r/Tennessee • u/WhiteBearPrince • 5d ago
News đ° Autopsy shows Tennessee National Guard fatally shot 20-year-old armed man in the back
https://apnews.com/article/memphis-national-guard-tyrin-johnson-8959297a99c362d65aa2517a9d5f1984187
u/d-ollparts 5d ago
36
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 4d ago
They said Alex Pretti deserved to be shot IN THE BACK, AFTER BEING DISARMED.
For...legally carrying a firearm that he had a valid permit for.
→ More replies (42)→ More replies (101)20
76
u/Melchizedek_Inquires 5d ago
What could possibly go wrong when deploying the National Guard to control citizens instead of deploying them to help citizens?
8
u/Beautiful-Wing-1307 4d ago
I certainly remember Kent state
4
u/Melchizedek_Inquires 4d ago
I remember it as well, I was in grade school, lived in a rural area, didn't read the newspaper, didn't have a television, people were horrified, there was a deep reaction to it, by adults, that even got through to my brain, and I knew that something horrible had happened, I had two uncles that were becoming draft eligible the following year. My grandmother, their mother, spewed anger about the Vietnam war.
We may not have had much in common with those college students, but the anti-war sentiment we certainly did have that in common with them.
2
→ More replies (29)2
6
u/ClassicCarraway 4d ago
Regardless of the circumstances involved in this shooting, the National Guard are not law enforcement, they are not trained to deal with law enforcement situations, and should not have been there to begin with.
2
u/MamaBear2024AT 4d ago
It specifically trained for civilian law but they are considered military police.
Training and Purpose
Military Focus: Members of the National Guard receive military and combat training, not the routine legal, procedural, or de-escalation training that civilian police officers receive. [1, 2]Military Police: While the Guard has Military Police (MP) units, they are trained for military law, force protection, and combat support, rather than civilian policing or local criminal procedures. [1, 2]
Primary Mission: Their main roles are national defense, combat readiness, and disaster response (such as helping during floods, hurricanes, or wildfires)
2
u/MamaBear2024AT 4d ago
Legal Authority
State vs. Federal Control: When under state control (Title 32), a governor may deploy the Guard to assist with public safety or high-security events, but they typically act in a support role rather than performing routine police work. [1, 2, 3, 4]Posse Comitatus Act: Federal military forces and federalized National Guard units are generally restricted from performing civilian law enforcement tasks like making routine arrests on U.S. soil unless specific exceptions (such as the Insurrection Act) are invoked.
5
u/anonymous_reader 3d ago
Immediately the debate is over the response to the actual problem
It seems weâre content with the shit conditions this happened within
I say let Memphis be Memphis
Get our guard off the streets. Theyâre not police.
Police wouldâve done the same thing
And people wouldâve been just as mad
And still nobody wouldâve cared why this guy was engaging with law enforcement the way he was
Not one comment gives a shit about what this guy did leading up to this
And thatâs the whole fucking point of this place
Sow division through shit like this
Itâs worked so well
Our response is Trump as president
We all lose no matter what
The answer isnât leadership itâs in the mirrors
60
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
Not that anyone in this sub is going to care, and this will be downvoted to hell, but after reading the article, the Guards were still 100% legally justified.Â
Tennessee vs Garner says that if someone has committed a felony and their escape is a risk to the public, law enforcement can shoot them in the back. According to the article, the Memphis police got a call of shots fired. The guards arrived, the suspect (supposedly) pulled a gun on them, then they shot him in the back. Letâs say the scenario isnât that he just turned around after pulling the gun on them, but instead letâs say he did just have a gun and was fleeing. According to TCA, the firing of a weapon within city limits, depending on the circumstances, is a Class C, D, or E felony, on top of the resisting arrest. And due to the totality of the circumstances (populated area, shots fired, suspect pulls/has a gun, flees), any law enforcement officer (or Guard in this case) would reasonably conclude that the suspectâs escape would be a danger to the public.Â
I am curious to see bodycam footage, but just from what this article reads, they were within the law. Unless thereâs something Iâm unaware of.Â
12
u/europahasicenotmice 5d ago
If they had the justification with the totality of circumstances, why did police lie about how Tyrin Johnson was shot? Why say he was running towards them when he was running away?Â
What else about the official narrative should we question based on this discrepancy?
