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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are they dead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is critical missing piece in the US. Plus too many kids growing up in the vigilante/shoot ‘em up gun culture. It doesn’t go away when they put on a badge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are they dead?

You’re right (for now), for how well just call it attempted murder. Is that really better in your mind, that he only tried to kill the, but may not have succeeded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Murder" was used in the quoted post, and in multiple others, including with regard to the apparently still living parents.

Homicide without premeditation typically is called manslaughter or in some instances negligent homicide.

So "murder" implies an allegation of premeditation. Because otherwise it is called second degree murder in some places as a synonym for manslaughter.

In any event, and glib asides notwithstanding, the relevant PP attributed a racial motive where no evidence to that effect has been brought forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are they dead?

You’re right (for now), for how well just call it attempted murder. Is that really better in your mind, that he only tried to kill the, but may not have succeeded?

No, I think he shouldn’t have been carrying around a gun. Guns do more harm than good.

Just trying to get the facts right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Murder" was used in the quoted post, and in multiple others, including with regard to the apparently still living parents.

Homicide without premeditation typically is called manslaughter or in some instances negligent homicide.

So "murder" implies an allegation of premeditation. Because otherwise it is called second degree murder in some places as a synonym for manslaughter.

In any event, and glib asides notwithstanding, the relevant PP attributed a racial motive where no evidence to that effect has been brought forth.

Is it premeditation if you don’t have a specific victim in mind but you are carrying your gun and looking for trouble?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not o.k. to murder anyone. But those parents may have been quicker and stronger than that picture of them indicates. A 50 something coming at you is different than a 80 something coming at you.

Again, the surveillance video is going to be key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is critical missing piece in the US. Plus too many kids growing up in the vigilante/shoot ‘em up gun culture. It doesn’t go away when they put on a badge.

What is your level of experience with LE training, keyboard warrior? So gangsters are becoming cops? Are you familiar with the US?

UK violent crime rate is very low, so your comparison is meaningless.

Please tell us about your "deescalation" techniques! Lmfao

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not o.k. to murder anyone. But those parents may have been quicker and stronger than that picture of them indicates. A 50 something coming at you is different than a 80 something coming at you.

Again, the surveillance video is going to be key.

So let me get this straight. You believe that this intellectually disabled man, and his two late-50s parents, engaged in an attack on a police officer that merited being shot? And you believe this is more likely that the armed off-duty police officer over-reacting and yet again shooting an unarmed civilian? Ok.

Read this: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/05/05/police-de-escalation-training

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is critical missing piece in the US. Plus too many kids growing up in the vigilante/shoot ‘em up gun culture. It doesn’t go away when they put on a badge.

What is your level of experience with LE training, keyboard warrior? So gangsters are becoming cops? Are you familiar with the US?

UK violent crime rate is very low, so your comparison is meaningless.

Please tell us about your "deescalation" techniques! Lmfao

Read this. US police are not trained in de-escalation. Maybe you live in a world where you think the police should be treated like soldiers surrounded by enemy combatants, but that's not where I want to live. https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/05/05/police-de-escalation-training

[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.

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.

If it makes people think twice before violently hauling off and assaulting someone else, maybe there will be far fewer situations to de-escalate. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack random people. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not o.k. to murder anyone. But those parents may have been quicker and stronger than that picture of them indicates. A 50 something coming at you is different than a 80 something coming at you.

Again, the surveillance video is going to be key.

So let me get this straight. You believe that this intellectually disabled man, and his two late-50s parents, engaged in an attack on a police officer that merited being shot? And you believe this is more likely that the armed off-duty police officer over-reacting and yet again shooting an unarmed civilian? Ok.

Read this: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/05/05/police-de-escalation-training

I think that the guy who did the attacking was a big guy and that his parents were fiercely protective of him. I also believe that the cop was completely blindsided by the assault on himself and his baby, wound up on the ground, drew his weapon and fired at the people who were coming at him. I base that on the cop's lawyer's statement. If surveillance video proves otherwise then that will be a different story.

I do not believe that this cop shot 3 people over a verbal altercation. That didn't happen. He was physically assaulted, knocked out briefly and reacted in self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If it makes people think twice before violently hauling off and assaulting someone else, maybe there will be far fewer situations to de-escalate. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack random people. Done.

No thank you. I pay the police, and I want them to learn how to de-escalate situations especially when the person may not be rational (juvenile, angry, intellectually disable, mentally ill, intoxicated). I do not want to live in a world where the police are entitled to shoot randomly without concern for the citizen or bystanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not o.k. to murder anyone. But those parents may have been quicker and stronger than that picture of them indicates. A 50 something coming at you is different than a 80 something coming at you.

Again, the surveillance video is going to be key.

So let me get this straight. You believe that this intellectually disabled man, and his two late-50s parents, engaged in an attack on a police officer that merited being shot? And you believe this is more likely that the armed off-duty police officer over-reacting and yet again shooting an unarmed civilian? Ok.

Read this: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/05/05/police-de-escalation-training

I think that the guy who did the attacking was a big guy and that his parents were fiercely protective of him. I also believe that the cop was completely blindsided by the assault on himself and his baby, wound up on the ground, drew his weapon and fired at the people who were coming at him. I base that on the cop's lawyer's statement. If surveillance video proves otherwise then that will be a different story.

I do not believe that this cop shot 3 people over a verbal altercation. That didn't happen. He was physically assaulted, knocked out briefly and reacted in self defense.

He is a police officer. He should not be carrying a gun if he is going to be liable to shoot into a crowd when he feels threatened. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Who carries their baby in a Costco? That place is huge and the carts are spacious enough to put the baby bucket in and still do your shop.