The Captain's Journal » A ‘heroic’ man who fatally shot a gunman was himself killed by a responding officer

A ‘heroic’ man who fatally shot a gunman was himself killed by a responding officer

BY Herschel Smith

3 years, 5 months ago

The man hailed as a hero for preventing further bloodshed after a gunman fatally shot a police officer in Arvada, Colorado, on Monday was himself fatally shot by police, Arvada police said in a statement Friday afternoon.

Police say Johnny Hurley, 40, confronted the gunman, identified as Ronald Troyke, after Troyke had shot and killed Arvada police officer Gordon Beesley near Arvada’s Olde Town Square on Monday afternoon.

As Troyke ran toward the square with a long gun, Hurley shot the suspect with a handgun, according to Arvada police.

“A responding Arvada Police Officer then encountered Mr. Hurley, who was holding the suspect’s AR-15,” the statement said. “The officer shot him.”

“Arvada PD views Mr. Hurley’s actions as heroic; it is clear that he intervened in an active shooting that unfolded quickly in a busy commercial area in the middle of the day, and that he did so without hesitation. Mr. Hurley’s actions certainly saved others from serious injury or death,” Arvada police said in the statement.

Someone makes the following point via Twitter.

When I rolled up to a scene in Iraq there were a lot of people I didn't know standing around with fully-automatic AKs and I didn't immediately shoot them. Why? I'm better trained, more calm, and I'm confident enough to only engage a target when they threaten me.

Cops need that.

— Douglas MechArthur (@Kicksbuttson) June 26, 2021

I recall that my son said something similar in response to idiot Robert Bateman.

Bateman is a dumb ass. The insurgency in Fallujah ended because we locked down the city and made it to where the people had to deal with it or live in utter isolation from everyone else and with no means of transportation, with two ways into and out of the city.

Lt. Col. William F. Mullen (now Col. Mullen) was the unmitigated sovereign of the city. Nothing happened without his approval. The Iraqis may have had a right to automobiles too, but we took them away. If Mullen had wanted to confiscate AK-47s from the folk we could have done that. The chain of command in Baghdad left us alone, and we did what we wanted to do.

Every family had a fully functional, fully automatic AK-47. It wasn’t a problem. I was never shot at except by the insurgents, and mainly the foreign fighters – bad people from Syria, Egypt, Iran, blacks from Africa, and some fighters with slanted eyes from the Far East. I looked in the face of every man I killed, and some of them had slanted eyes and were of Far Eastern descent.

We did confiscate some weapons caches, but only the ones hidden by the insurgents when the people gave us the intel. The AK-47s were used by some of the people to fight the insurgents, but they weren’t used on us. We were fighting the insurgents, and mainly foreign fighters. We were not afraid of the AK-47s owned by the families. The families helped us shut down the insurgency when we made it clear that they had to do that.

The cop who shot the man should be charged with homicide. He killed the man for no good reason.

Via WiscoDave.

Police

Comments

On June 27, 2021 at 9:41 pm, Heywood said:

“The cop who shot the man should be charged with homicide. He killed the man for no good reason”

Exactly! A cop has no more right than I do to shoot someone who is not directly threatening someone. But, once again, they will skate. Heck, they will probably get a medal.

On June 27, 2021 at 11:43 pm, George 1 said:

This is a lesson for us all. If you are ever involved in something like this move some distance away and assume when the police arrive that there is a very good chance that they just start blasting away. Also assume that they are very dim bulbs. Many of them are.

On June 28, 2021 at 1:21 am, Nosmo said:

There have been more than enough events in which the police shoot the “good guy” to warrant giving very serious thought as to one’s level of involvement in a shooting situation, and especially how that involvement is conducted.

Cautions abound, from every nook and cranny of the firearms community, to not have a gun in hand, or even be near one, or even the ability to recognize and differentiate between a gun and a Cocker Spaniel, when the police arrive. It might be best to simply be well out of range when the police do show up – Alexander Graham Bell invented a neat tool to assist with that – or at least severely limit one’s involvement in the first place to those circumstances in which, from a personal and family standpoint, no other alternative exists.

It should be pointed out that even with the use of Bell’s gizmo, the police will, eventually, arrive wherever you are, and just as likely arrive in a state of equally hightened agitation and frenzy as at the original location. Time and distance, at least, offers opportunity for greater thought to be devoted to control of the immediate environment and procedures, not to mention the strategic (and tactical) placement of a suitable buffer in the form of an attorney or other well trained, responsible and potentially sacrificial spokesperson.

On June 28, 2021 at 3:44 am, Jimmy the Saint said:

The local p.d. holds meetings with the populace where they explain what different units do, which one people should call for certain problems, etc. They also have Q&As after. Someone brought up a local mass-shooting from several years back and said “Shouldn’t we try to intervene if we have a gun of our own?” The response from the police holding the meeting was basically: that is very brave, and very likely to get you shot, since units arriving will not necessarily know who the bad shooter is, or how many there are, or might even been erroneously informed by witnesses that you are the bad shooter.

On June 28, 2021 at 5:38 am, Mark Matis said:

One wonders what race the murdered man was.

As always, if the “Law Enforcement” involved do not make it home safely at the end of their shift, this shit would stop REAL fast!!!

On June 28, 2021 at 5:55 am, Yep said:

Nosmo, I have no desire to be shot by the cops but damned if I’ll stand down from stopping a murderer just to save my own ass. Risks are risks. Couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I did that, I’d rather act like a man and take my chances.

Jimmy, that’s why I blame the trainers who certify police officers far more than I blame the cops. Good guys, poorly trained, make for bad responses. Doesn’t eliminate their individual culpability, but it does explain the ineptitude.

