Colorado "good guy with a gun" shot dead by police who couldn't tell he wasn't a threat

A "hero" who fatally shot a cop killer was then shot dead himself by another officer called to the scene.

Johnny Hurley, 40, shot Ronald Troyke after the latter had gunned down Colorado officer Gordon Beesley with a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun.

Video footage shows Troyke, who had described police as the "enemy" and "expendable", driving his pick-up truck to an area near a library, shops and restaurants in Arvada, about seven miles from Denver.

He gets out of the vehicle carrying a gun before proceeding to kill Beesley and shoot out the windows of police cars in the area.

After returning to his pick-up to retrieve an AR-15 rifle, Troyke was confronted by Hurley, who shot him with a handgun.

When another officer arrived, Mr Hurley was holding Troyke's AR-15 and the responder opened fire, killing him, the local force said.

https://news.sky.com/story/hero-who-gunned-down-cop-killer-shot-dead-himself-by-police-12342413

Fervent members of America's gun cult will say all day long that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun -- what they fail to mention is that police often have no way to tell which is which.

Ben Reilly wrote:

A "hero" who fatally shot a cop killer was then shot dead himself by another officer called to the scene.

Johnny Hurley, 40, shot Ronald Troyke after the latter had gunned down Colorado officer Gordon Beesley with a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun.

Video footage shows Troyke, who had described police as the "enemy" and "expendable", driving his pick-up truck to an area near a library, shops and restaurants in Arvada, about seven miles from Denver.

He gets out of the vehicle carrying a gun before proceeding to kill Beesley and shoot out the windows of police cars in the area.

After returning to his pick-up to retrieve an AR-15 rifle, Troyke was confronted by Hurley, who shot him with a handgun.

When another officer arrived, Mr Hurley was holding Troyke's AR-15 and the responder opened fire, killing him, the local force said.

https://news.sky.com/story/hero-who-gunned-down-cop-killer-shot-dead-himself-by-police-12342413

Fervent members of America's gun cult will say all day long that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun -- what they fail to mention is that police often have no way to tell which is which.

To be fair, he took out the guy pretty quickly and saved lives. It's up to the police to understand that they are not the only "good" guys who might be armed in these situations. I'll bet a large sum this guy never made a threatening move with that gun. Cops can't assume people who are armed are the bad guy.

In fact the cops were singing this guy's praises until they realized one of them killed him.

The second amendment not only conveys a right to possess a firearm but it protects you from being shot when you do so.

It's not the victims fault when cops fuck up.

Ben Reilly wrote:Fervent members of America's gun cult will say all day long that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun -- what they fail to mention is that police often have no way to tell which is which.

There is no "good guy with a gun". Sooner or later, if an accident doesn't happen, the humble 'everyone' will lose impulse control.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Fervent members of America's gun cult will say all day long that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun -- what they fail to mention is that police often have no way to tell which is which.

There is no "good guy with a gun".  Sooner or later, if an accident doesn't happen, the humble 'everyone' will lose impulse control.

I don't know anyone who has had an accident or lost control.

Weird.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is no "good guy with a gun". Sooner or later, if an accident doesn't happen, the humble 'everyone' will lose impulse control.

I don't know anyone who has had an accident or lost control.

Weird.

Most shootings are either accidental, or a lack of impulse control. I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of killings in the US are calculated to achieve a purpose, other than to maim or take a life to satisfy anger or irrational passion.

The 'good guy' model doesn't exist. Everyone wants to say we are ‘good’, but the truth is we are just fulfilling some passion. The ‘good guy’ model is just a rationalization to justify guns and satisfy the urge to kill.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't know anyone who has had an accident or lost control.

Weird.

Most shootings are either accidental, or a lack of impulse control.  I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of killings in the US are calculated to achieve a purpose, other than to maim or take a life to satisfy anger or irrational passion.

The 'good guy' model doesn't exist.  Everyone wants to say we are ‘good’, but the truth is we are just fulfilling some passion.  The ‘good guy’ model is just a rationalization to justify guns and satisfy the urge to kill.

Well, this man in Colorado was a good guy that saved lives. Too bad the cops weren't equally as good. Look on the bright side. It's another dead white guy instead of a black guy.

Did Hurley save Beesley's life? No...he just took revenge after the shooter had killed Beesley. Anything else is just speculation.

