cop does it, it's collateral damage.

  • PubliusVA||

    Also not a bad idea to lead with the carry permit rather than the fact that a firearm is present: "Officer, I just want to let you know that I have a concealed carry permit and my firearm is in the car." This primes the officer with the idea that you have a legitimate, non-threatening reason to be in possession of a gun right before you mention it.

  • tommhan||

    I live in Virginia and have always told officers when stopped that I am armed while my hands are in plain site on the steering wheel, never a problem and we are a purple state.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I've had the same experience.

  • MikeP2||

    Yes. Police shootings are almost certainly correlated to the gun control lobby's efforts to de-normalize legal gun use and owners.
    It is absolutely a deep-blue mindset.

  • TxJack 112||

    Remember guns are illegal in Chicago so police assume everyone with one is a criminal especially since their murder rate is out of control.

  • Tionico||

    Slight difference.... that Sutherland Springs shooter was hit by the Good Guy, then hopped in a car and drove off down the road. Car was ID's by phone, coppers had spotted it. Guy persued, bad guy crashed car, coppers had no doubt who was whom.

    Besides, that happened in rural Texas, not Big City Chicago....... different mind set.
    Seems, from what we see here, copper was more than a bit twitchy on his index finger. Bad training. And/or bad protocol

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    It's weird talking to people from Chicago. The moment I say the word gun they get this shocked look on their face. I then have to remind them I'm from Texas where it isn't only criminals that have guns. Hell, we openly discuss at work what guns we each own and where we've shot them recently. More than one blue state person has lost their mind trying to tell us we're all going to proggie hell.

    And that no, we don't ride horses to work, settle disputes at high noon at ten paces, or do the nasty worth our sisters (unless she is hot).

  • D-Pizzle||

    "More than one blue state person has lost their mind trying to tell us we're all going to proggie hell."

    San Francisco?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Trained to conclude that?

    Anyone you don't know with a gun IS a potential threat. There's no training needed.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, the problem is the leap from potential threat to person who must be shot immediately without bothering to find out if there is an actual threat.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's just safer if the cops shoot everyone when they show up on a scene. Then they can later determine who was armed, who wasn't, and who was an actual threat by examining the corpses. Shoot first and ask questions later, it's becoming part of their training. No need to worry about court results either when "I was following procedure" is an ironclad defense.

  • Naaman Brown||

    You would think the powers that be would want to stop paying out millions for wrongful deaths and having their cops hated.

  • TangoDelta||

    No, the powers that be don't give half a shit since it isn't their money it's the taxpayers who bear the cost. Besides it's much cheaper to pay out for wrongful death than for someone severely injured or paralyzed. Let's be honest, when it comes to politicians they're almost as sociopathic as their cops are. The only thing I can figure is the lack of accountability will do that to a person.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Always a good idea to "soften up" a crime scene before doing any actual investigating.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Are cops trained to conclude that everybody shooting or carrying a gun is a threat?

    Cops are trained to assume that EVERYONE who is not a cop is a threat.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Are cops trained to conclude that everybody shooting or carrying a gun is a threat?

    Yes.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Actually, it's even worse than that. They're literally trained to assume that every person they come across is a potentially deadly threat until proven otherwise. And no, I'm not exaggerating.

  • Benitacanova||

    In the movies they shout "drop your weapon." But in the movies teens are super mature and have serious "talks" to resolve issues. They even apologize. Movies are nuts.

  • TangoDelta||

    We need a realistic movie where cops walk around in a constant state of fear and get all herky jerky with the trigger at the slightest change in their environment.

    It's a wonder they don't shoot up their computer screen when the cursor responds when they move the mouse. My guess is that IT has remapped their mice to be left handed for right handed shooters and disabled the button under the trigger finger so they don't go click happy on every virus attachment.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "We need a realistic movie where cops walk around in a constant state of fear and get all herky jerky with the trigger at the slightest change in their environment."

    Lets just make sure there are no dogs in the movie.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He was the only casualty; the shooter and three other people were injured.

    Does this mean he was the only fatality and there were three other casualties?

    This one, I suspect, gets prosecuted, unless they can somehow weasel his not having a concealed permit to mean something.

  • Longtobefree||

    Don't expect coherent, correct English from web writers.

  • JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy||

    I highly doubt this will be prosecuted...well, maybe charges brought, but no way is anything bad happening to this officer. No guilty charge, no disciplinary action (outside of maybe 2 weeks at a desk with pay), nothing.

