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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

the article is LITERALLY about the failure to provide sufficient de-escalation training ...

[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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

[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?

Yes, I absolutely believe I could kick the crap out of one schlep and two old goats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, I'm not a police officer, so it's not my job. It is a police officer's job to de-escalate. If I got assaulted (and I hope I don't) I might get hurt, but at least I wouldn't kill innocent bystanders as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, since a disabled man is dead and two elderly people are in critical condition and the police officer is fine, I am pretty sure that any member of the force would be looking at ways that this could have been handled better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, I'm not a police officer, so it's not my job. It is a police officer's job to de-escalate. If I got assaulted (and I hope I don't) I might get hurt, but at least I wouldn't kill innocent bystanders as well.

Well, no "innocent bystanders" were killed in this situation. The perpetrator was killed. His accomplices have been seriously injured. I did not hear of any innocent bystanders with injuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, I'm not a police officer, so it's not my job. It is a police officer's job to de-escalate. If I got assaulted (and I hope I don't) I might get hurt, but at least I wouldn't kill innocent bystanders as well.

Well, no "innocent bystanders" were killed in this situation. The perpetrator was killed. His accomplices have been seriously injured. I did not hear of any innocent bystanders with injuries.

DP here. I hope you're trolling but something tells me I'm too optimistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

NP. You can't deescalate someone attacking you. You have to beat their ass or taze them!

As far as shooting wildly, most cops miss most of their shots. It's not easy to put rounds on target, especially when you feel that your life is in danger. It sucks that innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

NP. You can't deescalate someone attacking you. You have to beat their ass or taze them!

As far as shooting wildly, most cops miss most of their shots. It's not easy to put rounds on target, especially when you feel that your life is in danger. It sucks that innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative.

Lol!! You think that's a persuasive argument??

[Anonymous]

To the posters writing “massive” and “monstrous”, this guy is not Andre the Giant. Look at the photo with his parents. He was large, but not your Lenny from Of Mice and Men nightmares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

NP. You can't deescalate someone attacking you. You have to beat their ass or taze them!

As far as shooting wildly, most cops miss most of their shots. It's not easy to put rounds on target, especially when you feel that your life is in danger. It sucks that innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative.

I just find this post incredibly disgusting and scary. The police are supposed to "protect and serve." Not approach every situation with fear for their lives and armed to the teeth, focused on protecting themselves and then shrugging that "innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative." What kind of absolute dystopia do you live in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the posters writing “massive” and “monstrous”, this guy is not Andre the Giant. Look at the photo with his parents. He was large, but not your Lenny from Of Mice and Men nightmares.

The media attention seeking cousin has described him as a "giant."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

NP. You can't deescalate someone attacking you. You have to beat their ass or taze them!

As far as shooting wildly, most cops miss most of their shots. It's not easy to put rounds on target, especially when you feel that your life is in danger. It sucks that innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative.

I just find this post incredibly disgusting and scary. The police are supposed to "protect and serve." Not approach every situation with fear for their lives and armed to the teeth, focused on protecting themselves and then shrugging that "innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative." What kind of absolute dystopia do you live in?

Please tell us your recommended tactic for stopping someone who is trying to kill you? How will you "deescalate"? Are you posting from your safe space in Bethesda?

[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:

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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

NP. You can't deescalate someone attacking you. You have to beat their ass or taze them!

As far as shooting wildly, most cops miss most of their shots. It's not easy to put rounds on target, especially when you feel that your life is in danger. It sucks that innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative.

I just find this post incredibly disgusting and scary. The police are supposed to "protect and serve." Not approach every situation with fear for their lives and armed to the teeth, focused on protecting themselves and then shrugging that "innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative." What kind of absolute dystopia do you live in?

Please tell us your recommended tactic for stopping someone who is trying to kill you? How will you "deescalate"? Are you posting from your safe space in Bethesda?

I don't know -- but morally, it doesn't involve shooting innocent bystanders.

[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:

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?

First of all - YES I expect police officers to be trained in de-escalation. THAT IS THEIR JOB. Not to shoot every time they feel scared. I mean really, have some higher standards?

Second of all - you have to look at this on a society-wide level. It is NOT OK to live in a society where everyone is packing and shoots wildly in public places whenever they get into an altercation. This is the WHOLE REASON to have gun control: so the consequences of these kinds of incidents can be reduced.

NP. You can't deescalate someone attacking you. You have to beat their ass or taze them!

As far as shooting wildly, most cops miss most of their shots. It's not easy to put rounds on target, especially when you feel that your life is in danger. It sucks that innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative.

I just find this post incredibly disgusting and scary. The police are supposed to "protect and serve." Not approach every situation with fear for their lives and armed to the teeth, focused on protecting themselves and then shrugging that "innocent people get hit sometimes, but there is often no alternative." What kind of absolute dystopia do you live in?

Please tell us your recommended tactic for stopping someone who is trying to kill you? How will you "deescalate"? Are you posting from your safe space in Bethesda?

DP: How did we get from "some kind of argument" to "knocked down" to "someone who is trying to kill you" with no new information about what happened? Calm down.