Where is the NRA on Jemel Roberson?

[Pete at Home]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46187460

n armed security guard at a bar in suburban Chicago was killed by police as he detained a suspected gunman, according to officials and witnesses.

After gunfire erupted around 04:00 local time on Sunday, Jemel Roberson, 26, chased down an attacker and knelt on his back until police arrived.

Moments after police came on the scene, an officer opened fire on Roberson, who was black, killing him.

It seems to me that any organization that champions the notion that armed private citizens have a role in keeping the peace, should be speaking up against the killing of Jemel Roberson.

Second Amendment protections cannot and will not stand if their proponents only want them applied selectively by ethnicity.

According to FBI data, a disproportionately high proportion of police shootings in the US involve black people.

That's politically correct horse crap.  In fact, a disproportionately high proportion of police shootings in the US involve black males.  Black females are no more likely to get shot by cops than the average US citizen.

[D.W.]

Read about this one when it happens.  Suppose I shouldn't be shocked it's radio silence from NRA on it. 

[yossarian22c]

I'm pretty sure the NRA* only cares about peoples right to buy guns (gun company profits), they could generally care less if your gun gets you shot or is used to shoot other people.

*Here I'm using NRA to refer to their leadership not their membership.

[Seriati]

Not remotely sure what you think this has to do with the NRA.  Is it just "gun" ergo NRA?

I think we all agree this should never have happened.

[DonaldD]

The government used deadly force to deny this man's second amendment rights (among others). Does the NRA not generally defend citizens' 2nd amendment rights against encroachment by the government?  (then answer is probably - see yossarian's analysis.)

[D.W.]

I guess because this fit their "good guy with a gun" narrative.  It was working.  Responded before police and contained the shooter.

Then the cops showed up...

Even if they dodged the police shooting, a nod to a man doing his job and probably/possibly saving lives would make sense from a platform position standpoint.

[Seriati]

The government used deadly force to deny this man's second amendment rights (among others).

No.  The government did not use deadly force to deny this man's rights, not his right to free speech, not his right to bear arms, not his right to free assembly or freedom of movement.

A police officer killed him, and I'd call it a murder, for being black.  There's no legitimate basis to open fire there and it has nothing to do with the second amendment.

Does the NRA not generally defend citizens' 2nd amendment rights against encroachment by the government?  (then answer is probably - see yossarian's analysis.)

Sure the NRA does, of course in this case the police didn't even order him to put the gun down before they killed him.  They literally did not try to take his gun.

This may be a surprise to you, but a lot of people the police kill are armed at the time they are killed and that has nothing to do with taking away their second amendment rights either.

[Pete at Home]

I think the Second Amendment is implicated far more directly than other amendments are implicated in several Scotus cases.

The militia clause as understood by the founders meant that the feds should assume that any able bodied sane noncriminal adult male had state and local duties to keep the peace and should not interfere with his gun rights.  Consistent with other 14th amendment jurisprudence, Heller applies this duty of forbearance to state and city government. Here the victim was exercising his militia clause rights under the 2nd and 14th amendment.

Seriati, surely you recognize that this murder has a “chilling effect” on the exercise of 2nd amendment rights. And that the victim’s heroic action was precisely the sort of private peacekeeping contemplated and protected by those that drafted 2a.  14a merely expanded the scope of forbearance.

[Seriati]

No Pete.  I flat out reject your premise, you've violated Occam's Razor.  Jemel died because he was black, not because he was a gun owner.

The police officer who shot him grossly violated any reasonable protocol, and there is no reason to believe that was because he was armed, unless you think a white bouncer would have been shot too?

I wonder personally, if a black unarmed bouncer might also have been shot.

In any event, the police responding to an active shooter situation is not about looking for the local militia. 

I got no problem with the NRA weighing in, it's just ridiculous to think they would be expected to.  They are not the group responsible for weighing in on the death of every gun owner regardless of the context, they are an advocacy group about protecting gun rights.  Gun rights are - at best - completely incidental to this case.  Not to mention, even under the most restrictive anti-gun programs security guards have been allowed to receive permits to carry.  Jemel very likely would have been armed whether or not an average civilian could have been.

[Pete at Home]

This may be a surprise to you, but a lot of people the police kill are armed at the time they are killed and that has nothing to do with taking away their second amendment rights either.