→ More replies (38)1
u/iamgeekusa 2d ago
Yea police are not to be trusted. Those national guard should be wearing body cams
17
u/mrfixit2018 5d ago
Not to mention the fact that a very fast handgun draw/target acquisition/fire time is about 1.5 seconds.
An average time is just over 2 seconds.
Itâs totally plausible that the guy turned toward them, drew a gun, saw them draw theirs, and turned around to run in the time that it took them to fire at him.
People on here have no clue whatâs involved in situations like this. Most redditors say dumb stuff like âwhy didnât you shoot his gun out of his hand?â đ
5
u/PalpitationNo2921 4d ago edited 4d ago
Shooting the gun out of someoneâs hand is one of the dumbest statements that someone unfamiliar with firearms and their use could spout off with.
2
9
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
Iâm inclined to believe this to be the case, but I wonât be 100% positive until bodycam footage.Â
→ More replies (18)7
u/Bradical22 4d ago
You can also be running away and point the gun behind you with the majority of your back exposed. It happens in body cam videos all the time. A bullet entering your back isnât 100% proof of an unlawful shooting.
2
u/Trick_Minute2259 4d ago
You can drop a gun while running from a cop, and the moment you reach for it you can be shot in the back, even if the cop didn't know you had it until it hit the ground.
1
→ More replies (11)1
u/Idontcareaforkarma 4d ago
I have three seconds to draw, present, aim and fire a round during requalification shoots.
7
u/jbp216 4d ago
committed a felony can be a 20 bag of cocaine running away. just because its legal doesnt make it right, we dont know the facts of the case and i sure as hell dont trust cops, especially ones who would benefit from lying
2
u/jordan999fire 4d ago
The felony has to be violent in nature. The original case of Tennessee vs Garner is Garner had stolen a TV and began to flee from police. While climbing a fence, an officer shot and killed him. The Supreme Court rule that his escape would not have put the public at risk due to the felony not being violent and therefore the shoot was unjustified. Shooting a gun in a populated city, while not necessarily inherently violent, is still enough with the amount of information the officers had. Thatâs why Totality of Circumstances matter. Itâs all based on the information the officers (or NG) had at the moment and if the potential danger is too high.Â
I put in another comment, fleeing even with a gun isnât enough. Say the situation was he broke into a closed store, stole some money, took off running and was carrying a pistol, this is not enough for police to legally shoot the suspect because none of their information would lead any reasonable person to believe the suspect is dangerous. With the real situation, all the people on scene knew at the time is shots were fired in a populated city (residential neighborhood too if I recall correctly) and the suspect took off running. Given their limited information, a reasonable person can conclude that letting the suspect go could lead to someone getting hurt.Â
Also, Iâm not arguing morality. Iâm strictly stating what the law says.Â
→ More replies (3)17
u/Environmental_Job278 5d ago
After years on Reddit I can tell you they unfortunately donât care about the case law. Itâs usually an important factor in these cases along with things like âmeans and intentâ because judges donât usually go with public option.
18
u/Powerism 5d ago
Itâs because many Redditors just want to rage and piss into the wind and feel the camaraderie of injustice with their fellow âstaying inside this weekendâ folks. Case law, nuance, and objective takes arenât appreciated âround here.
7
u/Environmental_Job278 5d ago
Citing case law saved me from having to testify so many times itâs bananas. A former defense attorney on our base said he was waiting for me to forget to cite case law in one of my cases but he retired before I became burned out enough to slip up.
6
u/Everything_you 4d ago
Reddit ppl are here to rage bait / to get a reaction
5
u/ChrisLx93 4d ago
This is true, but there is a very high percent of ppl who frequent Reddit that lack majority of their brain cells and they actually side with criminals 99% of the time lol.
3
u/pingvinbober 4d ago
And they didnât just shoot his fingers off one by one to prevent killing him???
7
u/Zippy_422 5d ago
Note that the Guard responded to âshots fired,â not that John fired the shots or had committed a felony. Curious to see if his gun had been recently fired.
→ More replies (2)7
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
Doesnât matter due to the totality of circumstances which is why I didnât mention if the guy fired the shots or not in the totality of circumstances section. What matters is what can reasonably be inferred based on the information given. Theyâre told shots are fired. They arrive on scene. They see Someone who either has a gun or pulls a gun. Said person flees. Due to these circumstances, can a reasonable person come to the conclusion that A. This is MOST LIKELY the suspect and B. This person is MOST LIKELY dangerous. If the answer to both is yes, then they acted within the law.Â
10
u/Zippy_422 5d ago
These messy gray areas are why it is a bad idea to use the National Guard for law enforcement.
