Jump to content

Act? Or Don't Act?


PATCHMAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ed Harrell, a Louisville resident, told the Courier-Journal that he was waiting for his wife outside a Kroger in Jeffersontown, Ky., on Wednesday when a man later identified as 51-year-old Gregory Bush walked by him with a gun.

Having already heard gunshots coming from inside the store, Harrell was crouched by the side of his vehicle, clutching his revolver when he shared a brief exchange with Bush."Don’t shoot me. I won't shoot you," Harrell claims the shooter told him. "Whites don’t shoot whites."

Harrell says he then dove behind a car and watched as the shooter got in a vehicle and drove off.

Neither Harrell nor his wife were injured during the attack, which left two people dead.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/survivor-claims-kentucky-shooter-spared-204947376.html

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The victims, both African American, were later identified as Maurice Stallard, a 69-year-old man grocery shopping with his grandson, and Vicki Lee Jones, a 67-year-old woman who recently moved to Jeffersontown because it was "safe."

Police say Bush "pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot (Stallard) in the rear of the head and again multiple times as he lay on the floor," the Courier-Journal reports. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/survivor-claims-kentucky-shooter-spared-204947376.html

Edited by PATCHMAN
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

The victims, both African American, were later identified as Maurice Stallard, a 69-year-old man grocery shopping with his grandson, and Vicki Lee Jones, a 67-year-old woman who recently moved to Jeffersontown because it was "safe."

Police say Bush "pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot (Stallard) in the rear of the head and again multiple times as he lay on the floor," the Courier-Journal reports. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/survivor-claims-kentucky-shooter-spared-204947376.html

Sounds personal

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, janice6 said:

The sad reality is, that not everyone carrying a firearm is willing to use it.  When the moment comes that you see God, some hide from him.

I’m not a cop, not a warrior professional operator. I am a father and husband, those are my priorities.

if I’m in a mall or dept store and hear shooting my responsibility is to get them out and safe, not go take on a nut with a gun shooting at random. If I have to shoot my way to the exit, I will.

done the hero stuff, not healthy or cost effective.

 

.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

without being the one involved it's really hard to say.

The guy shot the victims, then walked out, but from what this appears, was not being an active threat (very real potential to be an active threat, and to be one again, but was not one at that moment)

The article is a little confusing to me.  The shooter walked out of the store with a holstered gun, then drew and shot the second victim.  The guy with the revolver says he heard shots inside, but doesn't mention any outside, just that he and the shooter had an exchange of words before the shooter got in his vehicle and drove off.  Somewhere in there there were shots outside that killed the second victim.  If revolver guy did not see him actively shooting people, and was not being targeted himself, then my take on it is that shooting him when he is not actively threatening revolver guy or anyone else is a grey area.  

As Dric902 said, revolver guy's first responsibility is to protect himself and his family.  He isn't law enforcement or anything like that, and it doesn't read like he saw the shootings take place.  If he didn't see the actual shooting, then is it his job to shoot a guy who isn't actively threatening him, if he doesn't know what actually happened?  For all revolver guy knows (as the article doesn't really give much information) the shooter shot the jukebox and was heading home to cool off.  In that type of situation does it warrant shooting a guy?  

We can armchair quarterback this all you like, but I wasn't there, and neither were any of you.  Without knowing everything that the revolver guy knew and had mentally processed at the time, I say he did the right thing in not getting into an unnecessary gunfight in a parking lot when his wife was nearby and who knows what else was in the neighborhood that could have been hit by stray bullets.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what I would like to do I am quite sure I would still be processing what is going on and not shoot anyone unless actively threatened.  That said having time to think about it, I would not want to draw on him because best that can happen is I shoot him and that is a legal **** storm.  An idiot like that is going to get caught anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PATCHMAN said:

The victims, both African American, were later identified as Maurice Stallard, a 69-year-old man grocery shopping with his grandson, and Vicki Lee Jones, a 67-year-old woman who recently moved to Jeffersontown because it was "safe."

Police say Bush "pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot (Stallard) in the rear of the head and again multiple times as he lay on the floor," the Courier-Journal reports. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/survivor-claims-kentucky-shooter-spared-204947376.html

 

4 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Sounds personal

 

.