On June 28, 2021 at 8:23 am, Bill Buppert said:

One should consider the underlying assumption on the part of coproaches that ANYTIME they see a gun in someone’s hand, they have a license to kill.

Ironically even the Western occupiers in the neo-imperialist cesspools in the ME knew better as Herschel’s son alluded.

As long as cops have guns, they will be one of the single largest threats to life and limb in America.

This is their mindset. YMMV.

On June 28, 2021 at 9:04 am, Nosmo said:

From Yep (above): “Nosmo, I have no desire to be shot by the cops but damned if I’ll stand down from stopping a murderer just to save my own ass. Risks are risks. Couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I did that, I’d rather act like a man and take my chances.”

Fair enough, life has a way of forcing us to make decisions whether we want to or not. But….while you’re “acting like a man” you may be in the process of denying your children a father, your family a desperately needed income, causing a very severe reduction in living conditions and opportunities, a lifetime of pain and anguish for your wife and other relatives. It’s quite well known that children growing up without a father do not do as well as those raised by both parents.

So be sure the decision you make has adequate reward to compensate for the risk.

Bill Buppert said (above): “One should consider the underlying assumption on the part of coproaches that ANYTIME they see a gun in someone’s hand, they have a license to kill.” I don’t think that’s the typical police mindset, but it pays to remember they have no obligation, legal or moral, to protect you but only to “provide community law enforcement services.” In the event of a mistaken identity shooting they’re protected by Qualified Immunity and as long as they “followed agency policy” they’re golden. You, on the other hand, are still dead.

In the overwhelming majority of states in the U.S. there are established procedures for buying a gun and obtaining a concealed weapon permit to carry that gun for those legally eligible to do so. In the absence of firearms there are no restrictions in the U.S. of which I am aware prohibiting getting training in non-firearm self defense or developing situational awareness skills, and learning how to best protect oneself in a unarmed status.

I teach my CCW students they are not carrying a gun to be a junior police officer, or to go places they would not go unarmed, or to prove they can outshoot the bad guy; they’re carrying a gun – hopefully, every day and everywhere it’s legal to do so and maintaining their skill level – because some day all their best efforts at avoiding trouble may fail. Statistics show about 70% of CCW holders do not consistently carry their gun; I have neither responsibility, nor authority, to provide lethal protective services to them, nor to the people who do not feel a need to obtain the tools and learning the mindset to protect themselves and their families.

I do have such an obligation to my family and myself, which is why I follow – and recommend – the dictum “be somewhere else” when it all goes to crap. My first familial duty is escape and evade, for them and myself; should a direct and immediate threat compromise that a different decision will be made, one hopefully supported by sufficient awareness and skill maintenance to deal with the issue successfully and minimize risk.

On June 28, 2021 at 9:49 am, Chris Mallory said:

““One should consider the underlying assumption on the part of coproaches that ANYTIME they see a gun in someone’s hand, they have a license to kill.” I don’t think that’s the typical police mindset”

This has been the default cop mindset for at least a 30 years. Which is why you have cops shooting people holding cell phones, basketballs, and garden hose nozzles. It is why pulling up your pants can be a death sentence if a cop is around. It is why you see citizens shot in the back as they attempt to flee from the aggressive out of control cop they have had the misfortune of encountering.

I remember an incident back in the 1980’s where the local sheriff and his men were confronting an old man with a single barrel shotgun in a trailer park. The old man fired his round at the tree branches above the cops. The cops then proceeded to ventilate the old man and every trailer down range. The thought of running those 20 yards and taking the shotgun away before it could be reloaded never crossed their minds.

On June 28, 2021 at 9:58 am, George 1 said:

With regard to training a big part of teaching self defense should involve the danger police represent to the innocent IMHO. As Bill Buppert and Herschel Smith have pointed out: Statistically an innocent person is more likely to be killed by a cop than a gang member. That is just a fact.

“The most important thing is going home safe at the end of your shift.” It not just a slogan.

On June 28, 2021 at 10:24 am, BRVTVS said:

Cops have had the license to kill mentality for a long time. See, for instance, Thomas Edison’s biography:

“An alert policeman thought that he had discovered a thief and ordered him to
halt. Edison, who is deaf, continued tranquilly on his way. The policeman fired
a shot at this suspicious character, but with such bad aim that he failed to hit
him, and the two ended by making explanations and coming to an understanding.”
https://archive.org/details/thomasaedison00coop/page/54

Thomas Edison’s life was nearly cut short for the crime of poor hearing. Only the bad aim of the cop saved him. Some things never change.

On June 28, 2021 at 11:01 am, Frank Clarke said:

@George I: “Also assume that they are very dim bulbs. Many of them are.”

A parole officer once noted that “There are no smart people in prison, not even the employees.”

On June 28, 2021 at 11:44 am, George said:

Note that there has been no mention whether or not the responding officer issued commands to Hurley. Can we take that omission of the facts to presume that he did not?

On June 28, 2021 at 1:52 pm, Fred said:

I agree with both statements that the cops shouldn’t just shoot anybody with a gun and that you would be advised to not have a gun in your hands when po po show up.

In a distant land both by space (Fallujah) or time (the founding era) one could make a different argument, but I live here and now.

Defund, disarm, and disband. Nothing else will work.

On June 28, 2021 at 5:05 pm, Lou Jackson said:

How about holding those actually responsible, responsible. If a cop makes a bad shoot, due to lack of appropriate industry standard minimum training -25%, hold those who have refused, prevented, the cop from getting training appropriate to doing a professional job, accountable. From the Lt. To the funding allocator, mayor. Run them out of town on a rail! Instead of 8 minutes, and 50 rounds a year for firearms and tactics training. How about taking every penny of management bonuses, and put it into training. Instead of paying for chofer driven limousines for management, spend the money on training, and let management mopes drive Fiats!

