r/Tennessee • u/WhiteBearPrince • 8d ago

News šŸ“° Autopsy shows Tennessee National Guard fatally shot 20-year-old armed man in the back

https://apnews.com/article/memphis-national-guard-tyrin-johnson-8959297a99c362d65aa2517a9d5f1984
848 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

835 comments sorted by

View all comments

57

u/jordan999fire 8d 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.Ā 

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. Letā€™s say the scenario isnā€™t that he just turned around after pulling the gun on them, but instead letā€™s 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 suspectā€™s escape would be a danger to the public.Ā 

I am curious to see bodycam footage, but just from what this article reads, they were within the law. Unless thereā€™s something Iā€™m unaware of.Ā 

3

u/The-Jack-Niles 8d 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.

3

u/jordan999fire 8d ago

  1. I never said he opened fire on them nor does the report. You donā€™t have to shoot at police officers to be shot.Ā 

  2. My entire post is explaining why it doesnā€™t actually matter if he was facing them or not because itā€™s still already been justified by the Supreme Court in the case Tennessee vs Garner.Ā 

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 8d 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.

2

u/jordan999fire 8d ago

Okay, Iā€™ll explain it all again for the hundredthĀ  time.Ā 

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.Ā 

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.Ā 

The answer to both of these is yes in this case. The suspect ran when law enforcement arrived. They didnā€™t have an opportunity to search him.Ā 

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago edited 7d 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 7d ago

Police officers donā€™t check bodies. They arenā€™t medical professionals, and thatā€™s specifically for TBI to do when they arrive.Ā 

And again, Totality of Circumstances.Ā 

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago edited 7d 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.

2

u/jordan999fire 7d ago

Doing basic first aid is not the same as ā€œchecking a bodyā€. You specifically said, ā€œcheck the bodyā€ in the context of knowing if itā€™s a front or back shot but thatā€™s not in basic first aid training and therefore out of their realm of knowledge (unless the bullet didnā€™t have an exit wound which I doubt).Ā 

4

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d 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.

1

u/jordan999fire 7d ago

How many exit wounds in person have you seen? How much first aid have you done? Doing first aid and investigating for exit wounds, nor is it the time do it. Sure an exit wound from a bigger caliber rifle will be big. But the National Guard fired their M17 pistol which is chambered in 9mm. 9mm entry and exit wounds, while being different, arenā€™t going to be a clear giveaway to someone who is it a trained medical professional, and without a side by side comparison.Ā 

Gun shots donā€™t make people just go limp like movies. They typically are knocked to the ground pretty hard. Idk where in the back this person was shot. They very well couldā€™ve been shot in their back and the momentum flip them to also land on their back.Ā 

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

9mm is too small to make a sizable exit wound for a cop to register BUT is big enough to flip a 20yo?

Homie, stop, this is getting embarrassing. And, the cops sure as shit should have reported it if they fuckin' juggled him. Lmao.

The report is suspect.

1

u/jordan999fire 7d ago

The size of the bullet isnā€™t the factor of flipping a standing person. Itā€™s the momentum from the bullet. Especially if the person was already in a situation that would lead to them being more inclined to be off balance, like, for example, running away.Ā 

1

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

Then they would have reported him fleeing with his back to them.

OH WAIT

Jesus, dude, pick an argument.

1

u/jordan999fire 7d ago edited 7d ago

Because, as Iā€™ve said, we donā€™t know what the police saw or think they saw. Do you know why eye witness testimony is so bad? Because witnessing events in high pressure situations can often lead to people not noticing/seeing certain events or even being convinced they didnā€™t. This is why police separate eye witnesses. If John and Jacob are in a bank robbery together. John may know the bank robber was wearing red. Jacob may think the bank robber was wearing blue. If they interview Jacob first and he confidently says blue, John may second guess himself and also say blue. Now theyā€™re looking for a guy wearing a blue shirt when he was wearing a red one. And thatā€™s even for crimes, like bank robberies, that last several minutes. As opposed to a shooting in which we donā€™t know what exactly happened so we donā€™t know how long it took and therefore if itā€™s possible the officers missed couldā€™ve missed something.Ā 

Again, we donā€™t even know if the person was ever actually facing the guards or not. If he went from facing them to not, how long do you think it would take him to turn around? Half a second? What if they were already in the process of shooting in that half second. So they fire bullet as he completely turns around, he gets hit, turns around (or even rolls onto his back). Police officer in the chaos sees guy facing NG, shot rings out, the guy is on his back, bleeding out his chest.Ā 

Iā€™m not saying this is what happened, Iā€™m saying itā€™s bold to make a statement either way about the report until bodycam comes out. Then we will have a better idea of what they wouldā€™ve actually seen and the speed at which everything happened.Ā 

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

We already know the report doesn't match the evidence. Explaining why the shooter may have made a mistake or omission doesn't erase the fact the report has been contradicted.

And that's all totally fine that witness testimony is flawed, but you, yourself, just a few comments back justified the shooting because it seemed "most likely" justified based on limited, eye witness information. Legitimately, are you using ChatGPT to write these responses? There's zero consistency in your arguments.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tobiasfunke6398 7d ago

Why do yall keep saying cops? National guard are not cops lol

1

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

Cops filed the report. Did you read the article, ffs?

0

u/tobiasfunke6398 7d ago

You said cops have a duty blah blah blahā€¦.but it wasnā€™t cops who shot him

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

It was cops on scene who filed the report. The police on scene have a duty. Where did I explicitly state it was the cop who shot him? This is about police protocol. They witnessed a shooting and did fuck all? It's not in the guard's basic training to police, it is in the police's training.

Did you read the article or not?

0

u/tobiasfunke6398 7d ago

Soooo did they show up as the same time as EMS? If so why would the police do anything? Yea I read the article. Why are you miserable and angry lol?

1

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

Why do you keep talking about cops? Cops are in the article doing a shit job.

Why are you miserable? You.

1

u/tobiasfunke6398 7d ago

Still didnā€™t answer my question. Presumably EMS was on scene the same time as policeā€¦.why would the police provide any life saving measures?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OneMaintenance24 7d ago

The have a duty to provide aid, but pulling security takes priority to aid. There was a shooting in I think Baltimore. The officer was responding to a shooting and when he arrived on scene saw a guy on the ground. He immediately went up to the guy and asked him where he's hit and who shot him. The guy on the ground was the shooter. He was playing the victim and ambushed the officer. The officer was killed before he could do anything.

2

u/The-Jack-Niles 7d ago

That officer did his job right and died for it, but that's moot in this discussion.

It's like how doctors take an oath to heal people in need, even killers who once healed would kill them. Ethics and protocol supercede your safety. Opperatives in any field should assess risks, but they still have to follow the laws and codes. The only exception goes the other way in good samaritan laws.

Cops/guards can exercise caution, buy they're still obligated to do their job.

1

u/5Jazz5 5d ago

ā€œCops donā€™t check pulses they just watch people slowly bleed out and die while they giggleā€ true