    "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, Officer X was responding to a scene where there was a shooting in progress. Officer X saw a man assaulting another man with a gun in his hand. Officer X did his job. While the results may be tragic, we cannot let that tragedy forever irreparably harm the ability of police officers to do their job when people with guns attack other people. A guilty verdict here will cause this type of harm."

    No way a jury is going to convict this guy.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "I highly doubt this will be prosecuted..."

    The victim of the police here was a security guard. If he was properly certified / bonded as armed security, expect their union to try and generate political pressure to have this case prosecuted on top of any pressure from civil rights groups / BLM because the victim was black.

  • TuIpa||

    The... Security Guards union?

    Nobody gives a fuck what they want, if such a thing even exists there.

    Your entire post is one giant exercise is wishcasting while ignoring reality.

  • bacchys||

    Charges won't be brought. They'll make some noise about how it's tragic and blah, blah, and settle with the family.

    The taxpayers don't mind paying, after all.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The fatality, shot by the police was a security guard. If he was certified armed security (as seems likely):

    1. He had a permit, through his employer.
    2. He very likely was carrying openly, not concealed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They've already made a point to mention that he did not have a conceal carry permit.

  • Dadlobby||

    By what basis do we add "black" to the scenario? It looks to me like an armed security guard got mistaken for an armed assailant and was shot by a police officer and that's pretty much all we know. The use of race is a "dog whistle" (to use the lefts term) to insinuate that all police officers and departments are racist intent on causing harm to citizen's. The biased views are reinforced with the use of the term "murdered" for an incident which at worst is a negligent homicide and may even be a justifiable shooting based upon the facts of the case. As an ardent 2A supporter I (as I expect most) would certainly like to see a proper investigation done. But this type of slanderous non factual subjective reporting certainly doesn't help.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Even better - these were Midlothian cops that did the shooting. Anyone familiar with Midlothian would realize that the odds are pretty good that the cops are also black, although the news accounts are mysteriously silent on that point.

  • sarcasmic||

    If the officer was white it would have been "white cop kills black man." Not disclosing the cop's race indicates he it something other than white.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why would the officers be expected to be black? The incident occurred in Robbins but the trigger-happy officer was employed by Midlothian.

  • ||

    Why would the officers be expected to be black? The incident occurred in Robbins but the trigger-happy officer was employed by Midlothian.

    So, not actually illuminating the discussion at all; just signalling that you aren't from Chicagoland and, possibly, can't read.

  • ipsquire||

    Why does it matter that the officer was black, white or other? The point is that too many cops are trigger-happy cowards. Only racists assume that the race of the cop matters one whit.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    The race of the cop matters as far as the race of the victim matters. No point in signaling one without signaling the other.

  • ||

    Why does it matter that the officer was black, white or other?

    It doesn't. Rev. Kirkland is a retard either way.

  • Zeb||

    Black people are perfectly capable of having bias against black people.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I have news for you. Blacks are also afraid of armed black men.

  • bacchys||

    He was black. It's a fact.

    It's also a fact that blacks are shot at higher rates than whites. Unlike many of those other instances, this black man wasn't a "bad guy with a gun." He was a "good guy with a gun."

    Apparently wearing apparel that said "Security" on it wasn't enough to identify him as a good guy. It's not unreasonable to think the colour of his skin had something to do with that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You're trying to reason with gullible, uneducated, disaffected bigots. Good luck with that.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Some progs of my acquaintance are piping up on Derpbook that this incident proves:

    1) Cops are racists who shoot black people for fun, and
    2) Only cops should have guns.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Enough irony to start a steel mill.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Enough irony to start a steel mill."

    More like enough irony to run a dozen steel mills at full capacity for the next century.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Yea, I got the same thing going on as well in my news feed. Its not only cringe inducing, but baffling at the same time. The one I saw took a swipe at the NRA about "myth of the good guy with a gun". Funny how it never seems to occur to these (mostly) rich white bourgeoisie Proggie assholes either never think (or really don't care) that any of their disarmament schemes will start in predominantly poor and minority neighborhoods. There will be a lot more cops shooting a lot more black and brown men, women and children to carry out their retarded plans.

  • Robert||

    Isn't that amazing? Security employed by the municipality, although racist black-shooters, is OK to have guns, but security privately employed is not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Making guns the automatic threat is the problem here.

    Cops having and Us vs Them mentality and shooting first and asking questions later is also a problem.

    Having citizens shoot back at unlawful attempted murder by cops is one solution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The government tends to fear an armed populace.

    Its one of the the reasons that we have a 2nd Amendment.