On June 28, 2021 at 6:11 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

Re: “Defund, disarm, and disband. Nothing else will work.”

Like many of the commenters here, I have read the outrageous stories of the apparently-rampant abuse of police powers going on in this country. And like them, I am upset and dismayed, if not outraged. However, when I read comments such as the above, some questions and observations come to mind.

The end-game of the Left/communists I think I understand quite well: They mean to abolish police forces as they now exist, and in due course, re-establish them as some sort of national paramilitary or secret police organization, something much more in line with their ideology.

The only time the communists dislike the police (who are, after all, an instrument of state power) is when they do not control them, or they do not fall into line ideologically. Which describes the status quo pretty well. The communists, on the other hand, like the police just fine when they protect/serve the interests of the party and the state, i.e., like the Cheka/NKVD/KGB, etc.

Traditional Americans I have more trouble understanding. I fully get it that many Trad-Americans are now questioning, if not withdrawing altogether, their formerly unqualified or strong support for the so-called “thin blue line.” As statements above indicate.

But in the absence of the present system of LE agencies, police forces, and the courts and “justice system,” what precisely do they think will take their place?

The old wise aphorisms state, “Don’t jump out of the frying pan into the fire” and “Look before you leap.” In other words, before you jump, know from where you are jumping and where you will likely land.

And one more old aphorism applies as well: “Better the devil you know, than the one you do not…”

As flawed and dysfunctional as the present system of police and the criminal/civil justice system are, we at least know by this time how they function, what the pratfalls are, and so forth. “The devil we know,” in other words.

But what can be known or said of what would replace it? How do traditional Americans know that this “new” system would not be even harder on them than the present one?

In short, I am not against reform or even replacement of certain parts of the present system, but I’d like to know more – a lot more – about it before throwing my support behind it.

Idealists may believe that a fairer and more-just system of law and justice is as simple as dismantling the current apparatus and starting over, but alas it isn’t that simple. I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, but I do know something of the history of our Old West and the decades-long struggle it took to tame the territories and bring them under some semblance of law-and-order.

Moreover, the history of human civilization tells us that someone will have to be vested with the authority to create and enforce the ethical norms of society. The Founders knew this well. James Madison – Federalist #51 – wrote these now famous words on the dilemma they (and we) face:

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

On June 28, 2021 at 7:47 pm, George 1 said:

@Georgiaboy61. IMO the police have been replaced for some time by what you describe.
#The 4th and 5th Amendments no longer apply to average citizens.
# Ditto the 1ST Amendment.
#The right to ANY privacy has been forfeit.
# The right to reasonable bail does not apply to White people any longer as you can see from those held in solitary confinement since shortly after 01/06/21.
# The right to peaceably assemble no longer applies to White people.
# Laws are now enforced quite asymmetrically depending upon your demographics and political leanings. Hint: They are not going after people of color with nearly as much abandon as they do White people. LEOs for the most part are enthusiastically embracing the policies.
# local police now gleefully assist the FBI in any of their outrageous behavior, to include monitoring and persecuting “domestic terrorists” and “White Supremacists.”
# Police from nearly all agencies are not accountable the vast majority of the time for criminal behavior up to and including murder. (many examples of this)
# Police have demonstrated that there is no constitutional line they will not cross in favor of “following orders.”
I can go on but you get the idea.

The communists are not going to have to disband and replace the police. They already control them for the most part. I think the police, as you describe them, paraphrasing: Bad apples within but basically a pretty good system that should not be replaced, might have been true in the 70s and possibly the 80s.

On June 28, 2021 at 8:13 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ George 1

Your analysis is in many ways correct – but it doesn’t really answer the underlying question: If the present system is corrupt and needs to be replaced or torn down and rebuilt, what replaces it? Or is that something that cannot be known before the fact?

Re: “The communists are not going to have to disband and replace the police.”

Then to what motives do you ascribe the nearly-constant riots, anti-police demonstrations, civil unrest and arson now taking place in Portland and other locales?

My reading of that situation is that the communists mean to de-establish the existing law-enforcement agencies, in order to “build them back better” as explicitly communist institutions with all that implies.

On June 28, 2021 at 8:31 pm, George 1 said:

@Georgiaboy61.
“Then to what motives do you ascribe the nearly-constant riots, anti-police demonstrations, civil unrest and arson now taking place in Portland and other locales?”

The riots and violence serve to spread anarchy and chaos. This is the way of communist/totalitarian takeovers. Note that the police are helping the communists. They are protecting them.

IMHO the police have been compromised for decades. Most just never noticed before. The police have already been “Built Back Better”.

On June 28, 2021 at 8:54 pm, George 1 said:

@Georgiaboy61.

A better way to put it is that in any society the Police work for the elites in that society. The elites in this society have decided that White conservatives, especially males, are now enemies of the state. So the elites turn their security apparatus (military and police) against their perceived enemies. The police decided some time ago that they would side with the elites/paymasters against the people.

Example: In many areas where riots occur, the police completely ignore the rioters. However anyone attempting to defend themselves from the violent actions of the rioters/communists will immediately draw the attention of police and be arrested.

We were once an exceptional nation that mostly followed the rule of law. We are no longer that. We are, in fact, pretty close to a third world nation with regard to police and the criminal justice system.

