Alabama mall shooting: Man killed by police on Thanksgiving wasn’t shooter

Two idiots got into an argument at a mall in Alabama, that resulted in gunfire. Several people were shot. Police responded and confronted a man with a gun. Details are sketchy, but I’m going to make a slightly wild ass guess (SWAG) that the gunman didn’t respond to police commands. So they shot him. It turns out that the deceased gunman was a legitimately armed citizen. The police screwed up, or did they?

Maybe, probably not. But, but, but, they shot the wrong guy! It appears that the police missed the shooter but shot a “good citizen.” How can that happen? How can one defend the police? How dare you put the blame on a good guy with a gun?

To answer these questions one has to understand the dynamics of a shooting. Officers and others may experience any number of sensory distortions, singly or in combination. Such as:

• Vision: to aid in the flight or flight reflex peripheral vision shuts down, the focus becomes the object presenting the threat.  There is a possibility that EJ Bradford didn’t see the officers.
• Audio: under stress, subjects may not hear sounds not directly related to fight or flight. It is not unusual for those involved in a shooting to not hear the shots fired. They may also hear sounds that they normally would miss.
• Time distortion:events and information processing may speed up or slow down. Actors may take action based on information they are not consciously aware of. Thoughts that have no bearing on the action may intrude.

Consult a textbook, the reader can find other examples. I am relying on personal experience. I think that it is likely that “EJ” Bradford was unaware of the proximity of officers. He may not have heard their commands. It is possible he thought the officers saw the same thing he did. He may have concluded that the commands were directed at the real shooter, not him.

We don’t know what kind of threat EJ Bradford posed to officers. He may have been shot simply because he had a gun in hand at the scene of a shooting. He may have turned and pointed the weapon in the direction of officers, not as a threat but in response to their commands. It is a close call but any movement not called for by the officers could be construed as a threat.

With apologies to Buffalo Springfield, but they may have a point.

“For What It’s Worth”

There’s something happening here
But what it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it’s time we stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look – what’s going down?

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

Buffalo Springfield

This may be a case where nobody is right and everybody is wrong. These days there is an increase in the number of citizens licensed to carry handguns. Many of these individuals are willing to intervene in situations requiring immediate armed intervention. Some may bring a level of shooting expertise that outstrips that of responding officers. Unfortunately, most have not trained for the “end game”. By that I mean the intersection of law enforcement and the armed citizen. The citizen knows he’s a good guy, for the cop that remains to be seen. 

That intersection brings to mind the story of two bulls. An old bull and a young bull are standing on a ridge line gossiping. The rumor is that the farmer is bringing in a new bull.

The young bull is all bravado, “That new bull isn’t getting any of my cows!”

The old bull agrees. About that time the farmer pulls up with a stock trailer and lets out the biggest, meanest looking bull that has ever been seen. The young bull quickly reevaluates. “Well, I guess I can be neighborly and give him a couple of cows.”

The old bull starts bellowing and pawing the ground.

The young bull looks at him dumbfounded, “Are you crazy, that bull will tear you apart.”

The old bull replies, “I ain’t gonna fight him. I just wanna make sure he knows I’m a bull.”

Sometimes, under extreme stress, it is difficult to make fine distinctions. What should you do if you are involved in a deadly force situation?

The priority is to end the confrontation. The confrontation is over when the shooting stops or the offender flees. Do not pursue. Quick tell me the difference between pursuit and flight? Is one guy chasing the other, or is one bad guy faster than the other?

Hunker down. If at all possible let the bad guy come to you. At home, choose natural choke points, preferably overlooked by a positions that offers cover.  Put this into the context of a math problem. Look at your living room. For the sake of illustration we’ll say it is sixteen feet by twenty-eight feet. That is four hundred and forty-eight square feet. There are probably multiple entrances and exits. Now look at the entrance to the hallway leading to the bedrooms. It is four feet wide and nine feet tall, thirty-six square feet. Unless the bad guy can fly twelve square feet don’t count. Do you need a picture?

Forget that bullshit about dragging the dead guy inside. At the first signs of trouble, get the family to a position of relative safety and wait.

The initial advantage is with the bad guy. He picked the time and place. This is probably not his first time. He is doing his job. Burglars avoid people. Home invaders are prepared for a confrontation and have no compunction about hurting somebody. The further the bad guy penetrates the residence and the more commands he ignores all add up to a reasonable fear for the safety of your family.

In public, my advice would be generally the same. If an armed citizen does nothing more that stands between potential victims and an active shooter, then he has saved those behind him. The typical active shooter scenario may call for a more aggressive role. I am not talking about a toe to toe confrontation with guns blazing. 

If one were to look at most of the active shooter incidents many share a common theme. I call it the Walter Mitty syndrome. The incidents are not spontaneous acts. The shooter prepares, plans and comes equipped to carry out the plan. Chances are, the shooter has choreographed the whole affair. The upside, is that the plan was conceived and implemented by a seriously deranged individual. This means anything that upsets the plan is liable to cause the whole scheme to collapse.

Time after time, shooters have abandoned the effort when things stopped going their way. Sometimes the cause is something simple like the inability to clear a firearms malfunction. More often it is the threat of active resistance posed by law enforcement or potential victims. The shooters’ response is to commit suicide. In that case, just the introduction of a “good guy with a gun,” may be as good as a shot that hits.

Now what? Maintain a barricade position or move to one. If the you have to cover the suspect do so. If not, holster your weapon. If possible, recruit bystanders to meet responding officers. They can explain the situation and describe you and your location. Do not make any move not directed by the police. In case of conflicting instructions ask for clarification.

The point of conflicting instructions was brought up by a burglar of my acquaintance. The previous shift pulled a felony stop on him. I was processing him to take him to the judge.

He described the stop, “One officer told him to “Freeze,” another told him, “Put your hands up,” and the third told him, “get out of the car.” He concluded, “Right then I knew I was gonna piss two of those assholes off!”

In an ideal situation, one officer gives instructions. Unfortunately, ideal went south with the first shot fired.

Chances are the first contact will be with either patrol or SWAT officers. You will probably be handcuffed. Somebody may even remember to read you your rights. Other than directing them to your weapon, there is really nothing to say to them. (Assuming the situation is contained, there are no outstanding suspects or further threats within your knowledge). Decline to answer any questions regarding the events and tell them you need to see an investigator. The message you are trying to convey is a willingness to cooperate, but not satisfy an officer’s morbid curiosity. 

After your body catches up and discovers the threat is over there is likely to be an Adrenalin dump. This may lead to an emotional roller coaster. It is likely that it will be next to impossible to sit down and shut up. Sit down and shut up.

If I had any advice to give to the Hoover Police Department, it would be to take ownership of the incident, the good and bad. Their officer didn’t do anything wrong (at least at this point). By the same token, neither did EJ Bradford. The result was not the desired outcome. Not all mistakes are criminal or even negligent.