  • Naaman Brown||

    A legitimate government deriving its power from the consent of the governed is protected by volunteers raised from the people (militia or volunteer army).

    An absolute state derives its illegitimate power from a state monopoly on force protected by hired Hessian mercenaries.

    Article I. Declaration of Rights.

    Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

    Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

  • sarcasmic||

    Having citizens shoot back at unlawful attempted murder by cops is one solution.

    That's about as stupid as stupid can get. All that would do is escalate the violence even more.

    a) end qualified immunity

    b) end public sector unions

    c) pay for settlements from police pension fund

    Do those things and the attitudes of police officers would change right quick.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look at that, Sarcasmic has good solutions inside our current government framework.

    Until then, I will continue to point guns at cops on my land who don't have a warrant.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I agree with sarcasmic that the shooting of cops would lead to more problems, not solutions.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I agree with TrickyVic who agrees with sarcasmic that escalating violence is not a solution for reducing violence.

  • TuIpa||

    I agree with everyone reading this that is disgusted by the three of you and your cowardly circlejerk.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    What's important to recognize is that Cops shooting too many innocent people is a symptom of an overall larger problem: Authoritarianism. Even if nobody gets shot, if police show up somewhere they suspect violence is taking place, they will make people get down on the ground and put their hands in plain sight. Failure to comply means getting tazed, beaten up, or shot.

    Policing anywhere that this is standard practice needs fundamental reforms, and people shooting at the cops is only going to cause a backlash into more authoritarianism. We don't want a crackdown, we want reforms.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Getting all those things done is far less likely than citizens getting fed up and starting to shoot back at cops. It might be stupid, but that's the path we're on.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    d) Garinsh the officer's wages to pay for settlements.

  • VinniUSMC||

    That's about as stupid as stupid can get. All that would do is escalate the violence even more.

    a) end qualified immunity

    b) end public sector unions

    c) pay for settlements from police pension fund

    Do those things and the attitudes of police officers would change right quick.

    I'm joining the circle jerk here. I totally agree with this.

  • Eddy||

    I should th ink the lesson for Chicago is clear - hire off-duty police officers to do your security.

  • ||

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hey, the encountered a subject with a gun. Seems pretty straightforward.

  • StackOfCoins||

    subject

    Interesting word choice that. The mask slips. Cops are thugs and when their gun discharges and kills a peasant subject it's just bad karma. One dies doing their job and they're all heroes.

    Fuck the police.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "A Midlothian officer encountered a subject with a gun and was involved in an officer-involved shooting. The subject the officer shot was later pronounced deceased at an area hospital."

    You have to give the cops point. You can't get more passive than that. I nominate the above statement for the Passive Voice Hall of Fame.

  • Zeb||

    Weirdly inconsistent passive voice, at that. Why is the first sentence passive voice and impersonal and the second active and specific about who did what to whom?

  • Vernon Depner||

    He screwed up. The whole point of using the weasel phrase "officer-involved shooting" is that you're never supposed to come right out and say that an officer shot someone. When he referred to "the subject the officer shot" he broke the rule and probably bit his tongue.

  • Rubbish!||

    How come we never read that a farmer was involved in a farmer-involved harvest?

    Or that a surgeon was involved in a surgeon-related surgery?

    It's almost like the police flacks want to claim they are being open and honest when really they dont want to give up any useful information. Passive and circular. That flack was involved in some good flack-involved flackery.

  • Zeb||

    Anyway, if the cops encountered him, wouldn't he be the object, not subject?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Aren't we citizens, not subjects?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    As far as the cops are concerned, if you aren't a cop, you are automatically a suspect.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Our sheriff office motto is "Citizens serving citizens".

  • Seamus||

    This doesn't just happen with black security officers. A few years ago, a black undercover D.C. Metropolitan Police officer was holding some robbery suspects at gunpoint. When the uniformed D.C. police showed up, they shot their brother cop dead. So if you think that the way to avoid this kind of mistake is to make guns illegal for anyone but cops (so that if a cop sees anyone holding a gun, he'll know he's dealing with a perp), you need to go a step further and forbid black cops to go armed while undercover. Or maybe we could just train cops to stop shooting first and asking questions later.

    Naaaaaah. That's crazy talk. Forget I mentioned it.

  • Longtobefree||

    The timeline is a bit fuzzy, and a critical fact is missing.
    Missing fact; did the security guard actually hit the perp, or wrestle him the ground after missing?
    That is important because what training I have been exposed to would dictate holstering my weapon after disarming the perp. I would not be pinning him to the ground with a drawn weapon (aka one handed) if he was unwounded.
    How much time passed before the pin and the cops showing up? Ideally, someone was on a call with 911, and could have reported the fact that there was a security guard, and the perp was on the ground.