On June 28, 2021 at 9:05 pm, George 1 said:

@georgiaboy61.
Sorry my friend. I forgot to answer one of your points, that is : What do we replace this system with? At this point it cannot be replaced as the communists are in nearly complete control of the country. At some point, if we can win our freedom back, I would be in favor of abolishing the “professional Police”. Professionals of all stripes in government have done a piss poor job, to put it mildly.

I say we need community volunteers who work for an elected sheriff. There are many good people who would answer the call for the good of our country. These volunteers should be carefully screened and accountable for their actions. Only picked based on their qualifications. No extra “qualified immunity”.

On June 28, 2021 at 9:59 pm, X said:

This is proof of why you never, ever intervene to “save” a cop. Not only because they are likely to shoot you on the spot (which is plenty good reason in and of itself) but because cops are mercenaries for the government. The cop you save might be the one who will confiscate you guns, shoot your dog, arrest your wife and kill you if ordered.

Remember, the courts have ruled on numerous occasions that the cops have no legal obligation to protect you. You should not, therefore, feel as if you have any obligation to protect them.

If your own ass needs saving, then save it. Let everybody else worry about themselves.

On June 28, 2021 at 11:17 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ George I

Re: “A better way to put it is that in any society the Police work for the elites in that society. The elites in this society have decided that White conservatives, especially males, are now enemies of the state. So the elites turn their security apparatus (military and police) against their perceived enemies. The police decided some time ago that they would side with the elites/paymasters against the people.”

Yes, that is all true, unfortunately, and you raise a good point which is in fact the crux of the matter: Who controls the purse strings?

As you point you, we have moved as a society a long distance away from how things once worked. In theory, because the people pay the taxes which the government at all levels subsist upon, the people are supposed to be sovereign since they foot the bills. That’s how it was supposed to work, and for a time, when we were a virtuous people, perhaps it did work.

But what we see today is a system in which since the government controls the disbursement of taxpayer funds, the “swag” if you will, they control the police, armed forces, the IRS and the other enforcement and interventionist arms of the state. In other words, although the people ultimately pay for everything government “provides,” we the people actually have very little say in how things are done. Indeed, as you have pointed out – we have arguably the worst-possible outcome – we have to pay to support a system which is hostile to us and our way of life.

Which is why if/when something new arises or is built, the people themselves must maintain control over the purse-strings. Why? Because he who pays the cops, or the soldiers, ultimately controls them.

The late great economist, Dr.Walter Williams, I believe it was, once pointed out the utter folly of allowing government to siphon off taxes from earned income automatically, via the direct-deposit system, before the worker ever sees a dime of his earned income or wages. Which means the government gets paid before you do! There’s something very wrong with that outcome.

And make no mistake, reasserting citizen control over a run-away government – any run-away government – depends upon regaining control over the flow of tax revenue into the U.S. Treasury Dept. Turn off that flow, and you’d get their attention right quick. Parasites die off rather quickly when their host suddenly proves to be incapable – or unwilling – to feed them any longer.

On June 28, 2021 at 11:25 pm, Hudson H Luce said:

“Every family had a fully functional, fully automatic AK-47. It wasn’t a problem.” Maybe if every family here had one or two, this country might be a lot better to live in. From what I’ve heard, you could buy full-auto AKs in the local market, no interference by government, period. And we talk about Iraq being a dictatorship with no rights.

On June 28, 2021 at 11:52 pm, Hudson H Luce said:

“But what can be known or said of what would replace it? How do traditional Americans know that this “new” system would not be even harder on them than the present one?

In short, I am not against reform or even replacement of certain parts of the present system, but I’d like to know more – a lot more – about it before throwing my support behind it.

Most of my ancestors – in fact, all of them – lived in the Wild West. One of them came to Kansas in 1847, as a soldier at a fort 20 miles south of Dodge City, the latest to show up settled in Jefferson County in 1870. There weren’t any police, maybe there’d be a county sheriff, some of the larger towns had a town marshall. When it came to enforcing laws, it was the people of the town that did it. Thieves and rapists and murderers just didn’t make it to jail. Everybody had guns, even children. Everyone knew how and *when* and *in what manner* to use guns, too. Very few places were as violent as they are today, for some reason. Perhaps an armed society is a polite society – my great-grandmother, born in 1850 on the wild frontier, was a crack shot with a rifle, and she carried a revolver in her purse. So did my grandmother, from 1912 onwards. I don’t think she ever had to shoot anyone, the sight of it in her hand did convince people making smart remarks to find more important business elsewhere on several occasions. We’d be a lot better off giving people back the responsibility to keep the peace and enforce those laws worth enforcing, and getting rid of all police, law enforcement, armed government agents, and so forth. There’d be about a two-inch thick book of them, rather than the four feet of statute books – and 8 feet of regulation books that we’re burdened with now. And *then* there’d be no excuse for ignorance of the law.

On June 29, 2021 at 12:04 am, Zeal said:

End Qualified Immunity now. There’s your fix. Hold all police personally liable for their own personal actions. Why is this so difficult? All laws should apply to police the same as they do for the common man. If a cop knows they will be held responsible for their actions they will take care in their actions. We hold our own military responsible for their actions during times of war in far away lands. Why on earth would we not hold police in our own country who deal with our own citizens to that same standard? Let cops know those days are over and you will see a drastic change in policing on the whole without any other measure necessary.

On June 29, 2021 at 7:16 am, Fred said:

Defund, disarm, and disband doesn’t change the fact that every commie in the country needs to be hunted down and killed. I don’t need the police or a justice system that functions outside of or against the law of God. Americans will likely never undertake the project required to be a moral and religious people again. I seriously doubt we are the men our ancestors were. I don’t want the police replaced, I want them to not exist.

