Costco shooter was a cop... and all 3 victims were unarmed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the LA Times is reporting that the man pushed the officer down somehow. I am trying to figure out how you draw a weapon and shoot 3 people while on the ground holding a child who was unhurt.

They're reporting that the officer was holding his 1 1/2 year old and feeding the child food samples when he was suddenly attacked by the man and knocked down, briefly going unconscious. He came to, drew his weapon and wound up shooting his assailant, along with the assailant's parents, in self defense. The attack was caught on Costco security cameras.

Another example of why guns should be banned. Your right to self defense does not permit you to shoot innocent bystanders.

An assailant who would slam a 1 1/2 year old child to the ground is very violent and scary - at least in that moment in time. I don't know what triggered the guy but he is the one who lashed out first and, unfortunately for him, he chose a guy who happened to be armed and could defend himself/his child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the LA Times is reporting that the man pushed the officer down somehow. I am trying to figure out how you draw a weapon and shoot 3 people while on the ground holding a child who was unhurt.

They're reporting that the officer was holding his 1 1/2 year old and feeding the child food samples when he was suddenly attacked by the man and knocked down, briefly going unconscious. He came to, drew his weapon and wound up shooting his assailant, along with the assailant's parents, in self defense. The attack was caught on Costco security cameras.

Actually this is simply what the cop’s lawyer says. The footage hasn’t been released. So no corroboration yet.

The cop's lawyer is saying that the assault was caught on surveillance video. Cameras don't lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please reduce social media screen time. Bad things happening isn't a new thing.

The LA Times is not social media.

And being upset because a law enforcement officer shot and killed people, claiming self-defense, also isn't a new thing.

Do you know how many cops there are in the US?

Apparently you don't know anyone who worked as a cop in a major city in the 80's or 90's. Things are significantly better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the LA Times is reporting that the man pushed the officer down somehow. I am trying to figure out how you draw a weapon and shoot 3 people while on the ground holding a child who was unhurt.

They're reporting that the officer was holding his 1 1/2 year old and feeding the child food samples when he was suddenly attacked by the man and knocked down, briefly going unconscious. He came to, drew his weapon and wound up shooting his assailant, along with the assailant's parents, in self defense. The attack was caught on Costco security cameras.

Another example of why guns should be banned. Your right to self defense does not permit you to shoot innocent bystanders.

An assailant who would slam a 1 1/2 year old child to the ground is very violent and scary - at least in that moment in time. I don't know what triggered the guy but he is the one who lashed out first and, unfortunately for him, he chose a guy who happened to be armed and could defend himself/his child.

True, and the presence of guns makes it even more violent and scary -- as evidenced by this event itself. No gun = one person randomly injured. Gun = one person killed, two people in ICU, whole stampede of panicked people trying to get out. Luckily nobody injured in the stampede, but that was just luck.

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the LA Times is reporting that the man pushed the officer down somehow. I am trying to figure out how you draw a weapon and shoot 3 people while on the ground holding a child who was unhurt.

They're reporting that the officer was holding his 1 1/2 year old and feeding the child food samples when he was suddenly attacked by the man and knocked down, briefly going unconscious. He came to, drew his weapon and wound up shooting his assailant, along with the assailant's parents, in self defense. The attack was caught on Costco security cameras.

Another example of why guns should be banned. Your right to self defense does not permit you to shoot innocent bystanders.

An assailant who would slam a 1 1/2 year old child to the ground is very violent and scary - at least in that moment in time. I don't know what triggered the guy but he is the one who lashed out first and, unfortunately for him, he chose a guy who happened to be armed and could defend himself/his child.

True, and the presence of guns makes it even more violent and scary -- as evidenced by this event itself. No gun = one person randomly injured. Gun = one person killed, two people in ICU, whole stampede of panicked people trying to get out. Luckily nobody injured in the stampede, but that was just luck.

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

What if the guy had killed the 1 1/2 year old and/or the police officer? He was obviously not behaving rationally to have done what he did. Maybe the cop felt that he had no choice but to shoot in self defense.

[Anonymous]

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

Are you honestly suggesting police should not be armed? Granted, more than a few individuals among them should not be/should not have been, but who is supposed to show up with what when somebody decides to go nuts with a chain saw?

Seems rather extreme, particularly before all the facts are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

Are you honestly suggesting police should not be armed? Granted, more than a few individuals among them should not be/should not have been, but who is supposed to show up with what when somebody decides to go nuts with a chain saw?

Seems rather extreme, particularly before all the facts are in.

Yes, I think that nobody off duty should be armed. What if this jackass had shot into the crowd and killed your kid? If your grandma was run over in a stampede to the door? The gun did not solve any problems. It created problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

Where in the report does it say that the man who was shot was gigantic, monstrous, or blank-faced? Your bigotry towards people with developmental disabilities is evident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

Where in the report does it say that the man who was shot was gigantic, monstrous, or blank-faced? Your bigotry towards people with developmental disabilities is evident.

Even his cousin refers to the assailant as "a gentle giant". Obviously the guy was a big guy who got triggered by something and, without provocation, slammed a man holding a 1 year old baby to the ground.

Glad that innocent baby is o.k.!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the LA Times is reporting that the man pushed the officer down somehow. I am trying to figure out how you draw a weapon and shoot 3 people while on the ground holding a child who was unhurt.