  • ||

    Missing fact; did the security guard actually hit the perp, or wrestle him the ground after missing?

    Objection: Relevance! The dead security guard is not on trial here.

  • Rossami||

    How, precisely, do you propose that the security guard should have kept the aggressor pinned and passive on the ground once he put away his weapon? Are you proposing that all security guards should have handcuffs on their person? And the training necessary to put them on someone one-handed?

    Note that most police can't live up to that standard. Normal training is to have your partner cover the subject (from the side so that you are out of the line of fire) while you approach to apply the handcuffs.

  • ||

    Longtobefree is impugning him for a non-error that isn't his fault and proposing that he chose wrong in what is essentially an oxymoronic choice. The perp had a gun, Roberson is being given the false choice of letting the perp go but retaining the weapon or subduing the perp but leaving the weapon to the four winds.

    It's not clear that the officer didn't command Roberson to get off of the suspect and Roberson refused before being shot but, again, Roberson isn't on trial here.

  • majil||

    Never call the cops. Someone is going to get shot so just don't do it.

  • sarcasmic||

    About the only time I would call the cops is if I had a dead body and a damn good excuse.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No excuse is good enough if the cops find you with a dead body.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "I can think of no state of human misery that could not be made instantly worse by the arrival on the scene of a policeman." - Brendan Behan.

  • posmoo||

    what does this man's race have to do with it, unless robby is racebaiting?

  • PaulTheBeav||

    If the security guard had mistakenly shot a cop he would immediately be arrested for murder. Doubt the cop will ever be charged. Due process wouldn't be much of a consideration in either case.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Security guards have their own union. I wouldn't expect a conviction, but I do think charges are likely.

  • TuIpa||

    "Security guards have their own union"

    Lol no. A few security guards in a few places have weak collective representation.

    Most are Paul Blart, and you are simply wrong.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    No one expects the Security Guard Union!

  • JeremyR||

    To quote Jack Vance

    "The police mentality cannot regard a human being in terms other than as an item or object to be processed as expeditiously as possible. Public convenience or dignity means nothing; police prerogatives assume the status of divine law. Submissiveness is demanded. If a police officer kills a civilian, it is a regrettable circumstance: the officer was possibly overzealous. If a civilian kills a police officer all hell breaks loose. The police foam at the mouth. All other business comes to a standstill until the perpetrator of this most dastardly act is found out. Inevitably, when apprehended, he is beaten or otherwise tortured for his intolerable presumption. The police complain that they cannot function efficiently, that criminals escape them. Better a hundred unchecked criminals than the despotism of one unbridled police force."

  • Hank Phillips||

    Kewl! Thanks...

  • junyo||

    So, lowly, undertrained, underqualified citizen security guard with a gun manages to subdue the shooter and end an active shooter situation without lose of life.

    Highly trained, professional LEOs (aka "heroes") show up after the situation is already under control, and somehow manage to blast someone. And the absolute wrong someone, to boot.

    Something something, only people with the proper training should have acess to guns.

  • Vernon Depner||

    But their training works—no cops were injured.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "So, lowly, undertrained, underqualified citizen security guard with a gun"

    Certified armed guards probably have better firearms and use of force training than the cops do.

  • TuIpa||

    "Certified armed guards probably have better firearms and use of force training than the cops do."

    Stop smoking crack, getting a g license for example is child's play.

  • JeremyR||

    Which doesn't negate his assertion.

  • JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy||

    A seriously, the NRA, 2nd amendment foundation, GOA, etc. better be all over this or I'm going to be pissed.

  • JeremyR||

    This I why I don't support the NRA. They supposedly are the organization for gun owners, but they always back the police first.

    You cannot represent the rights of gun owners and suck up to the police at the same time.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I thought George H.W. Bush became the leftwing's hero by dropping his NRA memebrship over the NRA's denunciation of the federal police heroes of Ruby Ridge and Waco as "jack booted thugs".

    Which is it?

  • Naaman Brown||

    I thought George H.W. Bush became the leftwing's hero by dropping his NRA memebrship over the NRA's denunciation of the federal police heroes of Ruby Ridge and Waco as "jack booted thugs".

    Which is it?

  • Naaman Brown||

    I thought George H.W. Bush became the leftwing's hero by dropping his NRA memebrship over the NRA's denunciation of the federal police heroes of Ruby Ridge and Waco as "jack booted thugs".