This would be relevant if the victim here was not specifically involved in what the founders referred to as militia duties.

 Since you are not a leftist like John Paul Stevens, I presume that you will agree with me that the key to understanding what the constitution means lies and what the words meant at the time the constitution was drafted rather than some new meaning of the word that we just made up last week.

[Pete at Home]

Jemel died because he was black, not because he was a gun owner.

“Gun owner” is  a shockingly obtuse distortion of what I said.

 The second amendment is not limited to the right to own guns. It’s called the right to bear arms . And with the militia Kolors it particularly protects the right to bear arms in defense of oneself, of others, and of one’s community.  I’m really surprise that your arguing this point with me.  It’s usually the far left that tries to reduce the second amendment to a narrow cipher

[Seriati]

Pete, the key to understanding a situation is to accurately evaluate what was going on and not to strain to fit it into a pre-arranged narrative.

Show me where the police were trying to take away Jemel's right to bear arms.  Show me how when police are responding to an active shooter situation they are not entitled to presume armed people are involved (there's no Constitutional basis for you claim, militia or otherwise, as the Courts have consistently held that the police have the right to disarm temporarily anyone in their immediate vicinity that they are required to interact with in their ordinary course of duties).

The failing here was in the officer not following a reasonable protocol.  The officer chose to kill a man without any reasonable attempt to establish necessity or identity.  That's not, no matter how many recitations of law or history you make best construed as a second amendment issue.  Think LSAT multiple choice, you have to pick the best answer, not any plausible one.

[D.W.]

Not my point, but...
I think unjustified homicide towards an armed black individual does have a chilling effect on a black man's 2nd Amendment rights.  They may not have been actively trying to deprive him of that right, but the act will influence others to decline exercising that right due to the increased risk (from their own government).

Which sucks as by all indications that means less people like Jemel protecting us from harm.

[Seriati]

That's a fair point D.W.

[Pete at Home]

Show me where the police were trying to take away Jemel's right to bear arms

Is that how the 14th amendment works now? Maybe there been some changes since I practiced law.  Is that how the 14th amendment works now? Maybe they’re been some changes since I practice law. So you’re saying that government action only interferes with somebody’s constitutional right if the government can be shown to have specifically intended to Deprive the victim of that specifically enumerated constitutional right?

[Pete at Home]

If Trump just happened to kick out all black reporters are all Jewish reporters from the White House, Would you agree that there was probably both the first amendment and the 14th amendment problem?

[Pete at Home]

Not my point, but...
I think unjustified homicide towards an armed black individual does have a chilling effect on a black man's 2nd Amendment rights.  They may not have been actively trying to deprive him of that right, but the act will influence others to decline exercising that right due to the increased risk (from their own government).

Which sucks as by all indications that means less people like Jemel protecting us from harm.

Thank you.  And if the second amendment does not apply to a black man, then it doesn’t really apply to anyone. That’s why I’m just made that the NRA is passing up this one chance to make it self useful

[Seriati]

Show me where the police were trying to take away Jemel's right to bear arms

Is that how the 14th amendment works now? Maybe there been some changes since I practiced law.  Is that how the 14th amendment works now? Maybe they’re been some changes since I practice law. So you’re saying that government action only interferes with somebody’s constitutional right if the government can be shown to have specifically intended to Deprive the victim of that specifically enumerated constitutional right?

No Pete, what I'm saying is that criminal is expressly a state law matter, and I don't agree with or condone the creation of a Federal criminal law that copies traditional state law matters and recharacterizes them as a violation of the Constitution.  I specifically reject that Federal double jeopardy is Constitutional.

In any matter, like I said your logic here implicates every one of the Bill of Rights if you want to go that tangential.  Why not base your claim on denial of life, without due process of law?  Or that by killing him they interfered with his free exercise of religion (like the overreaching claim they are making in Pittsburgh)?  Or claim it was a cruel and unusual punishment - how could it not be when there was no crime?

Fact is, D.W. really described the only connection, the idea that killing a lawful gun owner may discourage others from carrying guns lawfully.  That is still at best tangential.

To be clear, my primary objections here are (1) claiming the NRA is at fault for not being involved when gun rights are barely implicated, and (2) apparently now calling for an expansion of the federal police power where the state in question is primarily responsible (or in your quest to pull in amendment 2, did you forget to consider amendment 10?).