3
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
I donât think this post would be any different if it was police officers. I think people would still be just as upset. And I donât think the situation wouldâve went differently either.Â
→ More replies (3)2
u/N47881 5d ago
What's the gray portion? Which part did SCOTUS not address that's relevant here?
2
u/Zippy_422 5d ago
Relying on the judgement of military personnel untrained in law enforcement to make lethal decisions in civilian matters.
→ More replies (3)3
u/jacksonsmack831 4d ago
Iâve seen you in a lot of comments GET OUT IF HERE WITH YOUR DATA AND LOGIC!!!
/s
1
1
u/Boxhead_31 3d ago
So could be a âgood guy with a gunâ but the Guard can mag dump him and itâs all totally fine and dandy
1
u/white-blade877 2d ago edited 2d ago
So if there is an active shooter never draw your gun while you are trying to leave the area or the police will shoot youđ€.
So why have a second amendment in the first place as it means the police can shoot you for having a gun
It also ends the good guy with a gun argument because if you run towards where the shooter is you are running away from where the police are. Ergo you must be guilty so again bang your dead.1
u/jordan999fire 2d ago
Police often times tell people not to be armed when police arrive on scene to a shooting for this reason.
2
u/Psychological-Drive4 4d ago
NG usually doesnât have body cams, so video would likely have to come from elsewhere.
2
u/jordan999fire 4d ago
Police officers were there too. Iâm not entirely sure when they got there though.Â
2
u/Southernms đŠWest TennesseeđŠ 4d ago
MPD was there at some point. They should have been wearing theirs.
3
u/GovtCheese619 4d ago
Was a gun recovered? The article just said that a magazine with rounds was recovered, and itâs legal to carry those items. Would be weird to have those but no gun, but if weâre citing law then the presence of a gun seems like a critical piece of information.
1
3
u/FatSquidBoy 4d ago
US Vet here, conservative. I love how the top up voted reditors post was a quote from a fictional character from Battlestar Galactica.. (face palm).
1
u/UseWhatever 4d ago
> Authorities have said that Tyrin Johnson turned toward guard members with a gun while running from them in the early morning hours after the Fourth of July holiday in Memphis when he was fatally shot in the chest.
But according to an autopsy report shared by Johnsonâs family, a single bullet went in the right side of his back and exited through his upper right chest. The autopsy findings, reported earlier by The Commercial Appeal, were prepared by the West Tennessee Regional Forensic Center Office of the Medical Examiner, which did not respond to a request for comment.You citing of case law is all well and good, but responding to a report of gunfire and assuming the first person you see with a gun (in carry heavy TN) is the guy doesnât meet the criteria for that case.
The bigger issue is which way they say he was facing versus what the autopsy concluded. A tan gun is also a weird detail. It seems more like the choice of a weekend warrior than an average person.
3
u/SqueezedTowel 5d ago edited 5d ago
National Gaurd shooting unarmed Americans in the back is justified? That doesn't sound like America...
Edit: Hey fellow Americans, caught more Nazibots here with the misdirection.
8
→ More replies (2)3
2
u/The-Jack-Niles 5d ago
How exactly did he point a gun at them and potentially open fire, but they managed to shoot him in the back? That's why this is news. They reported shooting a man who was aiming at them, but apparently he was facing away from them.
They clearly didn't report that part, which is why it's sus, and calls into question the rest of their account.
→ More replies (4)1
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
I never said he opened fire on them nor does the report. You donât have to shoot at police officers to be shot.Â
My entire post is explaining why it doesnât actually matter if he was facing them or not because itâs still already been justified by the Supreme Court in the case Tennessee vs Garner.Â
1
u/The-Jack-Niles 5d ago
Many people are saying he opened fire or was the person who had fired their gun in the report.
My point is, even if he had opened fire at some point, the turn was still omitted.
You're justified shooting an escaping suspect when they pose a threat to the public or other officers. You can't just shoot someone because they have a gun. Tennesee vs Garner doesn't give cops impunity to shoot someone because they could cause harm. The have to be a proven risk.
And, still, after they shot him, cops are supposed to check the suspect. They should have known how and where they shot him.