    Which is it?

  • CLM1227||

    Detectives should be the only police force.

    Everyone should be their own police officer.

  • Duke of url||

    BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
    OK, what's going on here?
    /heroes

  • Vernon Depner||

    As Sgt. Darkow said to John Crawford, "GET ON THE BLAM GROUND BLAM!"

  • Bubba Jones||

    Sadly, this reinforces the argument that you should NEVER use your gun to protect someone else.

  • Rock Lobster||

    It would be interesting to see body camera and squad car footage. If it exists.

  • D-Pizzle||

    The camera(s) probably "malfunctioned."

  • Uncle Jay||

    Well of course Chicago cops are going to kill someone who is stop thugs from shooting innocent people.
    That's the Chicago Way.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Guns were seen.
    Pants were shat.
    Corpses were made.
    Commendations were handed out.

    Rinse, repeat.

  • TxJack 112||

    It was Chicago. Is anyone actually surprised the cops shot first and asked questions second?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Chicago is home to the largest corn sugar plant in the world. The Argo plant, a smaller Domino plant in Chinatown between Cicero and the Loop, and the one in Hammond, Indiana. Those provided the crime organized by puritan prohibitionism with momentum that has lasted a century. This says nothing about the boost in consumption of poppy narcotics and the stimulants needed to offset their side effects. It also says nothing about the economic crash that followed use of the income tax as a prohibition enforcement tool. Chicago is violent because the initiation of force was built into it as early as 1915.

  • Untermensch den 2||

    You're missing a few logical steps in your explanation here. What do the corn sugar plants have to do with violence?

  • Vernon Depner||

    With corn sugar you can make corn whiskey.

  • Truthteller1||

    It's outrageous. The police are largely incompetent. Where is the demand for different training. They are supposed to be the ones putting their lives on the line. Instead they are fucking trigger happy cowards. Disgusting.

  • ThomasD||

    What's probably more sad is that the shooter has been trained to think he isn't a murderer.

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? The more idiotic laws, the fewer literate cops available for the defense of individual rights. I've got $10 that says the corn-fed morons that killed the real First Responder get a paid vacation at YOUR expense.

  • ||

    I would rather face an armed private citizen in a confrontation than an LEO. The citizen is not as likely to kill me because he is bound by the law, whereas the LEO is exempt, practically speaking.
    In the anti-gun against pro-gun society, we see a false dichotomy. The anti-gun people are not against the use of guns, instead, they are against anyone except authorities who also enjoy being outside the law. Exceptions are made to keep the myth alive that there are no exceptions. Trigger-happy cops go free mostly but now and then one is punished "for show", to keep the populace believing they are safe and protected by "good guys".
    TPTB control the propaganda, including the cop shows. Imagine a new cop show that showed the truth. How long would it last? The only way it could get on once is if were kept secret until the first show, which would be the last.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Especially if they showed what happens to dogs.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Don't give them ideas. A show devoted only to police dog shootings would probably develop a cult following.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    It's the Chicago (area) way!

  • Rob Misek||

    The problem is that Police and civilians don't communicate when it matters most.

    Police have mere seconds to assess any situation and react. During these precious seconds, civilians also react complicating things.

    All we need to do is improve and control these few seconds of communication.

    There is probably only time for one standard command by an authority, one statement by a civilian and a repeat of the authorities command which must be followed immediately.

    This would let civilians know they are no longer in charge and remind them to disarm. By requiring a civilian statement the police will hear if there is a language or mental illness issue and receive confirmation that they have been heard and compliance is forthcoming. The final command, letting the civilian know what's going to happen next.

    Instituting standardized communication protocols makes everything happen a bit slower, giving everyone a chance to think and understand the situation.

    When civilians know police interactions follow this pattern, their patterned compliance at the right time sends exactly the right message to police.

    Once the threat is controlled, secondary communication protocols would allow the police to understand what is happening at the scene.

    Standardized, trained and followed, this will save lives.

    Personal recording devices will ensure analysis is complete.

    Its time to start working with police.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Police have mere seconds to assess any situation and react.

    That's usually their fault. They needlessly put themselves into these "quick draw" situations by charging in to perilously close quarters and barking orders—or even just opening fire without barking orders—instead of taking a few seconds from a safer distance or position to assess what is going on and/or attempt communication. The police murders of John Crawford and Tamir Rice were classic examples of this.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Tamir Rice? How about Andy Lopez?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Another example. The police could have gotten his attention from a safer position rather than blasting away on suspicion.