Of what value is revenge? What really should have happened is that the shooter be apprehended and taken before a court of law so that we can know for ourselves the various equities. As of now, we have nothing.

Original Quill wrote:Did Hurley save Beesley's life?  No...he just took revenge after the shooter had killed Beesley.  Anything else is just speculation.  

Of what value is revenge?  What really should have happened is that the shooter be apprehended and taken before a court of law so that we can know for ourselves the various equities.  As of now, we have nothing.

Yes, it's speculation that he would have stopped after shooting one cop.

Perhaps he would have seen the error in his ways after only one victim.

And perhaps your will be ordained as the next fucking Pope.

Original Quill wrote:Did Hurley save Beesley's life?  No...he just took revenge after the shooter had killed Beesley.  Anything else is just speculation.  

Of what value is revenge?  What really should have happened is that the shooter be apprehended and taken before a court of law so that we can know for ourselves the various equities.  As of now, we have nothing.

Yes, it's speculation that he would have stopped after shooting one cop.

Perhaps he would have seen the error in his ways after only one victim.

And perhaps your will be ordained as the next fucking Pope.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Did Hurley save Beesley's life?  No...he just took revenge after the shooter had killed Beesley.  Anything else is just speculation.  

Of what value is revenge?  What really should have happened is that the shooter be apprehended and taken before a court of law so that we can know for ourselves the various equities.  As of now, we have nothing.

Yes, it's speculation that he would have stopped after shooting one cop.  

Perhaps he would have seen the error in his ways after only one victim.  

And perhaps your will be ordained as the next fucking Pope.  

Yes, it's speculation in either case.  But our criminal justice system says the shooter is innocent until proven otherwise.  So, for Hurley to kill the shooter, either out of a motive of revenge, or a motive of could've been, makes Hurley wrong either way.

Like I say, the shooter should have been brought before a court of law.  Otherwise, it's vigilante action.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, it's speculation that he would have stopped after shooting one cop.  

Perhaps he would have seen the error in his ways after only one victim.  

And perhaps your will be ordained as the next fucking Pope.  

Yes, it's speculation in either case.  But our criminal justice system says the shooter is innocent until proven otherwise.  So, for Hurley to kill the shooter, either out of a motive of revenge, or a motive of could've been, makes Hurley wrong either way.

Like I say, the shooter should have been brought before a court of law.  Otherwise, it's vigilante action.

Yeah, lots of folks should be brought before a court of law.


Their insistence on shooting people makes that difficult Pope Quill.

Was the cop a vigilante for shooting Hurley?

Maddog wrote:Was the cop a vigilante for shooting Hurley?

The facts are brief on what exactly occurred when the next cop arrived, but there likely was a bit of prejudgment there, too.  The article doesn't say that Hurley posed a threat, which implies the cop shot precipitously.  Full disclosure would have mandated that any threat by Hurley would be disclosed.

I think the point is - and this I believe is Ben’s point, too – that without guns, everyone would be alive to tell his or her story, and we could sort it out in the courts.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Was the cop a vigilante for shooting Hurley?

The facts are brief on what exactly occurred when the next cop arrived, but there likely was a bit of prejudgment there, too.  The article doesn't say that Hurley posed a threat, which implies the cop shot precipitously.  Full disclosure would have mandated that any threat by Hurley would be disclosed.

I think the point is - and this I believe is Ben’s point, too – that without guns, everyone would be alive to tell his or her story, and we could sort it out in the courts.

Yes, without guns everyone would be alive.

Because that's the only way humans kill each other..

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The facts are brief on what exactly occurred when the next cop arrived, but there likely was a bit of prejudgment there, too.  The article doesn't say that Hurley posed a threat, which implies the cop shot precipitously.  Full disclosure would have mandated that any threat by Hurley would be disclosed.

I think the point is - and this I believe is Ben’s point, too – that without guns, everyone would be alive to tell his or her story, and we could sort it out in the courts.

Yes, without guns everyone would be alive.  

Because that's the only way humans kill each other..

I think you are reaching for reductio ad absurdum. Aside from whataboutism, by pointing out that guns are not the only way to kill someone, you are not addressing the issue.  Your argument does not deal with the one-by-one, or piecemeal argument, where you eliminate one wrong at a time.  And, you're not appreciating the full extent of the problem.

Go back to the good-guy/bad-guy perspective, where you argue that "good-guys" should have guns to defend against "bad-guys".  Do you really think that there are some people who are that "good" in all ways, at all times?  Talk about ridiculous!

