Recently in Brazil, an armed thief tried to robber several mothers and children at the exit of a school during Mother's day. However, an off-duty policewoman shoot three times in his chest and he died later in the hospital. The scene was recorded by security cameras and spread throughout the internet (RAW: Off-duty policewoman shoots armed robber attacking group of moms), causing an IMMENSE public repercussion in Brazil (including pro-gun debate). At first, most of the brazilian population supported the action of this policewoman and she even received honors from the governor.

However, some political groups condemned her actions. Most notably a left-wing politician which mentioned the following:
- "It is an absurd to pay a tribute to this policewoman."
- "We don't know whether this thief would kill or not those people. [...] He was just pointing the gun to their victims, which is common during a robbery."
- "She was a trained police and should have disarmed the boy [...] instead of murdering someone who also had a mother."

Question 1
Does the left ideology really support the arguments of the aforementioned politician?

Question 2
After this robbery, another one with an opposite outcome happened (Biker records moment when he is robbed and shot). According to the news reporter:
- "The scene shows the cruelty of thieves and the impotence of citizens completely unprotected."
- "Not even after handing over the bike does the thief calm down. Shortly afterwards the thief fired."

Therefore, is there any statistics showing the odds of success of other actions that the policewoman could have taken? Would they change considerably if instead of a trained police were a civilian carrying a gun?

  • Can you be more specific? Which left groups? What did they say? Provide quotes. Can you split this question into 3-5 questions? I count 5 different ones, all likely to consume 30+ minutes to answer.
    – Chloe
    May 17 '18 at 2:15
  • Though I'm fond of the subject matter, I've voted to close this question as too broad. Part 1 is subject to speculation about the multitude of left subsets of the collective and how they view the self defense actions. There really isn't one "left ideology." Separately, part 2 is near answerable, with some work. There might be sufficient data, specific to Brazil, showing the the correlation between civilian carry and crime rates, with a specific measure regarding the severity of the crime committed. May 17 '18 at 2:16
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Philipp
    May 17 '18 at 7:58

There are a few reasons why anti gun advocates and a politician might speak out against making someone a hero following an event like this.

I didn't click on your video, nor do I want to because its painful to me to watch somebody get shot, but I saw a part of it because a gun advocate posted it streaming on twitter where it just came up. I pointed out to them that on average, carrying a gun creates more danger than safety. That's backed up by statistics in studies.

The robber, gun pointed at a downwards slope, not with authority, likely demanded money (there was no sound but that seems likely). The plain clothes cop shot him.

Pros - the robber didn't get a chance to shoot anyone. A potentially dangerous situation was de-escalated quickly.

Arguably cons:

The plain clothes cop didn't even appear to say "drop the gun" or attempt to negotiate a non-lethal outcome. Given that the robber's gun was pointed down, one could make the case that "drop the gun" would have been a better first option as opposed to shooting.

Shooting someone holding a gun doesn't always equal safety. They can have an immediate rush of Adrenalin or anger and shoot back. This boy with the gun appeared to not want to fire it. He was even pointing the gun downwards. If he'd been a truly dangerous or mentally deranged criminal, the outcome might have been considerably different.

There could be class issues. It could be seen as a middle class cop shooting a poor and desperate kid who only wanted some cash. I have a friend from Brazil and I know that there are some pretty serious class issues going on there. A political representative of the lower class might feel it's their responsibility to say "don't praise the cop who used lethal force. OK, she did her job, but don't make her a hero, the boy wasn't even pointing his gun at anyone". Now, I can't load your link. Maybe your video is gone, maybe it's my computer is lagging, but there are valid reasons, especially in a nation where there's some conflict between the poor and the police, where you can see why a politician would say "don't make the cop a hero".

So there are a few reasons why a politician, or a concerned citizen might raise issue with calling this woman a hero.

As for why some anti-gun advocates may be agreeing with that politician (and you didn't provide any good evidence of numbers behind that). One reasons is because to some, everything is an argument. But others may genuinely feel that praising a "Hero cop" for using deadly force against an apparently very novice and very young criminal, might not be something to encourage.

I've not seen the left using this incident as an argument for anti-gun. But I have seen the right use it for pro carry laws. I'm not sure why you would focus on a narrow slice of the left and then in your comments, try to make it about the entire left, but you seem intent on doing that.

Not all liberals are anti gun. See here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/04/liberal-gun-owner-enthusiast-second-amendment-politics-2017-215784

I'm not anti-carry, so much, provided the carrier is well trained and the licensing is thorough. My primary objection to gun laws is the right for a person to buy rapid fire, or bump stocks, and not require any kind of license or testing. Several of the mass shootings have been by people with confirmed mental instability and one with terrorist links, and the NRA defends the right for those people to buy semi-automatic weapons with multiple bullet magazines.

Left? Right? We should be talking about laws and weighing safety concerns and looking at studies. Not assigning viewpoints to the left or right but we should be trying to find a fair middle ground and we shouldn't draw conclusions based on a sample size of one event. (though, obviously, people are an emotional species and often do exactly that).

On the risk of carry laws:





  • "I didn't click on your video [...] the robber didn't get a chance to shoot anyone." You should watch better the video. There is no way to deny that the robber could had shoot someone.
    – Mark Messa
    May 17 '18 at 5:57
  • 2
    @MarkMessa I already saw a clip of it. I don't want to watch it again. There's no reason why I "should" watch it. You also don't know what I saw, to claim a better video. You're also missing the fact that the robber, in response to being shot, or if he'd seen the lady pull out her gun - he might have shot back or shot first. You can't say with certainty that she increased people's safety. The outcome doesn't determine the odds.
    – userLTK
    May 17 '18 at 6:03
  • "This boy with the gun appeared to not want to fire it." This 'boy' with a gun has an extensive criminal record. Just to name a few, he was the leader of a gang that last year kidnapped a retired old man, robbed him, killed him and burnt him.
    – Mark Messa
    May 17 '18 at 6:12
  • "Shooting someone holding a gun doesn't always equal safety." If you don't shoot doesn't always equal safety also, as the other case I've mentioned in question 2.
    – Mark Messa
    May 17 '18 at 6:18
  • 6
    @MarkMessa your entire comment streak on the question is itself is about wanting to understand "the left" as if it's a single thing, and now you say you don't want it to be about the entire left?
    – Erik
    May 17 '18 at 6:42

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .