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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

And interesting...that same cousin has made a lot of things on his facebook page private. Earlier today he had at least a couple posts about this incident public and open to comments. Now you can't see them, along with most of his profile. I wonder if we're about to get some news about what really happened?

[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:

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.

Not a single bystander was shot.

[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:

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.

Not a single bystander was shot.

the parents were bystanders. your vision of police being able to shoot into a crowd whenever they feel threatened is just really scary.

[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:

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.

Another armchair quarterback who knows nothing about weapons or tactics. It takes a special kind of liberal nut to think that it's bad for cops to be armed to the teeth.

PP, if you are such a law enforcement expert, why don't you sign up for the force?

[Anonymous]

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-costco-shooting-off-duty-lapd-officer-20190617-story.html

The attorney for an off-duty Los Angeles police officer who fatally shot a man described by his family as having an intellectual disability and two others at a Costco store in Corona said he was defending himself and 1-year-old child.

The attorney, David Winslow, said the officer was getting a food sample for his son when he was attacked and briefly knocked out.

“He was shopping with his wife and 1½-year-old at Costco. His son was was in his arms and he was feeding his son some samples when within seconds he was on the ground and woke up from being unconscious and he was fighting for his life,” Winslow said in an interview with The Times.
...
The fact that the officer’s child was in his arms at the time and that the people injured were not armed will be major factors in determining whether the level of force was justified, said Ed Obayashi, a Plumas County sheriff’s deputy and use-of-force advisor to the California Assn. of Police Training Officers.
...

Obayashi said the officer’s justification for the shooting might be that he could not protect his 1-year-old without using deadly force.

“This threat had to have been so immediate and so severe that the officer believed he had to use deadly force,” Obayashi said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Did you look at the photo? He’s standing next to his parents. Unless they are extremely tall people like the dad is 6’4 or something, he was not a giant. I have 8th graders that are 6’2 in September and keep growing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Did you look at the photo? He’s standing next to his parents. Unless they are extremely tall people like the dad is 6’4 or something, he was not a giant. I have 8th graders that are 6’2 in September and keep growing.

I assuming that is a VERY old photo. People here keep claiming that the parents are "elderly" and those people are no where near "elderly." The photo must be at least 20 years old. So if French was 11 in that photo, he had plenty of time to grow into a giant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-costco-shooting-off-duty-lapd-officer-20190617-story.html

The attorney for an off-duty Los Angeles police officer who fatally shot a man described by his family as having an intellectual disability and two others at a Costco store in Corona said he was defending himself and 1-year-old child.

The attorney, David Winslow, said the officer was getting a food sample for his son when he was attacked and briefly knocked out.

“He was shopping with his wife and 1½-year-old at Costco. His son was was in his arms and he was feeding his son some samples when within seconds he was on the ground and woke up from being unconscious and he was fighting for his life,” Winslow said in an interview with The Times.
...
The fact that the officer’s child was in his arms at the time and that the people injured were not armed will be major factors in determining whether the level of force was justified, said Ed Obayashi, a Plumas County sheriff’s deputy and use-of-force advisor to the California Assn. of Police Training Officers.
...

Obayashi said the officer’s justification for the shooting might be that he could not protect his 1-year-old without using deadly force.

“This threat had to have been so immediate and so severe that the officer believed he had to use deadly force,” Obayashi said.

So what? That's what the defense attorney for the accused says. There's still a videocamera hopefully in the Costco that will check the accuracy of his story. Unfortunately the other witnesses are dead or in the hospital so they can't speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Did you look at the photo? He’s standing next to his parents. Unless they are extremely tall people like the dad is 6’4 or something, he was not a giant. I have 8th graders that are 6’2 in September and keep growing.

I assuming that is a VERY old photo. People here keep claiming that the parents are "elderly" and those people are no where near "elderly." The photo must be at least 20 years old. So if French was 11 in that photo, he had plenty of time to grow into a giant.

Whut. His dad is 58. Your assumptions are way off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Did you look at the photo? He’s standing next to his parents. Unless they are extremely tall people like the dad is 6’4 or something, he was not a giant. I have 8th graders that are 6’2 in September and keep growing.

I assuming that is a VERY old photo. People here keep claiming that the parents are "elderly" and those people are no where near "elderly." The photo must be at least 20 years old. So if French was 11 in that photo, he had plenty of time to grow into a giant.

Whut. His dad is 58. Your assumptions are way off.

58 is not elderly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Did you look at the photo? He’s standing next to his parents. Unless they are extremely tall people like the dad is 6’4 or something, he was not a giant. I have 8th graders that are 6’2 in September and keep growing.

I assuming that is a VERY old photo. People here keep claiming that the parents are "elderly" and those people are no where near "elderly." The photo must be at least 20 years old. So if French was 11 in that photo, he had plenty of time to grow into a giant.

You would only assume that it was VERY old if you hadn't looked at it properly. French was 32 when he was shot and killed. He looks about that age in the picture to me. His mom has gray hair in the picture. If the parents had him at age 28, they would be 60 now. The AARP definition of elderly starts at 52.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Did you look at the photo? He’s standing next to his parents. Unless they are extremely tall people like the dad is 6’4 or something, he was not a giant. I have 8th graders that are 6’2 in September and keep growing.

I assuming that is a VERY old photo. People here keep claiming that the parents are "elderly" and those people are no where near "elderly." The photo must be at least 20 years old. So if French was 11 in that photo, he had plenty of time to grow into a giant.

Whut. His dad is 58. Your assumptions are way off.

58 is not elderly

What's your point? The picture is recent, the dead man wasn't 7 feet tall, and your assumptions were wrong and transparently biased. The guy had a freaking five o'clock shadow in the picture; if you need to tell yourself he was 11 and has since grown into a giant blank faced monster you might want to step away from the keyboard (or use it to Google!).

[Anonymous]

If he looks like an 11 year old in that photo, you should never act as an eye witness to anything.

It’s been established through many reputable experiments that whites misjudge the ages of nonwhite males, judging them as much older than white peers with the same development markers. I don’t know what race or ethnicity French was, but I think his darker skin and intellectual disability have made him an “other” that some posters find visually threatening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he looks like an 11 year old in that photo, you should never act as an eye witness to anything.

It’s been established through many reputable experiments that whites misjudge the ages of nonwhite males, judging them as much older than white peers with the same development markers. I don’t know what race or ethnicity French was, but I think his darker skin and intellectual disability have made him an “other” that some posters find visually threatening.

He looks white.

I am white (mostly Irish background) and my so is my husband. I have darker skin than French (at least, from that photo) and so do some of my children.

[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:

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.

Another armchair quarterback who knows nothing about weapons or tactics. It takes a special kind of liberal nut to think that it's bad for cops to be armed to the teeth.

PP, if you are such a law enforcement expert, why don't you sign up for the force?

Please tell me that an emotional nut like you doesn’t actually have a gun. That’s a scary thought.