They're reporting that the officer was holding his 1 1/2 year old and feeding the child food samples when he was suddenly attacked by the man and knocked down, briefly going unconscious. He came to, drew his weapon and wound up shooting his assailant, along with the assailant's parents, in self defense. The attack was caught on Costco security cameras.

Another example of why guns should be banned. Your right to self defense does not permit you to shoot innocent bystanders.

An assailant who would slam a 1 1/2 year old child to the ground is very violent and scary - at least in that moment in time. I don't know what triggered the guy but he is the one who lashed out first and, unfortunately for him, he chose a guy who happened to be armed and could defend himself/his child.

True, and the presence of guns makes it even more violent and scary -- as evidenced by this event itself. No gun = one person randomly injured. Gun = one person killed, two people in ICU, whole stampede of panicked people trying to get out. Luckily nobody injured in the stampede, but that was just luck.

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

What if the guy had killed the 1 1/2 year old and/or the police officer? He was obviously not behaving rationally to have done what he did. Maybe the cop felt that he had no choice but to shoot in self defense.

But that's not what happened -- he got knocked over, and killed one person, critically wounded two others, and caused a stampede. And he wasn't injured. I would expect COPS of all people to be better able to keep their heads about them. But we've gotten totally acculturated to cops being crazed and reactive, that we think, "oh, what else do you expect? cops are very easy to trigger, not his fault!"

Do not let easily triggered people have guns in public. We all bear the risk of getting randomly attacked in life -- you can't just say "hey, I'm going to shoot up a crowd because I'm entitled to use my damn gun."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the LA Times is reporting that the man pushed the officer down somehow. I am trying to figure out how you draw a weapon and shoot 3 people while on the ground holding a child who was unhurt.

They're reporting that the officer was holding his 1 1/2 year old and feeding the child food samples when he was suddenly attacked by the man and knocked down, briefly going unconscious. He came to, drew his weapon and wound up shooting his assailant, along with the assailant's parents, in self defense. The attack was caught on Costco security cameras.

Another example of why guns should be banned. Your right to self defense does not permit you to shoot innocent bystanders.

An assailant who would slam a 1 1/2 year old child to the ground is very violent and scary - at least in that moment in time. I don't know what triggered the guy but he is the one who lashed out first and, unfortunately for him, he chose a guy who happened to be armed and could defend himself/his child.

True, and the presence of guns makes it even more violent and scary -- as evidenced by this event itself. No gun = one person randomly injured. Gun = one person killed, two people in ICU, whole stampede of panicked people trying to get out. Luckily nobody injured in the stampede, but that was just luck.

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

What if the guy had killed the 1 1/2 year old and/or the police officer? He was obviously not behaving rationally to have done what he did. Maybe the cop felt that he had no choice but to shoot in self defense.

But that's not what happened -- he got knocked over, and killed one person, critically wounded two others, and caused a stampede. And he wasn't injured. I would expect COPS of all people to be better able to keep their heads about them. But we've gotten totally acculturated to cops being crazed and reactive, that we think, "oh, what else do you expect? cops are very easy to trigger, not his fault!"

Do not let easily triggered people have guns in public. We all bear the risk of getting randomly attacked in life -- you can't just say "hey, I'm going to shoot up a crowd because I'm entitled to use my damn gun."

We haven't seen the surveillance video. Hopefully that will shed some light on what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I shop at the Costco in Wheaton. Occasionally, I encounter both group homes shopping with their clients in a large group or parents shopping with an adolescent or young adult with intellectual disabilities. Some of these encounters are unremarkable. Other times something funny or odd happens. A young woman began moonwalking across my path and wouldn’t stop until I joined her (simply applauding didn’t work). Another time, an adult male grabbed my cart right out of my hands. It startled me, but I was uninjured and saw not reason to argue with him or his caregivers. People need to stop overreacting to people with intellectual disabilities. They need groceries the same as the rest of us and, although I hardly find Costco enjoyable, there’s clinical evidence that such outings can help stave off further decline in cognition and self-regulation.

The world needs more people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

Where in the report does it say that the man who was shot was gigantic, monstrous, or blank-faced? Your bigotry towards people with developmental disabilities is evident.

Even his cousin refers to the assailant as "a gentle giant". Obviously the guy was a big guy who got triggered by something and, without provocation, slammed a man holding a 1 year old baby to the ground.

Glad that innocent baby is o.k.!

Here is a photo of the people who were gunned down. Do you think they look "monstrous" and "blank faced"?? Don't forget that ALL THREE PEOPLE in the family were shot. The death count may still rise - the elderly couple are in critical condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

Where in the report does it say that the man who was shot was gigantic, monstrous, or blank-faced? Your bigotry towards people with developmental disabilities is evident.

Even his cousin refers to the assailant as "a gentle giant". Obviously the guy was a big guy who got triggered by something and, without provocation, slammed a man holding a 1 year old baby to the ground.

Glad that innocent baby is o.k.!

Yes, the cop could have shot the baby too. Very dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Guns cause problems, not solve them.

Are you honestly suggesting police should not be armed? Granted, more than a few individuals among them should not be/should not have been, but who is supposed to show up with what when somebody decides to go nuts with a chain saw?

Seems rather extreme, particularly before all the facts are in.

Yes, I think that nobody off duty should be armed. What if this jackass had shot into the crowd and killed your kid? If your grandma was run over in a stampede to the door? The gun did not solve any problems. It created problems.

Exactly!!