  • Rob Misek||

    When someone has you on the ground with a gun to your head how long should police assess the situation from afar?

    Who is more of a threat, someone complying in a standardized way or someone refusing to obey and telling the police to fuck off?

    It's time we started working with police.

  • Vernon Depner||

    When someone has you on the ground with a gun to your head how long should police assess the situation from afar?

    If someone is holding a gun to my head, the last thing I want is someone on an adrenaline buzz firing shots in our direction. If you think immediately opening fire on the guy with the gun is a good way of dealing with that situation, then someone needs to explain to you the "The Rifleman" and "Dirty Harry" are just make-believe.

    Who is more of a threat, someone complying in a standardized way or someone refusing to obey and telling the police to fuck off?

    Or, a cop who gallops into a situation and starts shooting having no idea what's going on? Your idea that the entire population can be trained for "complying in a standardized way" and that they will always do so in dangerous or stressful situations is absurd. That advice would not have saved the lives of John Crawford, Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez—they were given no time to listen and obey. And besides, sometimes the police SHOULD fuck off. "Obey instantly or we'll kill you" is not acceptable SOP for the police of a free people.

    It's time the police started accepting the risks of the job they signed up for instead of dumping that risk on the people they're supposed to serve.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "It's time the police started accepting the risks of the job they signed up for instead of dumping that risk on the people they're supposed to serve."

    ^^This^^ Plus, statistically, it's not that dangerous a job.

  • Rob Misek||

    This is a repeat just for you.

    I guess common sense isn't common anymore.

    Antagonist relationships between people with guns is risky behaviour.

    Police have guns. It's their job, not yours, to stride into danger, assess and resolve conflict.

    You stay the fuck out of it and when you're involved do exactly what they say.

    The stupid public needs to learn that attitudes don't help. We don't need your agenda obfuscating the situation.

    We need some "keep it simple stupid" training for the public and police so everyone knows how the first few seconds of contact should play out. This is the working with police that we need.

  • 1980-f||

    No. The USA is not yet a full police state, no matter how much you, as a white, privileged man, would like it to be. It's time the police started working for the public, all of them, whatever their colour, whatever they are suspected of doing, whatever their immigration status.

  • Rob Misek||

    Police serve the law, not your desires, not whatever you think they should. That will always be their job.

    You fail to grasp that those first few seconds of contact are crucial and they should be the subject of training for all the parties involved. Even dumbass civilians that hate all cops.

    You can play the blame game. Fill your boots. The law is the law. You might be the next to die.

  • CE||

    People were communicating with the police, telling them the guy was security. The police officer ignored them.

  • Rob Misek||

    Yes there's that.

    Yet the crowd was not responsible for justice and the safety of others, putting their lives on the line, the policeman was.

  • Vernon Depner||

    But the policeman did NOT put his life on the line. That was the problem. Instead, he put the lives of others on the line by shooting first and asking questions later. He shirked his duty by pushing the risk of his job onto members of the public—as police officers are trained to the these days. He SHOULD HAVE put his life on the line by taking a few seconds to listen and assess the situation.

  • Rob Misek||

    By simply walking into the conflict the policeman was putting his life on the line.

    Who knows what else the crowd was yelling at him or capable of? Their yells probably not defusing the situation.

    Police training alone won't change a thing there also needs to be training for the public and the public needs to work with the police.

  • Vernon Depner||

    By simply walking into the conflict the policeman was putting his life on the line.

    No, he wasn't. The conflict had been handled. By acting on his rash false assumption that he was in danger, he killed a man who was not only innocent but a hero.

    Their yells probably not defusing the situation.

    So what should they have done? They tried to communicate with him. He ignored them.

    the public needs to work with the police.

    They tried. You admit that didn't help. Make up your mind.

  • Rob Misek||

    The policeman didn't know it was handled when he walked in.

    What else do you think he's heard from crowds at nightclubs as he enforced the law over the years. There's no way he should trust the word of hateful strangers.

    Is that what you're waiting for? Don't hold your breath and keep dying like a dumb fuck.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Hateful strangers". Yes, that is how the police see the public.

  • Rob Misek||

    That is what stupid people who put their agendas ahead of public safety are.

  • Vernon Depner||

    That's correct—police are trained to be stupid people who put their agendas ahead of public safety.

  • Rob Misek||

    Grow up and suck it up princess.

    What you fail to grasp is that those first few seconds of contact are crucial and they should be the subject of training for all the parties involved.

    You can play the childish blame game. Fill your boots. The law is the law. You might be the next to die.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I hope your family can get an involuntary commitment before you harm anyone.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Enough. Wipe the cop jizz off your face.

  • Seamus||

    This comment shows Tony-level stupidity.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Mr.Roberson could easily have simply killed this guy. He was clearly acting to defend himself and others. But he didn't. He held him down until cops could arrive. He exhibited bravery and humanity. Cop walks in and immediately kills somebody, exhibiting his cowardice and inhumanity. Fuck the police.

  • Rob Misek||

    I'm betting that, with that attitude, they'll fuck you first.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah you're right.I should just accept the fact that I live in a police state where cowardly thugs can murder anyone at anytime with total impunity. Thanks Rob I feel so much better now. Speaking of attitudes and getting fucked, seems like getting fucked in the ass by a thug cop must be a regular thing for you with your attitude. How's that working out for you?

  • Rob Misek||

    I guess common sense isn't common anymore.

    Antagonist relationships between people with guns is risky behaviour.

    Police have guns. It's their job, not yours, to stride into danger, assess and resolve conflict.

    You stay the fuck out of it and when you're involved do exactly what they say.

    The stupid public needs to learn that attitudes don't help. We don't need your agenda obfuscating the situation.

    We need some "keep it simple stupid" training for the public and police so everyone knows how the first few seconds of contact should play out. This is the working with police that we need.

  • 1980-f||

    You missed the point completely. It is not up to the public to do whatever the police tell us to do. It is up to the police to act within the law and with care and intelligence. Instant capital punishment is not within the police's remit.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The concept of being a "public servant" completely eludes him. He's doing a great job of illustrating the problem, though.

  • Rob Misek||

    Neither of you understand what it means to be a policeman public servant. It is not to serve your desires not even what you believe is best. It is to serve the law at the best of their ability.

    That's it.

    The law may justify his actions. It might not. The law might even be wrong.

    My point, that you fail to grasp is that those first few seconds of contact are crucial and they should be the subject of training for all the parties involve.

    You can play the blame game. Fill your boots. The law is the law. You might be the next to die.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Are you threatening me? BUNGHOLE!

  • Rob Misek||

    On the contrary, you're own stupidity threatens your survival.

    I'm trying to educate you.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Here's a tip: you will find that using language that makes you sound dangerously mentally ill will get in the way of your educating anyone about anything.

  • CE||

    "A Midlothian officer encountered a subject with a gun and was involved in an officer-involved shooting. The subject the officer shot was later pronounced deceased at an area hospital."

    Translated to English:

    A Midlothian police officer assumed the African-American person with the gun was the bad guy, and proceeded to shoot him to death, despite warnings from the crowd that the individual in question was the good guy.

  • CGN||

    Cops often shoot first and asked questions later, except the latter part is often impossible due to the (wrongful) death of the person they might have questioned. Also, cops are often some of the worst shots ever, and the chance of hitting an innocent bystander is high, especially if the cop is high on his / her own power.

  • Dadlobby||

    Arm chair second guessers might try some science on for size, http://www.forcescience.org/fo.....arch.html. U.S. Supreme Court ruled you can't judge the action post incident by subjecting "what if's" and the incident has to be judged on the perspective fo those involved.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The problem with looking at it that way is that only the moment of the shooting is analyzed. The decisions and actions that led up to the cop being in that position in which he says he perceived danger are unexamined. The tactics that put cops in these quick-draw situations are a big part of the problem of needless police shootings.

    But of course, the Supreme Court never gets anything wrong.

  • MikeAT||

    "and that multiple people were warning police not to shoot."

    No Mr. Soave, we do not know that. That is what ****ONE**** witness to this incident said. Remember when the thug Michael Brown was justifiably shot by Officer Darren Wilson, and dozens of people came forward saying "Hands up! Don't shoot!" and "He shot him like a dog!" Well, when you are brought in to make a statement, and you discover it's made under oath, and you can be prosecuted for perjury, sometimes you "revise your statement."

    I'm not saying the officer was justified or not. We don't know that yet. Let this be investigated, and the facts brought out.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "Let this be investigated, and the facts brought out."

    In other words, give the cops a chance to circle the wagons.

  • MikeAT||

    Not at all. Remember Ferguson, or Baltimore. There were a lot of lies spread before the cases were investigated. Homicide investigations are, by their nature, time consuming. BTY, the State Police are investigating this matter, not the local cops.

  • Rob Misek||

    Use personal recording devices. Make it a right to record our memories wherever we go.

    Many recordings only demonstrates the truth from different angles..