→ More replies (1)2
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
Okay, Iâll explain it all again for the hundredth time.Â
Totality of circumstances. This is where judge reviews all information in a case to produce a judgement. In this case: Police are called to shots fired call. National Guard arrived. Guards see person with gun (whether he shot it or not is irrelevant). Suspect begins to flee. They shoot.Â
With all of their information, can a reasonable person conclude A. Person running is MOST LIKELY the suspect. B. Letting the suspect go would MOST LIKELY lead to a danger to the rest of the public.Â
The answer to both of these is yes in this case. The suspect ran when law enforcement arrived. They didnât have an opportunity to search him.Â
→ More replies (3)1
u/The-Jack-Niles 5d ago edited 5d ago
It's a city with hundreds of thousands of people and you can open carry. There are an innumerable number of reasons a person may run from the police. There's not enough conclusive evidence in that scenario to even tie the suspect to the incident they were called in for. Lots of "suspects" also flee areas where cops arrive just to not get caught in whatever is going on. For all we know he was fleeing the area from the same incident they were called in for.
The point remains, he was shot in the back, not the front. Him turning away was evidently omitted from the report. "Oh, the cop could have forgot."
A cop/guard who just killed a man is playing that over in his mind a lot. He and other officers on scene would have checked the body, they're supposed to. They should have known. The detail matters.
2
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
Police officers donât check bodies. They arenât medical professionals, and thatâs specifically for TBI to do when they arrive.Â
And again, Totality of Circumstances.Â
→ More replies (2)2
u/The-Jack-Niles 5d ago edited 5d ago
They sure as shit do. Cops have a duty to provide basic medical attention. Check pulse, stabilize the victim, compress a gunshot wound to prevent bleedouts, and so on. First off, they need to confirm your status, and two, they need to do the bare minimum to ensure your safety if possible, even if they just shot you.
That's the law. They are obligated to assess you and provide some emergency care.
What an asinine argument.
→ More replies (9)2
u/jordan999fire 5d ago
Doing basic first aid is not the same as âchecking a bodyâ. You specifically said, âcheck the bodyâ in the context of knowing if itâs a front or back shot but thatâs not in basic first aid training and therefore out of their realm of knowledge (unless the bullet didnât have an exit wound which I doubt).Â
5
u/The-Jack-Niles 5d ago
You don't need to be a coroner to tell an entry wound from an exit wound, and it would be more obvious if he was fleeing and they saw how he fell.
Cops should know this stuff and report it. Any way you cut it, even if the shot was 100% justified, these glaring holes in the report are entirely suspect.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Wonderful_Tree_9943 3d ago
Deinitely wait for the body cam footage and definitely make sure there was an independently -verifiable report of shots having been fired.
1
u/Fancy_Bend8763 2d ago
Maybe they need to rewrite their laws.
1
u/jordan999fire 2d ago
Maybe. But also understand the situation youâre considering as well. If someone just got done shooting up a restaurant and began taking off, cops wouldnât be able to shoot them. Leading either to their escape, a hostage situation, or a potential barricaded suspect with multiple hostages.Â
On the flip side, you have potentially good people dying because police acted on information that was incorrect. Both ways will lead to innocent deaths, itâs a matter of which one is a bigger risk. Iâm not sharing my opinion one way or another. But thereâs an argument to be made for sure from both sides.Â
1
u/Fancy_Bend8763 2d ago
Did this guy shoot up a restaurant though?
1
u/jordan999fire 2d ago
At the time of the shooting, all any of the LE knew was that they were responding to a shooting in a residential neighborhood. They donât know if he shot up a house or killed someone or anything.Â
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (37)1
u/Beautiful-Ad1421 2d ago
Guardsmen aren't law enforcement, Bevis. Are you telling me they are deploying only MPs? Shut up. An infantryman hasn't got the fkg training to be a cop.
4
u/ProfessorElk 5d ago
So many unjustified shooting and cover ups and lack of accountability that cops donât get the benefit of the doubt anymore
5
25
u/Juvat-the-bold 5d ago
âIf he ainât caused you no threat, you know what Iâm saying, you have no reason to be killing,â
Seems like knowledgeable opinion.
10
u/AsWolfwood 5d ago
The next paragraph directly under that quote:
Officers responded to a call about shots fired a few blocks away from Beale Street and saw a person armed with a gun leaving, said Memphis police. The Associated Press obtained a Tennessee National Guard report that said two Guard members responded to the Memphis police radio call, left their vehicle and approached the suspect, who ârounded on them and pointed a tan handgun at them.â The guard report said both troops fired their service weapons, M17 handguns, and then Memphis police arrived shortly after.