 

Yup.  Back of the head and all that!  Reads like the shooter took their blackness personal.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dric902 said:

Overkill usually indicates a personal aspect to the killing. 

Perceived grudge, animosity for the victim

 

.

Animosity for the victims?  Still not legal justification to shoot them dead. 

If you were Mr. Harrell, the bystander, would you would have, or would not have,  acted?     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PATCHMAN said:

Animosity for the victims?  Still not legal justification to shoot them dead. 

If you were Mr. Harrell, the bystander, would you would have, or would not have,  acted?     

Not saying there was any justification, just that overkill usually indicates a relationship. Not a stranger killing

would I have acted, sure. I would have gotten a good description and a plate number for the cops, been a good witness.

 

if you have an image in your mind that the cops are going to pat you on the back and thank you for being a hero...you totally wrong.

you will be arrested, your gun will be confiscated and engraved with the officers name or number (and not nicely done) you will be questioned. Trying to tell them what a hero you are will not work. To many prosecutors “hero” means “reckless endangerment”

you will need a lawyer, even with a “no true bill”

you will likely be sued by family. Even in states with good laws, you will pay to win.

you can figure 50 to 100 thousand dollars for each bullet you fire......do your kids want to go to college? Can you stand a second mortgage?

and that’s if you’re the good guy.

A questionable act like this one? Did you see the shooting? Are you under a direct physical threat to life or grievous bodily harm?

 

give aid to the victims, call the cops, be as good a witness as you can. 

Then you get the pats on the back and a big thank you.

 

.

Edited by Dric902
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From this report alone, of course with the caveat that nobody knows what they would do in any given situation, I would have done nothing. Seeing someone with a gun isn't uncommon where I live. Hearing gun shots and seeing someone with a gun is no ironclad guarantee that he was the shooter. Nor does one know if it was a defensive shooting.  As others have said, gather information and be a good witness. Anything else is making assumptions and the last thing I would want to do is make a wrong assumption that resulted in a loss of life. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PATCHMAN said:

All About the Man Who Shot and Killed Two People at a Kentucky Kroger

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/white-man-shot-killed-two-171416986.html

 

All I can say is that last week could have been a lot busier for LE than it actually was!  

After reading that article there is one law that could easily have prevented this if it was faithfully carried out by the courts.  The U.K. even had it as one of their laws until a few decades ago.

 

image.jpeg.916c9a78628fa8400afc2e5348d6ddb7.jpeg

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2018 at 12:49 PM, Cougar_ml said:

without being the one involved it's really hard to say.

The guy shot the victims, then walked out, but from what this appears, was not being an active threat (very real potential to be an active threat, and to be one again, but was not one at that moment)

The article is a little confusing to me.  The shooter walked out of the store with a holstered gun, then drew and shot the second victim.  The guy with the revolver says he heard shots inside, but doesn't mention any outside, just that he and the shooter had an exchange of words before the shooter got in his vehicle and drove off.  Somewhere in there there were shots outside that killed the second victim.  If revolver guy did not see him actively shooting people, and was not being targeted himself, then my take on it is that shooting him when he is not actively threatening revolver guy or anyone else is a grey area.  

As Dric902 said, revolver guy's first responsibility is to protect himself and his family.  He isn't law enforcement or anything like that, and it doesn't read like he saw the shootings take place.  If he didn't see the actual shooting, then is it his job to shoot a guy who isn't actively threatening him, if he doesn't know what actually happened?  For all revolver guy knows (as the article doesn't really give much information) the shooter shot the jukebox and was heading home to cool off.  In that type of situation does it warrant shooting a guy?  

We can armchair quarterback this all you like, but I wasn't there, and neither were any of you.  Without knowing everything that the revolver guy knew and had mentally processed at the time, I say he did the right thing in not getting into an unnecessary gunfight in a parking lot when his wife was nearby and who knows what else was in the neighborhood that could have been hit by stray bullets.

^^^This^^^

 

  If he did not see the shooting and was not "In Fear for His Life, or Great Bodily Harm" then using his firearm would have put him in legal jeopardy and I don't mean Civil. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...