On June 29, 2021 at 8:02 am, Randolph Scott said:

Bad guy shoots a cop, call the police and Do absolutely nothing.

Bad guy shoots a cop and the bad guy points his weapon at you waste bad guy, holster gun, find a place to sit and say nothing. If questioned lawyer up.

On June 29, 2021 at 8:02 pm, Whocares said:

If I witnessed what the deceased did, my brain would say sit tight. I conceal carry to protect me and my family not to take down bad guys engaged elsewhere.

My heart would try and force me to save lives.

I hope my head wins.

On June 29, 2021 at 9:31 pm, Brad said:

Some great comments here. I renew my Carry Permit from a Post Certified retired sergeant from a major metro city in NorCal. He tells his classes, if you have a gun in your hand when LE show up, you will be shot. He becomes more anti LE with every passing day since his retirement.
I don’t know that I could not react when something like this went down. And quite frankly it would be nice to know how long our hero was wondering around with his gun out. If it were me that pistol might go back in the holster even faster than I drew it. Why in the hell are LE so afraid of guns. I already know the answer. Because they suck at using them. I am in favor of disarming LE. Because they suck at using guns.

On July 1, 2021 at 10:16 pm, Adam Baum said:

“There is no situation so bad that it cannot be made worse by the presence of police.”- William Norman Grigg

On June 27, 2021 at 9:41 pm, Heywood said:

“The cop who shot the man should be charged with homicide. He killed the man for no good reason”

Exactly! A cop has no more right than I do to shoot someone who is not directly threatening someone. But, once again, they will skate. Heck, they will probably get a medal.
On June 27, 2021 at 11:43 pm, George 1 said:

This is a lesson for us all. If you are ever involved in something like this move some distance away and assume when the police arrive that there is a very good chance that they just start blasting away. Also assume that they are very dim bulbs. Many of them are.
On June 28, 2021 at 1:21 am, Nosmo said:

There have been more than enough events in which the police shoot the “good guy” to warrant giving very serious thought as to one’s level of involvement in a shooting situation, and especially how that involvement is conducted.

Cautions abound, from every nook and cranny of the firearms community, to not have a gun in hand, or even be near one, or even the ability to recognize and differentiate between a gun and a Cocker Spaniel, when the police arrive. It might be best to simply be well out of range when the police do show up – Alexander Graham Bell invented a neat tool to assist with that – or at least severely limit one’s involvement in the first place to those circumstances in which, from a personal and family standpoint, no other alternative exists.

It should be pointed out that even with the use of Bell’s gizmo, the police will, eventually, arrive wherever you are, and just as likely arrive in a state of equally hightened agitation and frenzy as at the original location. Time and distance, at least, offers opportunity for greater thought to be devoted to control of the immediate environment and procedures, not to mention the strategic (and tactical) placement of a suitable buffer in the form of an attorney or other well trained, responsible and potentially sacrificial spokesperson.
On June 28, 2021 at 3:44 am, Jimmy the Saint said:

The local p.d. holds meetings with the populace where they explain what different units do, which one people should call for certain problems, etc. They also have Q&As after. Someone brought up a local mass-shooting from several years back and said “Shouldn’t we try to intervene if we have a gun of our own?” The response from the police holding the meeting was basically: that is very brave, and very likely to get you shot, since units arriving will not necessarily know who the bad shooter is, or how many there are, or might even been erroneously informed by witnesses that you are the bad shooter.
On June 28, 2021 at 5:38 am, Mark Matis said:

One wonders what race the murdered man was.

As always, if the “Law Enforcement” involved do not make it home safely at the end of their shift, this shit would stop REAL fast!!!
On June 28, 2021 at 5:55 am, Yep said:

Nosmo, I have no desire to be shot by the cops but damned if I’ll stand down from stopping a murderer just to save my own ass. Risks are risks. Couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I did that, I’d rather act like a man and take my chances.

Jimmy, that’s why I blame the trainers who certify police officers far more than I blame the cops. Good guys, poorly trained, make for bad responses. Doesn’t eliminate their individual culpability, but it does explain the ineptitude.
On June 28, 2021 at 8:23 am, Bill Buppert said:

One should consider the underlying assumption on the part of coproaches that ANYTIME they see a gun in someone’s hand, they have a license to kill.

Ironically even the Western occupiers in the neo-imperialist cesspools in the ME knew better as Herschel’s son alluded.

As long as cops have guns, they will be one of the single largest threats to life and limb in America.

This is their mindset. YMMV.
On June 28, 2021 at 9:04 am, Nosmo said:

From Yep (above): “Nosmo, I have no desire to be shot by the cops but damned if I’ll stand down from stopping a murderer just to save my own ass. Risks are risks. Couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I did that, I’d rather act like a man and take my chances.”

Fair enough, life has a way of forcing us to make decisions whether we want to or not. But….while you’re “acting like a man” you may be in the process of denying your children a father, your family a desperately needed income, causing a very severe reduction in living conditions and opportunities, a lifetime of pain and anguish for your wife and other relatives. It’s quite well known that children growing up without a father do not do as well as those raised by both parents.

So be sure the decision you make has adequate reward to compensate for the risk.

Bill Buppert said (above): “One should consider the underlying assumption on the part of coproaches that ANYTIME they see a gun in someone’s hand, they have a license to kill.” I don’t think that’s the typical police mindset, but it pays to remember they have no obligation, legal or moral, to protect you but only to “provide community law enforcement services.” In the event of a mistaken identity shooting they’re protected by Qualified Immunity and as long as they “followed agency policy” they’re golden. You, on the other hand, are still dead.