[Pete at Home]

Fact is, D.W. really described the only connection, the idea that killing a lawful gun owner may discourage others from carrying guns lawfully

Since you don’t see my point as connecting (that killing folks like Jemal discourages gun owners generally and black gun owners particularly from exercising their lawful right to use guns to protect others, you and I might as well be talking about different constitutions.

 I’m cool with you having a different interpretation of the law , But I ball at continuing the discussion with somebody as a different version of what I said.  Perhaps I’m having a hard day and having a hard time communicating my thoughts clearly.

[Pete at Home]

Nothing I said implicates federal police power anymore than loving versus Virginia did.

[Seriati]

Pete honestly, I had about given up on the conversation.  I'm having trouble following why you think the gun rights issue was so fundamental to what happened that you'd open the thread by calling out the NRA for not reacting.  I don't see what happened as primarily (or really secondarily) about gun rights.  D.W. is correct about the pressure it creates, but that's the only real connection.

I guess what I'm missing is why you seem to be implying this occurred because the government is trying to suppress the second amendment.  It didn't.  It occurred because a police officer did not do their job correctly, and possibly because the same officer made a racist assumption.

[Fenring]

Pete honestly, I had about given up on the conversation.  I'm having trouble following why you think the gun rights issue was so fundamental to what happened that you'd open the thread by calling out the NRA for not reacting.  I don't see what happened as primarily (or really secondarily) about gun rights.  D.W. is correct about the pressure it creates, but that's the only real connection.

I guess what I'm missing is why you seem to be implying this occurred because the government is trying to suppress the second amendment.  It didn't.  It occurred because a police officer did not do their job correctly, and possibly because the same officer made a racist assumption.

You don't think it's possible in theory for the government to suppress the 2nd by systematically making it very dangerous for people to be armed? It's simple: simply arrange it so that people who 'happen to be armed' have a hugely increased chance of being shot by the police, and voila - the 2nd is repealed in practice for most people except for those who have the guts to take the risk and are possibly willing to die to retain their right. I'm not sure why this proposition is 'tangential' to the issue. It seems to me that the proper counterargument should be "there isn't, in fact, an increased risk of being shot if you're armed," and that would be a valid counter to the point if true. However there's also the issue of media exposure, so that *even if* the government isn't disproportionately killing armed people, but the media disproportionately reports about it to create buzz, it *could* have a similar effect. So now we'd be getting into the media de facto killing the 2nd; but I think it should be added that if government officials know this is happening I would say it's their added responsibility to take even more care in such situations knowing that even statistically average deaths of armed people would add fuel to the fire. In that respect the 2nd requires not only adherence, but active protection.

[rightleft22]

Have to agreed -  This occurred because a police officer did not do their job correctly. I doubt he will be held accountable as they are trained not to take chances. See a gun... react
I do think you are more likely to be shot if you have a weapon and engage in trying to prevent a crime.

[Seriati]

You don't think it's possible in theory for the government to suppress the 2nd by systematically making it very dangerous for people to be armed?

Of course it is.  I just don't see any rationale basis to claim that was what happened here.  Where's the evidence that this is a "systematic" attempt?  Is there any pattern of shooting other legal gun owners without cause?

Then walk it through, what's the "solution" to the problem you are describing? 

Do you want police officers to have less authority to act when they are responding to a gun crime in progress because of second amendment concerns?

It's simple: simply arrange it so that people who 'happen to be armed' have a hugely increased chance of being shot by the police, and voila - the 2nd is repealed in practice for most people except for those who have the guts to take the risk and are possibly willing to die to retain their right. I'm not sure why this proposition is 'tangential' to the issue.

It's tangential because there is no evidence that Jemel was shot as an attempt to systematically suppress gun rights.

Show me any evidence of such an attempt and I'm on it.  Shooting a person holding a gun is not a pattern.  Shooting a person holding a gun on the back of a person when an officer is called to respond to a shooting isn't even remotely suspicious of being an attempt to take away gun rights.

It seems to me that the proper counterargument should be "there isn't, in fact, an increased risk of being shot if you're armed," and that would be a valid counter to the point if true.

