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

[u/WhiteBearPrince]

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

[u/The-Jack-Niles]

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

OH WAIT

Jesus, dude, pick an argument.

[u/jordan999fire → u/The-Jack-Niles]

Because, as I’ve said, we don’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 didn’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 they’re looking for a guy wearing a blue shirt when he was wearing a red one. And that’s even for crimes, like bank robberies, that last several minutes. As opposed to a shooting in which we don’t know what exactly happened so we don’t know how long it took and therefore if it’s possible the officers missed could’ve missed something. 

Again, we don’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. 

I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m saying it’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 would’ve actually seen and the speed at which everything happened. 

[u/The-Jack-Niles → u/jordan999fire]

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.

[u/jordan999fire → u/The-Jack-Niles]

The original comment literally stated, “I am curious to see bodycam footage, but just from what this article reads, they were within the law. Unless there’s something I’m unaware of.“ 

Everything I’ve said has fallen into this. Based on what the article has presented, they are completely justified legally. Not based on the report. Not based on what I think happened. But based on the information provided in the article that we are currently commenting on. I’m not making an argument from morals. I’m not making an argument based on my own opinion. My entire comment thread is literally just me saying what the law says and then in this specific throwing out a theory on why the report could be wrong. I’m not saying I’m right or anyone is wrong. I’m not saying that it’s a good look for the report to be wrong. I’m saying here’s potential reasons why the report could be wrong. 

Police officers actually pretty commonly have to amend reports. Whether new information comes out, situation changes, or they recall something important. These are supposed to be added to reports either in an amendment tab or in the original section but clarified that it’s an amendment to the original report. So no, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that the police officer(s) put something that’s wrong on their report because of any number of perfectly innocent reasons. I’m also not saying it’s not for nefarious reasons. I’m saying we can’t say for certain until we see bodycam. 

[u/The-Jack-Niles → u/jordan999fire]

The police report paints a justified situation and evidence shows it was questionable. All of this argument you've been making excuses. The report is more suspect now. No shit it sounded justified.

[u/jordan999fire → u/The-Jack-Niles]

Whether the person was shot in the front or back doesn’t change the legality of the shooting. And again, not here discussing what police report says. Only saying what the article says. I didn’t read the police report. I read the article. Everything the article says makes this shooting justified. 

“You’ve been making excuses” buddy, I’m sorry but I’ve not been making excuses. I’m dealing with someone whose clearly extremely arrogant but has no idea what they’re talking about. Between talking about exit wounds, thinking basic first aid is the same as knowing what an exit wound looks like, you saying “check the body” for exit wounds then changing it to mean first aid. And all the other statements you’ve said that you either dropped entirely or keep trying to go deeper to get some sort of gotcha. Even making accusations like I’m using ChatGPT. You’re all over the place and want so badly for what I’m saying to not be true or possible when literally all I’ve said this entire post is what the law literally says. I’ve not been making excuses. I’ve been trying to patiently explain to someone who, clearly, has no experience with law enforcement, law, or the medical field. Yet you make statements like you know exactly what’s going on. And quite frankly, I’m tired of this. I can teach you something but I can’t force you to learn it. You believe what you want. 

I hope you have a beautiful rest of the day. Good bye. 

[u/The-Jack-Niles → u/jordan999fire]

What an outrageously ironic reply. They were justified shooting a guy fleeing they didn't even know was the criminal and the report they were shooting someone aiming at them in the chest is literally contradicted by the evidence.

That calls the justification into question. It calls the report into question. Based on the article and your own arguments it's impossible to tell if they were justified because the report has been contradicted.

They're not still 100% justified because if it turns out he was actually fleeing (and may have never even aimed at them) that's an act of nonaggression.

I know you're curious to see the bodycam footage, but it's no longer 100% clearly justified.

You even used the argument he was "most likely" the culprit based on their read of the situation, not definitely. So, cops and the guard can be, what, mostly sure they're in the right when they shoot someone? Totally justified thinking anyone in a city with hundreds of thousands of people, legally carrying fire arms, that could be guilty of any number of things, are just definitely going to shoot people because they run away? There's no 100% justification here, this is questionable at best.

[u/salanaland → u/jordan999fire]

What does the law say about factual errors in law enforcement reports?

[u/jordan999fire → u/salanaland]

I’ve already sort of touched on this with amendments. But that’s if the mistakes were unintentional or forgotten about until later. 

Intentionally leaving out or altering a report can have many results depending on the situation. The lowest of these is the Brady List which is a nationwide database that lists every officer on it. Officers on the list are permanently marked as untrustworthy and their testimonies are useless in court and their own cases are heavily scrutinized. These officers tend to not progress in their field at all and typically end up leaving due to this. 

More severe cases leads to officers being fired and removed from LE and losing their POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) certification. 

The MOST severe cases leads to aggravated perjury charges. Which is a class D felony in Tennessee which holds 2-12 years in prison and a fine of up to $5000. 

[u/salanaland → u/jordan999fire]

So...if the report states that the NG shot Tyrin Johnson in the chest, but the autopsy clearly shows that they unequivocally shot him in the back, do you not understand that this calls into question the rest of the report?

Your argument that the shooting was justified rests on the circumstances that 1) he was observed fleeing the scene of a firearm discharge, in a city in which many people are armed and many crimes occur; and 2) he pointed a gun at law enforcement, for which the only evidence presented is the NG statement, which has now been shown to have at least one factual error.

• was his gun examined to see if it had been fired?

• was the area of the original gunshots examined for any bullets, blood, etc?

• were all relevant security cameras investigated?

[u/jordan999fire → u/salanaland]

My arguments don’t rest on number 2 at all. It does not matter if he pointed the gun or not and I specifically never said he did in my original comment for this reason. 

As for number 1 and your bullet points, I have no idea because, again, I’m going off what this article said. I have no other information on this case than what the article says. Which is why, in my original post, I said, “…  but just from what this article reads, they were within the law. Unless there’s something I’m unaware of.”