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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some people actually enjoy touching and interacting with their children. They don’t see their children as something to just tote along in a “bucket.”

[Anonymous]

The delay in releasing surveillance video is troubling. Hard not to think it would have been very quickly made public if it completely exonerated the officer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

[Anonymous]

Cop sounds trigger happy. Thank God for video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The delay in releasing surveillance video is troubling. Hard not to think it would have been very quickly made public if it completely exonerated the officer.

+1

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sounds like he was standing at a free sample table, feeding the baby some food when the guy suddenly attacked them for no reason.

[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

^^ hopefully this emotional nut job doesn’t carry a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The delay in releasing surveillance video is troubling. Hard not to think it would have been very quickly made public if it completely exonerated the officer.

+1

Bingo.

Particularly with how easy it is to manipulate video too.

I wonder what they will share and how real it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

x 1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The delay in releasing surveillance video is troubling. Hard not to think it would have been very quickly made public if it completely exonerated the officer.

+1

Bingo.

I wonder if the video provides a clear view of the incident. Costco is so crowded, especially around those food sample tables. It may require some analysis to make sense of it - like where the cop landed, where the food sample he was holding ended up vs the food samples that startled onlookers dropped, where the baby was, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

x 1 million

There is no guarantee that the irrational people are not armed themselves. Maybe the cop thought that the guy was reaching for a weapon or that he was going for his server revolver. We simply do not know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

x 1 million

There is no guarantee that the irrational people are not armed themselves. Maybe the cop thought that the guy was reaching for a weapon or that he was going for his server revolver. We simply do not know.

what we DO know is that nobody would be dead or in the ICU shot if he hadn't had a gun.

[Anonymous]

Irrational trigger happy cop with gun vs. autistic teen? Why is this even a question?

If anyone is in a position to deescalate this situation, it should be the person with the gun. SHOULD BE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

what we DO know is that nobody would be dead or in the ICU shot if he hadn't had a gun.

No, we absolutely do NOT know that. Who knows how long/how that man would have attacked the officer and his child? Who knows what other customers might have done to try and jump in and "help?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Irrational trigger happy cop with gun vs. autistic teen? Why is this even a question?

If anyone is in a position to deescalate this situation, it should be the person with the gun. SHOULD BE.

What autistic teen? Kenneth French was 32 years old.