So, in real life, that means that a substantial amount of the occasions, the "good-guy" will be deficient in some way (perhaps angry, or sad, or indeed, has some mental problem).  These are moments of what we may call impulse-control lapses.  And there are other lapses: misunderstanding lapse; mistaken identity lapse; misperception lapse, and so on.

So now, you are putting out into the world a killing mechanism (gun) that you know won't in all instances be used properly.  It is predicated on being used by the ‘good guy’ and the model of the “good guy” doesn’t actually exist.  With so many possibilities of deviations, wouldn't the simple answer be remove the killing mechanism, or gun, and allow humans to be “harmless” humans?

It’s like the law of dangerous conditions.  Laws exist to eliminate dangerous conditions in property, but you are arguing: take away dangerous people and the conditions will be fine.  Well, as long as there are lapses in people, the conditions will never be fine.

So people that rush to the defense of others shouldn't be considered good guys or doing something good?

Maddog wrote:So people that rush to the defense of others shouldn't be considered good guys or doing something good?

Not in every instance, and at all times.  Yet, your way gives them the ability to kill even when they are the bad guys.

And what's with this "good" distinction, anyway?  Define "good". Was the second cop who arrived on the scene and shot Hurley, in the OP, doing "good"?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:So people that rush to the defense of others shouldn't be considered good guys or doing something good?

Not in every instance, and at all times.  Yet, your way gives them the ability to kill even when they are the bad guys.

And what's with this "good" distinction, anyway?  Define "good".  Was the second cop who arrived on the scene and shot Hurley, in the OP, doing "good"?

If you stop someone harming another person isn't that a good act, or the act of a good person?

The second cop didn't stop anyone from harming other people as Hurley wasn't harming anyone when he arrived.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not in every instance, and at all times.  Yet, your way gives them the ability to kill even when they are the bad guys.

And what's with this "good" distinction, anyway?  Define "good".  Was the second cop who arrived on the scene and shot Hurley, in the OP, doing "good"?

If you stop someone harming another person isn't that a good act, or the act of a good person?

The second cop didn't stop anyone from harming other people as Hurley wasn't harming anyone when he arrived.  

A "good act" does not equate to a "good person".

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

If you stop someone harming another person isn't that a good act, or the act of a good person?

The second cop didn't stop anyone from harming other people as Hurley wasn't harming anyone when he arrived.  

A "good act" does not equate to a "good person".

True. But I think the point of the "good guy" is that he is doing good at that moment.

Good guy vs bad guy is a simple way to describe the actors in a situation. The bad guy is the guy harming innocent people. The good guy is the person trying to stop him.

Even rapists can do good deeds, but that doesn't make them good people.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A "good act" does not equate to a "good person".

True. But I think the point of the "good guy" is that he is doing good at that moment.

Ah-hah, but he possesses the gun for 'all' moments, not just the moment he decides to be good. When he lapses and becomes the "bad guy" it’s the same gun. So, if good/bad turns on the mood he’s in, the only solution is to remove the gun.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

True. But I think the point of the "good guy" is that he is doing good at that moment.

Ah-hah, but he possesses the gun for 'all' moments, not just the moment he decides to be good.  When he lapses and becomes the "bad guy" it’s the same gun.  So, if good/bad turns on the mood he’s in, the only solution is to remove the gun.

Basically, you're not willing to trust anyone, because they possess the ability to do something bad.

That's a fucked up world to live in.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ah-hah, but he possesses the gun for 'all' moments, not just the moment he decides to be good.  When he lapses and becomes the "bad guy" it’s the same gun.  So, if good/bad turns on the mood he’s in, the only solution is to remove the gun.

Basically, you're not willing to trust anyone, because they possess the ability to do something bad.

That's a fucked up world to live in.

That's what we're saying every time someone takes a gun and shoots up a school! In 2007 a 23-year-old student killed thirty-two students and faculty members, in two separate incidents, on the campus of Virginia Tech University.  In 2012, at an elementary school in Newton, CT, a 20-year-old killed twenty-seven people and himself, after killing his mother and taking her guns.  Take a look at the many, many incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_death_toll To quote a perceptive man: "That's a fucked up world to live in."

It's not a negative view of mankind.  It's just that people at different times are capable of great good, and great bad.  What I am saying is that there is no forever good guy.  However, gun ownership is forever, or at least for as long as the gun owner is alive.  In those times when the gun owner wants to be a bad guy, gun possession allows him to do greater bad.