In the overwhelming majority of states in the U.S. there are established procedures for buying a gun and obtaining a concealed weapon permit to carry that gun for those legally eligible to do so. In the absence of firearms there are no restrictions in the U.S. of which I am aware prohibiting getting training in non-firearm self defense or developing situational awareness skills, and learning how to best protect oneself in a unarmed status.

I teach my CCW students they are not carrying a gun to be a junior police officer, or to go places they would not go unarmed, or to prove they can outshoot the bad guy; they’re carrying a gun – hopefully, every day and everywhere it’s legal to do so and maintaining their skill level – because some day all their best efforts at avoiding trouble may fail. Statistics show about 70% of CCW holders do not consistently carry their gun; I have neither responsibility, nor authority, to provide lethal protective services to them, nor to the people who do not feel a need to obtain the tools and learning the mindset to protect themselves and their families.

I do have such an obligation to my family and myself, which is why I follow – and recommend – the dictum “be somewhere else” when it all goes to crap. My first familial duty is escape and evade, for them and myself; should a direct and immediate threat compromise that a different decision will be made, one hopefully supported by sufficient awareness and skill maintenance to deal with the issue successfully and minimize risk.
On June 28, 2021 at 9:49 am, Chris Mallory said:

““One should consider the underlying assumption on the part of coproaches that ANYTIME they see a gun in someone’s hand, they have a license to kill.” I don’t think that’s the typical police mindset”

This has been the default cop mindset for at least a 30 years. Which is why you have cops shooting people holding cell phones, basketballs, and garden hose nozzles. It is why pulling up your pants can be a death sentence if a cop is around. It is why you see citizens shot in the back as they attempt to flee from the aggressive out of control cop they have had the misfortune of encountering.

I remember an incident back in the 1980’s where the local sheriff and his men were confronting an old man with a single barrel shotgun in a trailer park. The old man fired his round at the tree branches above the cops. The cops then proceeded to ventilate the old man and every trailer down range. The thought of running those 20 yards and taking the shotgun away before it could be reloaded never crossed their minds.
On June 28, 2021 at 9:58 am, George 1 said:

With regard to training a big part of teaching self defense should involve the danger police represent to the innocent IMHO. As Bill Buppert and Herschel Smith have pointed out: Statistically an innocent person is more likely to be killed by a cop than a gang member. That is just a fact.

“The most important thing is going home safe at the end of your shift.” It not just a slogan.
On June 28, 2021 at 10:24 am, BRVTVS said:

Cops have had the license to kill mentality for a long time. See, for instance, Thomas Edison’s biography:

“An alert policeman thought that he had discovered a thief and ordered him to
halt. Edison, who is deaf, continued tranquilly on his way. The policeman fired
a shot at this suspicious character, but with such bad aim that he failed to hit
him, and the two ended by making explanations and coming to an understanding.”
https://archive.org/details/thomasaedison00coop/page/54

Thomas Edison’s life was nearly cut short for the crime of poor hearing. Only the bad aim of the cop saved him. Some things never change.
On June 28, 2021 at 11:01 am, Frank Clarke said:

@George I: “Also assume that they are very dim bulbs. Many of them are.”

A parole officer once noted that “There are no smart people in prison, not even the employees.”
On June 28, 2021 at 11:44 am, George said:

Note that there has been no mention whether or not the responding officer issued commands to Hurley. Can we take that omission of the facts to presume that he did not?
On June 28, 2021 at 1:52 pm, Fred said:

I agree with both statements that the cops shouldn’t just shoot anybody with a gun and that you would be advised to not have a gun in your hands when po po show up.

In a distant land both by space (Fallujah) or time (the founding era) one could make a different argument, but I live here and now.

Defund, disarm, and disband. Nothing else will work.
On June 28, 2021 at 5:05 pm, Lou Jackson said:

How about holding those actually responsible, responsible. If a cop makes a bad shoot, due to lack of appropriate industry standard minimum training -25%, hold those who have refused, prevented, the cop from getting training appropriate to doing a professional job, accountable. From the Lt. To the funding allocator, mayor. Run them out of town on a rail! Instead of 8 minutes, and 50 rounds a year for firearms and tactics training. How about taking every penny of management bonuses, and put it into training. Instead of paying for chofer driven limousines for management, spend the money on training, and let management mopes drive Fiats!
On June 28, 2021 at 6:11 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

Re: “Defund, disarm, and disband. Nothing else will work.”

Like many of the commenters here, I have read the outrageous stories of the apparently-rampant abuse of police powers going on in this country. And like them, I am upset and dismayed, if not outraged. However, when I read comments such as the above, some questions and observations come to mind.

The end-game of the Left/communists I think I understand quite well: They mean to abolish police forces as they now exist, and in due course, re-establish them as some sort of national paramilitary or secret police organization, something much more in line with their ideology.

The only time the communists dislike the police (who are, after all, an instrument of state power) is when they do not control them, or they do not fall into line ideologically. Which describes the status quo pretty well. The communists, on the other hand, like the police just fine when they protect/serve the interests of the party and the state, i.e., like the Cheka/NKVD/KGB, etc.

Traditional Americans I have more trouble understanding. I fully get it that many Trad-Americans are now questioning, if not withdrawing altogether, their formerly unqualified or strong support for the so-called “thin blue line.” As statements above indicate.

But in the absence of the present system of LE agencies, police forces, and the courts and “justice system,” what precisely do they think will take their place?

The old wise aphorisms state, “Don’t jump out of the frying pan into the fire” and “Look before you leap.” In other words, before you jump, know from where you are jumping and where you will likely land.