I'd assume that's not statistically true.  Many criminals that are shot are themselves armed.  I suspect there is a greater risk of being shot if you have a drawn weapon - some of which is purely correllation, why would you have a drawn weapon without a risk of danger.

I doubt there's any increased risk of being armed but not having drawn the weapon.  That's not the circumstance here.

I don't get why you guys are going to such lengths to ignore the most probably explanation.  The officer shot Jemel cause the officer saw a black man with a gun and made a racist assumption about what was going on.

What am I missing here, I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.  If you guys want to believe this is a situation about shooting armed people for the purpose of suppressing the second amendment knock yourselves out.  It's certainly the most bizarre set of facts one could use to get there.

[Pete at Home]

I guess what I'm missing is why you seem to be implying this occurred because the government is trying to suppress the second amendment.

No.  That's why I specifically addressed the "chilling effect" several posts before DW did (although his point was legitimate and distinct, applying to gun ownership whereas I focused on bearing arms in protection of others and the community)

My version of 2A is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yours seems to be "The right of white people to own Arms, shall not be intentionally infringed."

You keep taking my argument into the twilight zone with this strange inference of intentionality:

If you guys want to believe this is a situation about shooting armed people for the purpose of suppressing the second amendment knock yourselves out.

"There you go again" {to borrow a Reaganismn} putting purpose and intentionality into my argument.  Have you read the "chilling effect" free speech cases? Government doesn't have to intend to chill speech in order to unconstitutionally chill speech.

[Pete at Home]

Do you want police officers to have less authority to act when they are responding to a gun crime in progress because of second amendment concerns?

No.  I want police training to be improved so that guys like poor bastard that shot the hero, won't go in unprepared for the contingency that citizens (even black male citizens) may have secured the scene in advance of police arrival.  It may be just a matter of adding a new pop-up figure to the gun shooting range.

[Seriati]

My version of 2A is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yours seems to be "The right of white people to own Arms, shall not be intentionally infringed."

I think you owe me an apology for that.

I don't care if Jemel is white or black in this context (other than I suspect being black is what got him killed and is the real issue of concern).  If Jemel was white this still wouldn't be about the second amendment.

There is a clear cause here.  Police called to respond to gun crime.  Police shoot man with gun.

Not police looking for an excuse to kill a gun owner, police seek out a good guy with a gun and deliberately kill him to intimidate gun owners.

if you have any facts, other than calling me a racist, that make the second scenario likely please do share.

You keep taking my argument into the twilight zone with this strange inference of intentionality:

Because that's really the only context your argument makes sense.  You can't claim that the government is trying to suppress gun rights without some kind of intent.

It's like, the government just intentionally killed a black man, but your concern is the knock on effect this has on gun rights?

What am I missing?

[Pete at Home]

My version of 2A is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yours seems to be "The right of white people to own Arms, shall not be intentionally infringed."

I think you owe me an apology for that.

I apologize if you took it seriously despite my attempts to signal that I was joking about that part:

I don't care if Jemel is white or black

I know you don't.  And you get points for observing earlier that Jemel may have been targeted for his ethnicity.


" If Jemel was white this still wouldn't be about the second amendment."

If Jemel was white it might still be about the second amendment and the substantive due process clause of 14a.  Since he's black, and since his blackness seems to have been the reason he was shot trying to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights, 14a Equal protection is also implicated.

"what am I missing?"

This: "I want police training to be improved so that guys like poor bastard that shot the hero, won't go in unprepared for the contingency that citizens (even black male citizens) may have secured the scene in advance of police arrival.  It may be just a matter of adding a new pop-up figure to the gun shooting range."  If police are systematically trained to shoot armed figures and spare unarmed ones, that impacts 2a even if there's no intent to thwart 2a. 

[TheDeamon]

I wonder personally, if a black unarmed bouncer might also have been shot.

That is the thing I'm wondering as I read through this thread.

[Pete at Home]

Have to agreed -  This occurred because a police officer did not do their job correctly. I doubt he will be held accountable as they are trained not to take chances. See a gun... react
I do think you are more likely to be shot if you have a weapon and engage in trying to prevent a crime.

 That maybe so, but that doesn’t change the fact that would be very easy to incorporate good guys with guns into the training scenarios.  It’s a cheap easy fix.