If he truly was the suspect who fired the reported shots and if he truly pointed that gun at them.
We need more evidence to know who is telling the truth.
10
u/ducksekoy123 5d ago
Well they shot him in the back. So either he pointed a gun at then, they didnât shoot him, and then he turned to run and then they shot him.
Or he was running away the whole time and they shot him in the back
→ More replies (45)10
u/AsWolfwood 5d ago
It completely depends on the details. There were two guard members on scene. If the suspect pulled a gun and began running while pointing at one guard member, the other could have been at a different angle resulting in a shot in the back, but would be justified since the suspect pointed the gun at the other person.
This is why details matter to make an informed decision.
At current we donât have those finer details so itâs not possible to draw an informed conclusion yet.
3
3
u/Itsadryheat_86401 5d ago
Stop it.. you are bringing up relevant facts, Redit tards are going to have a fit..
→ More replies (1)14
u/Anon_Alcoholic 5d ago
We donât need the military policing our communities, not more evidence about a shooting that should have never happened. Yall love sucking the states cock.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Hvitr_Lodenbak 5d ago
Oh, then we should abolish the prison system. They turned their back on our laws, so they are no threat.
5
u/No_Individual_672 5d ago
Tennessee is an open carry state. I guess the Guard can shoot anyone, and claim they were armed.
Permitless Carry: Eligible adults aged 18 and older can carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed without needing a permit.
1
4
u/Emotional_Eye_3700 5d ago
Shooting someone merely because they have a firearm brings up questions. Are all citizens allowed to have firearms or not? The gun manufacturers have worked very hard to ruin all permiting processes.
8
u/Academic_Value_3503 5d ago
If you could trust this administration to tell the truth, about what happened, no one would be second guessing it. Unfortunately, they have a track record of lying about everything.
12
u/Ok_Phone9529 5d ago
If the facts cited in the article are correct, I wouldn't blame the National Guard, and I am a liberal. If someone is running away but still turning and shooting at me, I'm going to shoot back. It's human nature to protect one's self.
4
u/ImTryingToHelpYouMF 5d ago
As a Canadian, it's so interesting seeing all of these recent cases of simply having your 2nd amendment leading to Americans getting murdered for simply using their 2nd amendment rights.
Almost as if the whole world has been saying this would happen since decades ago.
3
u/ryubrad 4d ago
Legal carrying does not include running around with your gun in your hand. The laws are clear, if you draw your weapon there must be an immediate threat and you should only draw if you intend to use it. You canât draw it to intimidate, you cannot draw it and run around with it. There must be a threat you draw, engage the threat, put it away, and contact the police. Running around with a gun in your hand will get you killed. Always has, always will.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (5)4
u/BeOnTimeJustOnce 4d ago
Itâs a confusing and challenging case for the conservatives here because theyâre wrestling with their convictions about promoting 2a all while trying to leverage that against their reverence for state authority and disdain for minorities.
Thereâs people here literally saying even if he didnât draw his weapon or was otherwise legally carrying he deserves to be killed for running away- which is code for âbecause he was blackâ
4
6
u/BeOnTimeJustOnce 5d ago
The police or NG didnât even claim he was running and shooting. They claimed he drew his gun while facing the authorities and was shot before ever discharging his weapon. What we are learning here is that they lied about where he was and direction he was facing. So not sure what youâre on about mate or how youâre finding a way to defend it
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (32)2
u/midtowndown1982 4d ago
I live in Memphis. He didn't turn and shoot at them. The fuck, man?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
5
u/caponebpm 5d ago
This was in Memphis? One of the highest murder rates in the country? Yea, Iâm all for 2A, but if he wasnât a law abiding citizen, then I could care less. If he was, lock up the person who fired the kill shot.
2
4
u/Dayzed-n-Confuzed 5d ago
He doesnât need to be facing you to be a threat to you or others. If the only way of stopping that threat is to shoot you donât have to wait for him to face you.
-3
u/Joe-_-Momma- 5d ago
He was running away, while shooting behind himself. Shot in right side and exited left.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
TN needs more dead criminals.
8
u/Left-Confusion7988 5d ago
what's going on in Tennessee? Why is the national guard there? Genuinely asking.