And one more old aphorism applies as well: “Better the devil you know, than the one you do not…”

As flawed and dysfunctional as the present system of police and the criminal/civil justice system are, we at least know by this time how they function, what the pratfalls are, and so forth. “The devil we know,” in other words.

But what can be known or said of what would replace it? How do traditional Americans know that this “new” system would not be even harder on them than the present one?

In short, I am not against reform or even replacement of certain parts of the present system, but I’d like to know more – a lot more – about it before throwing my support behind it.

Idealists may believe that a fairer and more-just system of law and justice is as simple as dismantling the current apparatus and starting over, but alas it isn’t that simple. I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, but I do know something of the history of our Old West and the decades-long struggle it took to tame the territories and bring them under some semblance of law-and-order.

Moreover, the history of human civilization tells us that someone will have to be vested with the authority to create and enforce the ethical norms of society. The Founders knew this well. James Madison – Federalist #51 – wrote these now famous words on the dilemma they (and we) face:

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
On June 28, 2021 at 7:47 pm, George 1 said:

@Georgiaboy61. IMO the police have been replaced for some time by what you describe.
#The 4th and 5th Amendments no longer apply to average citizens.
# Ditto the 1ST Amendment.
#The right to ANY privacy has been forfeit.
# The right to reasonable bail does not apply to White people any longer as you can see from those held in solitary confinement since shortly after 01/06/21.
# The right to peaceably assemble no longer applies to White people.
# Laws are now enforced quite asymmetrically depending upon your demographics and political leanings. Hint: They are not going after people of color with nearly as much abandon as they do White people. LEOs for the most part are enthusiastically embracing the policies.
# local police now gleefully assist the FBI in any of their outrageous behavior, to include monitoring and persecuting “domestic terrorists” and “White Supremacists.”
# Police from nearly all agencies are not accountable the vast majority of the time for criminal behavior up to and including murder. (many examples of this)
# Police have demonstrated that there is no constitutional line they will not cross in favor of “following orders.”
I can go on but you get the idea.

The communists are not going to have to disband and replace the police. They already control them for the most part. I think the police, as you describe them, paraphrasing: Bad apples within but basically a pretty good system that should not be replaced, might have been true in the 70s and possibly the 80s.
On June 28, 2021 at 8:13 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ George 1

Your analysis is in many ways correct – but it doesn’t really answer the underlying question: If the present system is corrupt and needs to be replaced or torn down and rebuilt, what replaces it? Or is that something that cannot be known before the fact?

Re: “The communists are not going to have to disband and replace the police.”

Then to what motives do you ascribe the nearly-constant riots, anti-police demonstrations, civil unrest and arson now taking place in Portland and other locales?

My reading of that situation is that the communists mean to de-establish the existing law-enforcement agencies, in order to “build them back better” as explicitly communist institutions with all that implies.
On June 28, 2021 at 8:31 pm, George 1 said:

@Georgiaboy61.
“Then to what motives do you ascribe the nearly-constant riots, anti-police demonstrations, civil unrest and arson now taking place in Portland and other locales?”

The riots and violence serve to spread anarchy and chaos. This is the way of communist/totalitarian takeovers. Note that the police are helping the communists. They are protecting them.

IMHO the police have been compromised for decades. Most just never noticed before. The police have already been “Built Back Better”.
On June 28, 2021 at 8:54 pm, George 1 said:

@Georgiaboy61.

A better way to put it is that in any society the Police work for the elites in that society. The elites in this society have decided that White conservatives, especially males, are now enemies of the state. So the elites turn their security apparatus (military and police) against their perceived enemies. The police decided some time ago that they would side with the elites/paymasters against the people.

Example: In many areas where riots occur, the police completely ignore the rioters. However anyone attempting to defend themselves from the violent actions of the rioters/communists will immediately draw the attention of police and be arrested.

We were once an exceptional nation that mostly followed the rule of law. We are no longer that. We are, in fact, pretty close to a third world nation with regard to police and the criminal justice system.
On June 28, 2021 at 9:05 pm, George 1 said:

@georgiaboy61.
Sorry my friend. I forgot to answer one of your points, that is : What do we replace this system with? At this point it cannot be replaced as the communists are in nearly complete control of the country. At some point, if we can win our freedom back, I would be in favor of abolishing the “professional Police”. Professionals of all stripes in government have done a piss poor job, to put it mildly.

I say we need community volunteers who work for an elected sheriff. There are many good people who would answer the call for the good of our country. These volunteers should be carefully screened and accountable for their actions. Only picked based on their qualifications. No extra “qualified immunity”.
On June 28, 2021 at 9:59 pm, X said:

This is proof of why you never, ever intervene to “save” a cop. Not only because they are likely to shoot you on the spot (which is plenty good reason in and of itself) but because cops are mercenaries for the government. The cop you save might be the one who will confiscate you guns, shoot your dog, arrest your wife and kill you if ordered.

Remember, the courts have ruled on numerous occasions that the cops have no legal obligation to protect you. You should not, therefore, feel as if you have any obligation to protect them.

If your own ass needs saving, then save it. Let everybody else worry about themselves.
On June 28, 2021 at 11:17 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

@ George I

Re: “A better way to put it is that in any society the Police work for the elites in that society. The elites in this society have decided that White conservatives, especially males, are now enemies of the state. So the elites turn their security apparatus (military and police) against their perceived enemies. The police decided some time ago that they would side with the elites/paymasters against the people.”

Yes, that is all true, unfortunately, and you raise a good point which is in fact the crux of the matter: Who controls the purse strings?

As you point you, we have moved as a society a long distance away from how things once worked. In theory, because the people pay the taxes which the government at all levels subsist upon, the people are supposed to be sovereign since they foot the bills. That’s how it was supposed to work, and for a time, when we were a virtuous people, perhaps it did work.

