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

[Anonymous]

We don’t know that no one would be dead. It doesn’t take much force to permanently harm the skull of 1 year old.
He was expected to carry off duty.
He was ( possibly) attacked
He was ( possibly) knocked out and his decision making impaired

This is a possibility when we ask LE to carry off duty. So it seems the discussion is, do we think it’s worth having them carry off duty? How often are lives saved from an armed off duty officer compared to incidents like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

Yep. They just throw acid on each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

+1

I am pro gun, but have seen my share of pro gun dramatics: “but the other (unarmed) person is so very dangerous! You just don’t know!!” Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

And Emmanuel Aranda didn't need a gun to inflict serious damage on a 5 year old innocent boy when he threw him off a 3 story balcony in the Mall of America. When someone with mental illness starts attacking an innocent child, I don't care about "de-escaulating" without a gun. I care about stopping the assault on the child. If using a gun gets the assault STOPPED with minimal damage (the only ones hurt in this situation were the perpetrator and his enablers) that is success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know that no one would be dead. It doesn’t take much force to permanently harm the skull of 1 year old.
He was expected to carry off duty.
He was ( possibly) attacked
He was ( possibly) knocked out and his decision making impaired

This is a possibility when we ask LE to carry off duty. So it seems the discussion is, do we think it’s worth having them carry off duty? How often are lives saved from an armed off duty officer compared to incidents like this?

You can't expect a law enforcement officer to deal with/arrest/testify against criminals every day and then leave work, go home to his/her family with no way to protect themselves.

The very nature of their job (arresting/locking up/testifying against) bad guys exposes them to a level of danger that the average person does not face. The potential for a bad guy to hold a grudge against them is a much higher risk. There is a reason they carry off duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

Yep. They just throw acid on each other.

Or blow themselves up along with everyone else around them. Or drive cars through crowds and fun little stunts like that..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You obviously have zero LE training because police academies have been training officers in deescalation techniques (verbal & tactics) for decades. Great article I'm sure LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

Oh really? The situation gets de-escalated each and every time? Maybe in your head, but not in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know that no one would be dead. It doesn’t take much force to permanently harm the skull of 1 year old.
He was expected to carry off duty.
He was ( possibly) attacked
He was ( possibly) knocked out and his decision making impaired

This is a possibility when we ask LE to carry off duty. So it seems the discussion is, do we think it’s worth having them carry off duty? How often are lives saved from an armed off duty officer compared to incidents like this?

You can't expect a law enforcement officer to deal with/arrest/testify against criminals every day and then leave work, go home to his/her family with no way to protect themselves.

The very nature of their job (arresting/locking up/testifying against) bad guys exposes them to a level of danger that the average person does not face. The potential for a bad guy to hold a grudge against them is a much higher risk. There is a reason they carry off duty.

Fair enough.
I’m inclined to agree that I prefer trained officers conceal carrying off duty. While there is merit to training cops effective de escalation techniques, don’t people think cops in America are more likely to shoot than cops in other parts of the world, because they are more likely to get shot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

And Emmanuel Aranda didn't need a gun to inflict serious damage on a 5 year old innocent boy when he threw him off a 3 story balcony in the Mall of America. When someone with mental illness starts attacking an innocent child, I don't care about "de-escaulating" without a gun. I care about stopping the assault on the child. If using a gun gets the assault STOPPED with minimal damage (the only ones hurt in this situation were the perpetrator and his enablers) that is success.

This right here.

If indeed the cop was assaulted, then the man who was shot was the perpetrator and not an innocent victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

And Emmanuel Aranda didn't need a gun to inflict serious damage on a 5 year old innocent boy when he threw him off a 3 story balcony in the Mall of America. When someone with mental illness starts attacking an innocent child, I don't care about "de-escaulating" without a gun. I care about stopping the assault on the child. If using a gun gets the assault STOPPED with minimal damage (the only ones hurt in this situation were the perpetrator and his enablers) that is success.

This right here.

If indeed the cop was assaulted, then the man who was shot was the perpetrator and not an innocent victim.

It just depends on the specifics of the situation. Generally speaking, a fist fight should stay a fist fight. You better have a damn good reason for taking out your gun in that type of situation. Being a puzzy is not a good reason. Not that it is very relevant to this incident, but cops have become to dependent on tasers and freak out if they have to fight someone nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

And Emmanuel Aranda didn't need a gun to inflict serious damage on a 5 year old innocent boy when he threw him off a 3 story balcony in the Mall of America. When someone with mental illness starts attacking an innocent child, I don't care about "de-escaulating" without a gun. I care about stopping the assault on the child. If using a gun gets the assault STOPPED with minimal damage (the only ones hurt in this situation were the perpetrator and his enablers) that is success.

This right here.

If indeed the cop was assaulted, then the man who was shot was the perpetrator and not an innocent victim.

It just depends on the specifics of the situation. Generally speaking, a fist fight should stay a fist fight. You better have a damn good reason for taking out your gun in that type of situation. Being a puzzy is not a good reason. Not that it is very relevant to this incident, but cops have become to dependent on tasers and freak out if they have to fight someone nowadays.

Would you want to get into a fist fight with a massive 32 year old man while holding your baby? All while two other people (his parents) AlSO come charging at you? Are there more of them? How about if you don't know if this massive man or any of his accomplices have weapons? How many other innocent people are also standing by that could possibly be hurt?
And you have the power to "de-escalate" the whole situation...with your gun. You're really telling me you're going to keep "fist fighting" this guy, and his parents, and who knows who else he has with him--while holding your baby in one arm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Exactly. We don’t know what would have happened.

stop it. other countries with better gun laws have fewer gun deaths and lower homicide rates. no gun, nobody gets shot. situation gets de-escalated.

And Emmanuel Aranda didn't need a gun to inflict serious damage on a 5 year old innocent boy when he threw him off a 3 story balcony in the Mall of America. When someone with mental illness starts attacking an innocent child, I don't care about "de-escaulating" without a gun. I care about stopping the assault on the child. If using a gun gets the assault STOPPED with minimal damage (the only ones hurt in this situation were the perpetrator and his enablers) that is success.

This right here.

If indeed the cop was assaulted, then the man who was shot was the perpetrator and not an innocent victim.

It just depends on the specifics of the situation. Generally speaking, a fist fight should stay a fist fight. You better have a damn good reason for taking out your gun in that type of situation. Being a puzzy is not a good reason. Not that it is very relevant to this incident, but cops have become to dependent on tasers and freak out if they have to fight someone nowadays.

Would you want to get into a fist fight with a massive 32 year old man while holding your baby? All while two other people (his parents) AlSO come charging at you? Are there more of them? How about if you don't know if this massive man or any of his accomplices have weapons? How many other innocent people are also standing by that could possibly be hurt?
And you have the power to "de-escalate" the whole situation...with your gun. You're really telling me you're going to keep "fist fighting" this guy, and his parents, and who knows who else he has with him--while holding your baby in one arm?

Oh of course. All these armchair quarterbacks would definitely have handled it 100% better. No question.

It’s gotten to the point where it’s actually funny to me to read these responses. As if ANY of these people should have ANY CLUE as to handle the situation.