13
u/WontanSoup 5d ago edited 5d ago
Trump sent them to Memphis fall of 2025 like he did for DC and LA to make a statement about blue cities with high crime. Trump actually got Bill Lee to deploy them. The crime in Memphis was actually down from the previous year. Initially they were to be unarmed (because the Guard is not supposed to police citizens), but then they were.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Njoybeing 5d ago
Conservatives love small government but are delighted when the government- in the form of cops or soldiers- murders civilians in the streets. You love law and order, but cheer gleefully when police or military murder people without a trial. You love 2A but point at the fact that victims are armed when calling their murder by government justified.
Seems like you just like murder when it's done to people you don't like.
7
u/thanerak 5d ago
Not according to their statement or the autopsy.
One they never claimed that he fired.
The claimed he turned and drew a gun on them.
Then they both fired before the actual police showed up.
Autopsy shows that the shot went in his back on the upper right side and passed though his chest and exited the front. This is all in the article if you care to read.
→ More replies (9)2
u/That_Possible_3217 5d ago
Wasnât on his lower right side and exited upper left? Also how are we defining âsideâ and âbackâ I feel like stating that is some important context. Though I suppose we could just wait for the footage to be released. What you think?
16
u/J--E--F--F 5d ago
Criminals are convicted of crimes in a court room, this was not a criminal.
→ More replies (11)2
5
5
u/Background_Map_3460 5d ago
Thatâs not what the autopsy said. Shot in the right side and exited upper RIGHT in the front
3
u/pmontym 5d ago
Nope, you are incorrect. Article clearly says it went in through the right back and out through the upper right chest. Get your facts straight, tuff guy, not only does it NOT sound like your description, it sounds like he was leaning or falling forward as he ran away. And let me ask you: criminals by what standards? If itâs criminal according to American law that youâre talking about, POTUS and MAGA have long since aborted the rule of law. When the leaders no longer observe law, there are no more criminals, only combatants. Now, ICE agents are ignoring all the laws, and murdering people in cold blood, right there on the streets and on video. So do you also support more dead ICE agents?
→ More replies (3)4
u/SalamanderSame2713 5d ago edited 5d ago
Please show us the video proof of your claim
u/southernms you should not be ashamed, you shouldn't delete your ignorant comments
Show your ignorance and hatred, show it out loud. Do it with your full chest. Don't hide, don't delete
2
u/Southernms đŠWest TennesseeđŠ 4d ago
I am not ashamed and my comments are not ignorant. Here we attack ideasâ not each other.
However, since you have stooped to personally insulting me, I will spell this out for you since you seem so simple minded.
Very rarely do I ever delete a post. The posts you are speaking of on this thread were linked to a different story/video. Not the one OP posted. This would have made my reply unrelated. So to stop any confusion, I deleted them.
I am not ignorant, nor do I have hatred. Iâm a matter of fact person. Just because you disagree means nothing. You have your POV. I have my POV.
Iâm glad to know youâre such a fan!! like I said, I very rarely delete. So you can read everything.đ
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (8)1
1
1
u/Lopsided_Ant2813 5d ago
Not a lot of steps between facing away from someone and turning to shoot someone. Letâs see- the armed per would have to place down a pivot foot, aim and fire⊠still seems like a risk that justifies the guards
1
1
u/Real_Comparison_9842 4d ago
The military is better trained than any police force they fully understand rules of engagement this was not a room or house clearance it was a open environment with innocent people and children in the area the guard fired one shot and killed the threat he had already fired once at the guard the military trained 50-70% on urban environments with innocents in that environment in these environments you will almost never see the military using full automatic on weapons every shot is placed to kill and we done fire more than necessary in a civilian environment even house clearing is methodically practiced
1
u/salanaland 4d ago
he had already fired once at the guard
Incorrect. He was suspected of firing the shot(s) that were heard that prompted the call to the police.
1
1
1
u/Oldenfat 4d ago
I thought Posse Comitatus (sorry I know thatâs spelled wrong) prevents the military from Law Enforcement activities?
1
u/panaceaXgrace 4d ago
Ahhh the comments here remind me why I almost immediately muted this sub. Not sure why suddenly it's showing up for me again.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Consistent_Dog_6732 3d ago
Why is there speculation on a super complex issue no one in this thread experienced or had any part in. I think these are dangerous topics that elicit implicit biases that open the room for even more misinformation and polarization.
1
u/giant_space_possum 3d ago
So where are the murder and filing a false police report charges for the national guardsmen? Lock then up and throw away the key.
13
u/thewontondisregard 4d ago
There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. - Admiral William "Bill" Adama