[Fenring]

Seriati, I wasn't specifically arguing that this case demonstrates a trend of shooting people in order to suppress the 2nd. I argued that it's theoretically possible that this could happen, and I only made that argument because you seem to be implying that this notion is ridiculous in context, which it isn't. That does not mean that it's actually what's happening either. But I agree with Pete that you seem to be insisting that suppression of rights must be defined as intentional, which I don't think I specified, and although I did use the term "systematic" I don't consider that term to imply that the system has been set up to achieve that effect. Systems can get set up through no one's intention; through a sort of bureaucratic evolution much of the time. For instance, if we suppose that police militarization came about as a result of several factors, which include the desire to offload surplus materiel at a discount, along with the desire for police departments to feel tough and for state and municipal politicians to be able to run on "tough on crime" platforms; and then for good measure add in the desire to outsource training methods and create stupid "educational" systems for civilian interaction; all of these factors might well congeal together into a system designed to suppress the 2nd even though no individual step in the process ever had the intention to have that effect. As Pete suggests, the intention doesn't have to necessarily figure into it. And I'm not specifically making this argument, but only outlining an example of how it might be framed.

As it happens *I do* think that from what I read at any rate it seems like police training leaves them poorly equipped to handle cases of civilians who are armed when they arrive. I've read many cases of raids where, for instance, police went to the wrong house, the owner was armed and defending his home, and ended up shot. And there are the no-knock raids making it even worse. Anything to do with going after drugs seems to me to automatically invoke an air of violence; and in general I think a person "being armed" seems like an easy pretext to shoot first. I don't even want to think about the trend of shooting dogs because they "threatened" the officers (like Golden Retrievers...). Do you really think it's unreasonable to at least ask whether these types of stories - or the reporting about them - might not cause people to question whether they're safe arming themselves?

[Pete at Home]

AFAIK, the only good thing that the NRA does is strongly advocate training and safety with guns.  That's why I ask, quite sincerely, why the NRA isn't standing up for changes in the wake of Jemel Roberson.  I'm not accusing them of racism or hypocrisy.  Simple stupidity in the face of an opportunity to do good and redeem its image.

[TheDeamon]

It is a complicated and multi-facted issue, and "the story" regarding the guard feels incomplete to me, I think there is more to it than what has been brought up on the forum.

I'm inclined to agree with Seratil that the guard was more likely than not "shot for being black" and his armed or not-armed status very likely had little to do with what happend. Because he was black, and "involved in a shots fired" incident.

This has been discussed previously, and it basically cycles back to much earlier statements, with the state things are in society, and more particularly for law enforcement, it probably cannot be emphasized enough that doing everything you can to not threaten a LEO in tense situations is something you very much want to learn how to do. So that you can help set things up to begin descalating as the officer arrives.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the guard 1) Had his fire arm in hand(maintaining positive control), while likewise 2) keeping the shooter restrained(pinned with his knee).

I think it is entirely plausible the officer entered the room knowing it was "shots fired" scenario (something that should have been communicated to them that the situation was controlled before they turned up), and walked into a situation where A Black Male, with a gun in hand, was found to be "acting aggressively" towards somebody else in the room. (The actual shooter)

Officer evaluated the situation and decided that calling out was likely to put everyone else into more danger(guard either shoots at him, or "shoots the hostage"), so the officer skips straight to "shoot the guy with the gun before he can shoot anyone else." Hollywood can also probably take partial blame for that officer's call too.

[Pete at Home]

America needs less "who's to blame" about stuff like this and more "how can we keep this from happening again."

[TheDeamon]

America needs less "who's to blame" about stuff like this and more "how can we keep this from happening again."

Blame on this one lies more on the side of the criminals who (attempt to) kill or maim Police, and the resultant training that law enforcement receives which makes them(LEOs) hypervigilant and prone to "shoot first, ask questions later" as a consequence. So long as that is a real and ongoing threat, the training involves remains valid, although MUCH more nuance should be added.

It would be nice if there was "one thing" that could be done to address the problem, but with what we have available, that isn't an option. Which means it will take multiple things happening concurrently to bring things to more desirable levels. Sadly, that includes civilians, and evidently especially security personell, being trained in how to de-escalate LEOs when they enter the picture. Doubly so if you "meet the profile"/sterotype for someone the officer thinks they need to be on alert with. (Black men being the prime example, but probably not the only one)