Good Samaritan shoots man attacking a cop [video]

a reply to: Norge

and here is the perfect example that i was talking about, after taking two hits the man said you better kill me.

from the link i posted last post.

Fearing for Bardes' life, Russell, who had a concealed weapon, "fired three rounds, striking the suspect," the report states. According to one witness, Strother told Russell, "You better kill me" after being shot a second time, the state attorney's office told ABC News. The third shot — to Strother's neck — is presumed to be the fatal shot, the state attorney's office said.

originally posted by: Norge
If he need more than 1 shot to disable a person 6 feet away he should not be allowed to carry arms.

This is why.

youtu.be...

You stop shooting when the threat is over.

originally posted by: Norge
If he need more than 1 shot to disable a person 6 feet away he should not be allowed to carry arms.

Another example.

Perp is unarmed and white.

For those of you that care about such trivial details.

youtu.be...

a reply to: DAVID64

His family said that he had "a history of severe depression and mental breaks."

Whatever that means.

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: Norge

First shot was a warning, the other two were fatal. Get off your high horse, stop being so critical, you weren't in that situation you have no right to suggest that you'd do any better.

and YOU have no right to say anything, you weren't there

till we know fact, maybe this guy was doing HIS job of protecting himself.

the dead guy that is.

originally posted by: LoneWrecche

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: Norge

First shot was a warning, the other two were fatal. Get off your high horse, stop being so critical, you weren't in that situation you have no right to suggest that you'd do any better.

and YOU have no right to say anything, you weren't there

till we know fact, maybe this guy was doing HIS job of protecting himself.

the dead guy that is.

The guy that did the shooting has been cleared of any wrongdoing so...no.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: LoneWrecche

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: Norge

First shot was a warning, the other two were fatal. Get off your high horse, stop being so critical, you weren't in that situation you have no right to suggest that you'd do any better.

and YOU have no right to say anything, you weren't there

till we know fact, maybe this guy was doing HIS job of protecting himself.

the dead guy that is.

The guy that did the shooting has been cleared of any wrongdoing so...no.

Ahh the way of the world, right? blue is red up is down.

Glad you're convinced.

a reply to: LoneWrecche

I'm glad you're glad.

originally posted by: LoneWrecche

originally posted by: BiffJordan
a reply to: Norge

First shot was a warning, the other two were fatal. Get off your high horse, stop being so critical, you weren't in that situation you have no right to suggest that you'd do any better.

and YOU have no right to say anything, you weren't there

till we know fact, maybe this guy was doing HIS job of protecting himself.

the dead guy that is.

If you are going to fight the police.
You better do it in a courtroom.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: LoneWrecche

I'm glad you're glad.

Now I am unglad.



gladder now?

a reply to: blueyedevilwoman

That is truth.

100% truth.

I know a lot of people who have CCP's just to become a supposed "hero" like this.

Personally, I think it's pretty lame to arm yourself and have to protect those who are supposedly there to protect you.

What would the guy do if the guy on the bottom wasn't a cop?, let him get beaten to death?.

The story lacks context and the media is already demonizing the dead guy with reports of "bizarre singing from his apartment..."...

Lame...Lame...Lame...

a reply to: LoneWrecche

and YOU have no right to say anything, you weren't there till we know fact, maybe this guy was doing HIS job of protecting himself. the dead guy that is.

here are some facts,
fact: the guy blew by a wreck that troopers and the deputy were working. a chase ensued, at which according to the deputy, the man stopped once and pointed a gun at him, then got back in the car and took off again.

fact: the chase ended when Strother stopped on a off ramp, and got out and charged the deputy and took him to the ground and started beating him.

fact: the cop told the man to shoot him while he was taking the beating and protecting his weapon. the man didn't shoot immediately, he gave Strother numerous commands before firing his three shots, killing the man.

fact: this was backed up not only by eye witness accounts from the start, but also with video.

fact: the only job the dead guy had to do was stop and if he would have done just that, he would still be alive today.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DAVID64

His family said that he had "a history of severe depression and mental breaks."

Whatever that means.

man..

Whatever is said, that come from this stead, please, just tell me to stop.
and if I should meet, alone on a street, a randomly nasty cop...
what is in my brain, might send me insane, the things inside my head...
but if we should meet, alone on a street, I'd rather not end up dead.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

yes yes ok you all win.

a reply to: LoneWrecche

damn right we win, Strother was clearly at fault here. no one has the right to attack another and keep on beating them, even if they are running away from a traffic stop.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

It is lame. That being said, # happens and this isn't the first time a member of the public has come to the aid of law enforcement. Watching out for one's fellow man may be a foreign concept to you, but I guess it isn't to Russell.

How is "what would he do" relevant in any way? At all? What does it matter what he'd do in a completely different situation? The issue is this situation, not some other made-up one.

His family came out and said he had mental issues. I'm not sure how the press talking about his erratic behavior and mental issues is demonizing him when his family is doing it....but sure.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I would have tried to get others in the area to assist me in pulling the guy off of the cop because it is a terrible thing to deprive the courts and prisons of their revenue by killing the guy.

That was half sarcasm, but I would have tried pulling the guy off of the cop instead of shooting him like a fish in a barrel.

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: slider1982
a reply to: Chadwickus

Well it looks as if he has done everything in a correct manner?, I guess he sounded a warning of his intentions, he didn't creep up behind him and shoot, as long as he states he had a "honestly held belief" that his actions where justified to the threat the guy posed to the officer I see little wrong...


Obviously more information is needed regarding why this situation unfolded but I would say this could be a good situation of a law abiding citizen using his right to protect life..


No doubt the regressive left and professional complainers will turn the guys life into a living nightmare, lets hope that is it was proven justified that there is enough support for him that deafens the social justice crowd out..

Fact is if he was not on top of the office in the first place he would no doubt still be alive, also fairly poor show from the other motorist, you see a cop in this position and you sit there no doubt posting pics to instagram..




RA

"Little wrong?" I see absolutely nothing wrong at all, whats "Little wrong?" Is that like small wrongs or something?

No it is leaving the possibility that at this juncture we do not know all the facts and as such I cannot say firmly say that the guy acted without fault, lets just say we find out the guy who was shot was having a affair with the shooters wife (as a pure example), that would mean that the shooter was not acting in sound mind..


I have been involved with far to many court cases from a prosecution side to ever say "there was 100% nothing wrong with how someone acting" there are always things that can be scrutinised, call it a technicality if you will..


RA

a reply to: slider1982

...Call it "Discovery"...