By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A state investigation is underway after members of the Tennessee National Guard shot and killed Tyrin Johnson, a 20-year-old man, on Sunday morning in downtown Memphis. Johnson was killed during a pursuit involving Memphis police and National Guard soldiers assigned to the Memphis Safe Task Force, a unit formed under President Trump’s initiative. Preliminary findings indicate that the situation escalated when Johnson, who was reportedly fleeing from police with a handgun, turned toward the National Guard members with his weapon, prompting them to discharge their firearms. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is leading the probe, with the attorney general’s office requesting the investigation.
Read the original article here
In the heart of downtown Memphis, a tragic incident unfolded early Sunday morning when National Guard soldiers fatally shot a man identified as Johnson. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) is currently looking into the circumstances that led to this fatal encounter, which began with a pursuit initiated by Memphis police. Authorities were chasing Johnson on foot after he had reportedly fired shots earlier that morning, armed with a handgun. Nearby National Guard soldiers, present in the area, became involved in the pursuit, according to a TBI statement.
The situation escalated for reasons still under investigation, culminating in two National Guard soldiers firing their weapons, striking and killing Johnson. The TBI confirmed that no law enforcement officers sustained any injuries during the incident. This occurrence has sparked considerable discussion and concern regarding the role of the National Guard in domestic situations and the use of deadly force.
It seems to be a point of contention whether Johnson specifically targeted the National Guard or if he was merely armed and fleeing law enforcement when the Guard became involved. Some perspectives suggest that the National Guard’s involvement in a scenario that appears to be law enforcement’s purview raises questions about their operational capacity and the boundaries of their duties. The notion of the National Guard acting as a de facto law enforcement agency is a sensitive one, prompting inquiries into their current mandate and capabilities.
The core of the incident, as presented in preliminary reports, involves a man armed with a gun who reportedly fired shots and was fleeing police. The National Guard soldiers joined the pursuit, and, in a subsequent escalation, fired upon Johnson, resulting in his death. The question then becomes whether the presence of the National Guard was appropriate or necessary in this context.
There is a strong sentiment that the National Guard’s role should be clearly defined and that such situations are primarily the responsibility of local law enforcement. However, it is also noted that in certain circumstances, the National Guard can be legally authorized to assist law enforcement agencies, particularly under state authority. This can occur when a sheriff or constable summons them to provide aid. Many National Guard members also hold civilian jobs in law enforcement, which adds another layer to the discussion of their involvement.
The narrative that emerges is that Johnson allegedly pointed his weapon at the National Guard soldiers, which, in turn, led to them firing their weapons. From this viewpoint, the soldiers acted in self-defense or in defense of others, making the outcome, while tragic, a direct consequence of the armed individual’s actions. The argument is that faced with a firearm, especially after shots have allegedly been fired, armed personnel have a duty to respond.
The choice of imagery used in news reports to depict Johnson has also drawn commentary. Some observers feel that the use of a softer, smiling photograph rather than a mugshot or a more recent, less favorable image is an editorial decision aimed at shaping public perception. This choice, they argue, can inadvertently soften the narrative surrounding an individual described as having fired shots and fleeing from police, presenting a stark contrast to the circumstances.
The underlying sentiment in some comments is a sense of weariness or resignation that a “criminal with a gun gets shot by law enforcement.” This perspective suggests a belief that such outcomes, while regrettable, are to be expected when individuals engage in such behavior. The phrase “trash is discarded” is a harsh way to express this viewpoint, implying a finality to the event.
There is also concern about the normalization of “federal troops killing citizens,” with a sense that such events are becoming more frequent and that this trend could have negative long-term consequences. This raises questions about the escalating militarization of domestic situations and the potential for further conflict. A call for the legal process to take its course and for faith in juries to be maintained underscores a desire for due process and justice.
The question of whether National Guard soldiers should be armed in such capacities is also raised. One comment, tinged with sarcasm, expresses concern about a “Gestapo” like scenario, suggesting a fear of overreach and inappropriate use of force, particularly when race is perceived as a factor.
However, there is also a call for patience and a wait-and-see approach, emphasizing the need for all facts to emerge before drawing conclusions. It is acknowledged that if Johnson had a handgun and was fleeing, there is a “fair chance” that the National Guard acted within their legal rights to fire. The legal status of the National Guard—whether under state or federal command—is also considered relevant, although it is noted that if the suspect turned the gun on them, their status might become secondary to the immediate threat.
The fundamental point for some is that the National Guard exists precisely for situations where they can be called upon to aid law enforcement. It is argued that this is a primary function for which they were created, acting as a domestic military force for aid and policing. Therefore, their involvement, while perhaps concerning to some, is seen by others as fulfilling their established purpose.
The role of the National Guard as law enforcement is explicitly stated by some, reflecting a common understanding or perception of their duties. There are also comments that connect the incident to political contexts, suggesting a perceived motive behind the deployment of National Guard in Memphis, particularly referencing a “crime task force.”
Ultimately, while the TBI’s investigation is ongoing, the preliminary information suggests a sequence of events that led to a confrontation between armed individuals. The key points of contention revolve around the appropriateness of the National Guard’s involvement, the escalation of the situation, and the ultimate use of deadly force. The outcome serves as a stark reminder of the volatile nature of confrontations involving firearms and the complex responsibilities of military personnel operating in domestic environments.