Ungoverned gun ownership merely magnifies the damage that a single individual - only one individual, having only one bad day - can do.  Why do we need that?

The Constitution says we need gun ownership because of the need for a militia; the Constitution was written in 1787.  The need for a militia a joke in today's reality.  First, we have already got a defense department.  Second, every state has a permanent militia, already.  Third, the kind of guns allowed today, while deadly in individual hands, would never match up to the nuclear weaponry that modern armies have today.

In reality, all we have is a bunch of weak individuals, who - aware of their impotence - attempt to grow superiority fighting skills through firearms.  If we took away all guns, and in return gave them a book on conflict resolution, we could grow intellectual skills, and not need superior fighting skills.

Ungoverned gun ownership merely magnifies the damage that a single individual

Agreed. It empowers those who would otherwise find themselves powerless.

Maddog wrote:Ungoverned gun ownership merely magnifies the damage that a single individual

Agreed. It empowers those who would otherwise find themselves powerless.  

...until everyone is armed...and then what we have left is killing, upon killing, upon killing, upon killing...and so many dead children in schools.  Until someone figures out that we are in, what Thomas Hobbes called a State of War:

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war is of every man against every man . . . In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.  Leviathan (1641).

Doesn't sound very nice, does it.  What do you think all these killings of children in schools sounds like to some outsider?

You can't have anything.  You can't build anything.  You can't grow anything.  You can't go anywhere.  You can't engage in trade.  Hence, no arts, no letters, no society, "and worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death."  We're talking about your girls, and the children they will have.  The purpose for which you harbor guns is destructive all you would live for.

Yeah, it's a state of war.

Maddog wrote:Yeah, it's a state of war.

The state of war is compatible with an instrument of war.  To remove a state of war, start by eliminating instruments of war.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Yeah, it's a state of war.

The state of war is compatible with an instrument of war.  To remove a state of war, start by eliminating instruments of war.

So the AR-15 is fine, but the M1911 isnt?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The state of war is compatible with an instrument of war.  To remove a state of war, start by eliminating instruments of war.

So the AR-15 is fine, but the M1911 isnt?

Why? ArmaLite makes one, and Colt makes the other. They are both instrument of killing.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So the AR-15 is fine, but the M1911 isnt?

Why?  ArmaLite makes one, and Colt makes the other.  They are both instrument of killing.

Only one has been used as a weapon in war.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?  ArmaLite makes one, and Colt makes the other.  They are both instrument of killing.

Only one has been used as a weapon in war.  

So?  That means we are getting smart and having fewer wars.

Now we need to turn our efforts to fewer domestic battles.  A huge step in that direction would be the prohibition of guns domestically.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Only one has been used as a weapon in war.  

So?  That means we are getting smart and having fewer wars.

Now we need to turn our efforts to fewer domestic battles.  A huge step in that direction would be the prohibition of guns domestically.  

No it doesn't. It means the AR has never been used in the numerous wars we have fought since its invention.

It's by design and definition a civilian weapon.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So?  That means we are getting smart and having fewer wars.

Now we need to turn our efforts to fewer domestic battles.  A huge step in that direction would be the prohibition of guns domestically.  

No it doesn't. It means the AR has never been used in the numerous wars we have fought since its invention.  

It's by design and definition a civilian weapon.  

It's supply and demand.  We all learned that in economics class.  The reason why firearms are not being used in wars is there are fewer wars.

"Civilian weapons"?  Those are just words.  Used properly, those words could be employed constructively: all civilian use of weapons should be banned!  

I think this guy was doing a good thing in stopping the cop killer; however, I see what Quill is saying -- most people are capable of doing something horrible under the wrong set of circumstances, and guns inevitably make those circumstances much worse, because ...

Guns are the single-most effective way civilians have of killing others.

Period!

I'm so tired of people trying to make the argument that people have other ways to kill one another, because none of the other ways available to civilians are even close to as effective at killing as guns are.

You can't perch up on a rooftop and stab dozens of people in a matter of minutes while remaining safely out of range of counterattack. Or club them with a bat. Or even attack them with a vehicle.

Gun freaks never seem to get that people like me aren't hell-bent on disarming them, or think that we've got the solution that will end all murder. I just want to do something to lower the number of innocent people getting killed.