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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cops murder citizens all the time. But this family was white so we are outraged.

They’re not white, they’re Indian/south Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not like the kid who was killed was wearing a sign that said “I have intellectual disabilities - I won’t hurt you.” If he indeed knocked the cop down (which surveillance video will show us), then the cop saw a big dude going after him, and potentially going after others. I’m guessing he felt the need to stop this guy before he hurt others.

But, we should all wait for the video to assess further.

And the parents?

Seriously. One developmentally disabled man killed. Two parents critically ill in the hospital. And people are thinking the cop had no better options than to start shooting up the place?

If the cop was "shooting up the place" more people would have been shot than just the huge man that attacked him and the huge man's parents.
Just because this man was "mentally disabled" does not mean he was harmless. Sometimes people do BAD things to children they don't even know. Have we all forgot about the little boy who was flung off a balcony at a mall a few months ago? https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/us/mall-of-america-boy-guilty-plea/index.html

The cop saw that someone was trying to hurt his son, of course he's going to react.

Seriously. If you don't want to risk getting your azz shot, maybe don't go around attacking people in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

But being threatened DOES NOT JUSTIFY shooting in a crowded place. You are not allowed to hurt innocent bystanders just because you subjectively feel threatened. Police officers, of all people, need to be trained in ways to de-escalate that cause the least harm. Not to go in guns a-blazin under all circumstances. It's truly terrifying that we have reached the point where we think it's justifiable that cops have hair triggers and shoot first, ask questions later.

Doesn't anyone remember this amazing video of a Canadian police officer talking down an armed suspect?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43876772

Police in the US have hair triggers because they are TRAINED to be that way, armed, and then on top of that, we allow them to go out in public with their weapons off duty.

I don't care if this police officer was actually attacked -- he had NO business firing like crazy in a crowded grocery store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

There’s a lot about the lawyer’s story that doesn’t really make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

There’s a lot about the lawyer’s story that doesn’t really make sense.

It was a bizarre situation. I don't think it's ever going to make sense. I think we need to see the video and hear all the details before rushing to judgement, though. I will admit that it troubles me a great deal that those two elderly parents were shot. I guess the cop is saying that he was dazed after being knocked out for a brief period.

[Anonymous]

Actually the "elderly parents" are only in their late 50's. They look old for their ages but they aren't really elderly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

There’s a lot about the lawyer’s story that doesn’t really make sense.

It was a bizarre situation. I don't think it's ever going to make sense. I think we need to see the video and hear all the details before rushing to judgement, though. I will admit that it troubles me a great deal that those two elderly parents were shot. I guess the cop is saying that he was dazed after being knocked out for a brief period.

If he was too dazed to know who he was shooting at, then he had no business shooting in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually the "elderly parents" are only in their late 50's. They look old for their ages but they aren't really elderly.

So it’s okay that he murdered them?

[Anonymous]

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

Now it's a racially motivated premeditated murder!

Might be nice to wait for a few facts. Like any grounds to suggest racial animus. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

But being threatened DOES NOT JUSTIFY shooting in a crowded place. You are not allowed to hurt innocent bystanders just because you subjectively feel threatened. Police officers, of all people, need to be trained in ways to de-escalate that cause the least harm. Not to go in guns a-blazin under all circumstances. It's truly terrifying that we have reached the point where we think it's justifiable that cops have hair triggers and shoot first, ask questions later.

Doesn't anyone remember this amazing video of a Canadian police officer talking down an armed suspect?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43876772

Police in the US have hair triggers because they are TRAINED to be that way, armed, and then on top of that, we allow them to go out in public with their weapons off duty.

I don't care if this police officer was actually attacked -- he had NO business firing like crazy in a crowded grocery store.

+1,000 to PP just above.

Knowing that off-duty police may be around me and carrying does not make me feel safer, as it once might have. Now it makes me feel more nervous instead. I have to assume that most cops who might be out in public probably have little to no training or experience in de-escalating any situation nonviolently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

Now it's a racially motivated premeditated murder!

Might be nice to wait for a few facts. Like any grounds to suggest racial animus. No?

Nobody said premeditated, but that was a cute strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.!

Gentle giant means big, not monstrous, not blank-faced. I agree that PP is bigoted.

This guy was apparently both a gentle giant who posed in happy family pictures AND a hulking giant who, without provocation, slammed a man to the ground. I feel for him and his family because certainly he was normally not a violent individual and his aggressive behavior was out of character for him. That does not mean that he didn't attack the officer, putting a small child at risk of serious injury. Because he did.

Were you there to witness it, or are you just saying what you want to be true to justify murdering some brown people?

I am simply going by what the cop's lawyer says happened. If surveillance video backs up what he is saying then...it is what it is. The cop was reacting to being aggressively attacked for no reason. His reasons for firing his weapon were based on the physical threat being posed to himself and his child at the time. Nice try making it all about race though. You're a true peach.

But being threatened DOES NOT JUSTIFY shooting in a crowded place. You are not allowed to hurt innocent bystanders just because you subjectively feel threatened. Police officers, of all people, need to be trained in ways to de-escalate that cause the least harm. Not to go in guns a-blazin under all circumstances. It's truly terrifying that we have reached the point where we think it's justifiable that cops have hair triggers and shoot first, ask questions later.

Doesn't anyone remember this amazing video of a Canadian police officer talking down an armed suspect?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43876772

Police in the US have hair triggers because they are TRAINED to be that way, armed, and then on top of that, we allow them to go out in public with their weapons off duty.

I don't care if this police officer was actually attacked -- he had NO business firing like crazy in a crowded grocery store.

Unfortunately U.S. cops are pretty inferior to those in Canada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not like the kid who was killed was wearing a sign that said “I have intellectual disabilities - I won’t hurt you.” If he indeed knocked the cop down (which surveillance video will show us), then the cop saw a big dude going after him, and potentially going after others. I’m guessing he felt the need to stop this guy before he hurt others.

But, we should all wait for the video to assess further.

And the parents?

Maybe they rushed in to try and disarm the cop. Maybe they started hitting him or pulling him. I don’t know what happened - but the possibilities are pretty endless until we see the video. Which is why I refuse to rush to judgment.

Who wouldn’t? He just some random a-hole at Costco to them. Who just shot their son. That doesn’t deserve a death sentence.

[Anonymous]

This is why we have mental health checks in the U.K. on policemen who have access to guns. And they are taught to deescalate, rather than start shooting at the drop of a hat as they do in the US.