    Investigations are quick and accurate, no trial is required.

    What the fuck. We have created the wheel only to drag it sideways. Wheel is bad, Ug!

  • 1980-f||

    "the thug Michael Brown" immediately disqualifies your comment. Mr Brown, whatever his offence, was a human being. Stop dehumanising people you hate.

  • jomo||

    The commenters on here saying this is the fault of the "progressive agenda" sure have short memories.

    It was "conservatives" who in 2001 latched on to, and made their political rallying cry, the deification of any and all uniformed people because 9/11. It was "conservatives" (and still is) who lead the constant cheerleading for any and every expansion of police power, surveillance power, and endless funding for military and police, while characterizing any questioning of same as "not supporting our police" or "not supporting our troops." It is conservatives who will bend over backwards for any evidence whatsoever of any misstep, no matter how slight, in the personal past of anyone shot by cops to justify said shooting as "a thug getting what he deserved." It is "conservatives" who need to admit that when they spout "good guy with a gun" what they really mean is "aggrandized version of Super ME with a gun" or "good guy who looks just like me, with a gun." It is "conservatives" whose answer to any call for police accountability is "blue lives matter."

    Don't worry, authoritarians. It will all work out. Someone from extreme right-wing media will dig in to the security guard's past and discover that at some point in his life he smoked a joint or liked a rap song, then his killing will be justified as "ridding the streets of another thug."

  • Vernon Depner||

    You're the only one who has used the word "progressive" in this discussion. Who are you quoting?

  • jomo||

    This.

    """mad.casual|11.13.18 @ 12:24PM|#

    At least the original shooter - the criminal - might have accumulated a few murders to his credit before the police arrived. As opposed to the guard - the person paid to risk his life - being the only fatality.

    I wonder how much the lack of guns in Chicago had to do with this?

    The guy that chased off the church shooter in Texas didn't end up getting shot by police. Almost like the officers in TX don't see a gun and automatically assume "He's gonna kill someone!"

    reply to this report spam
    Francisco d'Anconia|11.13.18 @ 12:28PM|#

    THIS^^^

    reply to this report spam
    Francisco d'Anconia|11.13.18 @ 12:33PM|#

    I've told several officers in Red states that I'm packing during interactions (so as not to get shot...yeah, I know), and there reaction has been, "Why in hell would I care about that?"

    It's a Blue mindset.""""""

    and

    this:

    """""""MikeP2|11.13.18 @ 1:00PM|#

    Yes. Police shootings are almost certainly correlated to the gun control lobby's efforts to de-normalize legal gun use and owners.
    It is absolutely a deep-blue mindset.""""""""

    and others like it, now and coming soon to this thread.

  • jomo||

    And in any event whether they used that word or not it's their point. My points still stand regardless. While I agree that super gun banners would create a situation where only the government is armed, and that's bad, this situation described in the article is largely the result of exactly what "law and order conservatives" asked for, and have been asking for for decades, i.e. super-militarized, unquestionable authority figures applying force at whim. Also, after decades of crying that any questioning of authority figures is "un-American" they can't risk questioning or criticizing any LEO actions for fear of losing their "tough on crime" street cred.***

    certain notable exceptions to this rule apply if the LEOs are going after "their guys"

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Can't disagree that law & order conservatives support cops seemingly no matter what they do. But it's also true that city councils and state legislatures in deep blue places like NY NY and Chicago IL sign union contracts and pass legislation that protect cops from any consequences for their crimes. The police state has bipartisan support and always has had.

  • stonelion||

    You know? I'm generally on the side of cops because they have a crappy job dealing with god knows what kind of lunatics, but I'm starting to rethink my position. It's NOT good when law-abiding people like me start rethinking this position! That is not good for cops. Unless this guy actually aimed the gun at an officer, or was warned to put it down and refused, then the cop that shot him should be charged. I'm sorry, but the basic rule I follow as a gun owner is I'm ONLY going to use it if my life or property is in immediate danger (and not even all property is worth it). Cops need to do the same.

  • Art Gecko||

    Remember, if you're in a situation where there's a bad guy with a gun, and then the police arrive, there are now ***TWO*** bad guys with guns in the situation.

  • 1980-f||

    Much comment on this around who's a bad guy and who's a good guy. Are you all small children at your parents' laptops? There are only people with all their complexity, a notion that the police in most countries have yet to embrace.

    In the USA especially, to be a black man with a gun is to be automatically a bad man with a gun and, hence, in need of immediate capital punishment for not following the white script: black people aren't to be trusted with weapons of any kind.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online