But what we see today is a system in which since the government controls the disbursement of taxpayer funds, the “swag” if you will, they control the police, armed forces, the IRS and the other enforcement and interventionist arms of the state. In other words, although the people ultimately pay for everything government “provides,” we the people actually have very little say in how things are done. Indeed, as you have pointed out – we have arguably the worst-possible outcome – we have to pay to support a system which is hostile to us and our way of life.

Which is why if/when something new arises or is built, the people themselves must maintain control over the purse-strings. Why? Because he who pays the cops, or the soldiers, ultimately controls them.

The late great economist, Dr.Walter Williams, I believe it was, once pointed out the utter folly of allowing government to siphon off taxes from earned income automatically, via the direct-deposit system, before the worker ever sees a dime of his earned income or wages. Which means the government gets paid before you do! There’s something very wrong with that outcome.

And make no mistake, reasserting citizen control over a run-away government – any run-away government – depends upon regaining control over the flow of tax revenue into the U.S. Treasury Dept. Turn off that flow, and you’d get their attention right quick. Parasites die off rather quickly when their host suddenly proves to be incapable – or unwilling – to feed them any longer.
On June 28, 2021 at 11:25 pm, Hudson H Luce said:

“Every family had a fully functional, fully automatic AK-47. It wasn’t a problem.” Maybe if every family here had one or two, this country might be a lot better to live in. From what I’ve heard, you could buy full-auto AKs in the local market, no interference by government, period. And we talk about Iraq being a dictatorship with no rights.
On June 28, 2021 at 11:52 pm, Hudson H Luce said:

“But what can be known or said of what would replace it? How do traditional Americans know that this “new” system would not be even harder on them than the present one?

In short, I am not against reform or even replacement of certain parts of the present system, but I’d like to know more – a lot more – about it before throwing my support behind it.

Idealists may believe that a fairer and more-just system of law and justice is as simple as dismantling the current apparatus and starting over, but alas it isn’t that simple. I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, but I do know something of the history of our Old West and the decades-long struggle it took to tame the territories and bring them under some semblance of law-and-order.”

Most of my ancestors – in fact, all of them – lived in the Wild West. One of them came to Kansas in 1847, as a soldier at a fort 20 miles south of Dodge City, the latest to show up settled in Jefferson County in 1870. There weren’t any police, maybe there’d be a county sheriff, some of the larger towns had a town marshall. When it came to enforcing laws, it was the people of the town that did it. Thieves and rapists and murderers just didn’t make it to jail. Everybody had guns, even children. Everyone knew how and *when* and *in what manner* to use guns, too. Very few places were as violent as they are today, for some reason. Perhaps an armed society is a polite society – my great-grandmother, born in 1850 on the wild frontier, was a crack shot with a rifle, and she carried a revolver in her purse. So did my grandmother, from 1912 onwards. I don’t think she ever had to shoot anyone, the sight of it in her hand did convince people making smart remarks to find more important business elsewhere on several occasions. We’d be a lot better off giving people back the responsibility to keep the peace and enforce those laws worth enforcing, and getting rid of all police, law enforcement, armed government agents, and so forth. There’d be about a two-inch thick book of them, rather than the four feet of statute books – and 8 feet of regulation books that we’re burdened with now. And *then* there’d be no excuse for ignorance of the law.
On June 29, 2021 at 12:04 am, Zeal said:

End Qualified Immunity now. There’s your fix. Hold all police personally liable for their own personal actions. Why is this so difficult? All laws should apply to police the same as they do for the common man. If a cop knows they will be held responsible for their actions they will take care in their actions. We hold our own military responsible for their actions during times of war in far away lands. Why on earth would we not hold police in our own country who deal with our own citizens to that same standard? Let cops know those days are over and you will see a drastic change in policing on the whole without any other measure necessary.
On June 29, 2021 at 7:16 am, Fred said:

Defund, disarm, and disband doesn’t change the fact that every commie in the country needs to be hunted down and killed. I don’t need the police or a justice system that functions outside of or against the law of God. Americans will likely never undertake the project required to be a moral and religious people again. I seriously doubt we are the men our ancestors were. I don’t want the police replaced, I want them to not exist.
On June 29, 2021 at 8:02 am, Randolph Scott said:

Bad guy shoots a cop, call the police and Do absolutely nothing.

Bad guy shoots a cop and the bad guy points his weapon at you waste bad guy, holster gun, find a place to sit and say nothing. If questioned lawyer up.
On June 29, 2021 at 8:02 pm, Whocares said:

If I witnessed what the deceased did, my brain would say sit tight. I conceal carry to protect me and my family not to take down bad guys engaged elsewhere.

My heart would try and force me to save lives.

I hope my head wins.
On June 29, 2021 at 9:31 pm, Brad said:

Some great comments here. I renew my Carry Permit from a Post Certified retired sergeant from a major metro city in NorCal. He tells his classes, if you have a gun in your hand when LE show up, you will be shot. He becomes more anti LE with every passing day since his retirement.
I don’t know that I could not react when something like this went down. And quite frankly it would be nice to know how long our hero was wondering around with his gun out. If it were me that pistol might go back in the holster even faster than I drew it. Why in the hell are LE so afraid of guns. I already know the answer. Because they suck at using them. I am in favor of disarming LE. Because they suck at using guns.
On July 1, 2021 at 10:16 pm, Adam Baum said:

“There is no situation so bad that it cannot be made worse by the presence of police.”- William Norman Grigg

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

A ‘heroic’ man who fatally shot a gunman was himself killed by a responding officer

Comments

Leave a comment