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

[Anonymous]

so many gun nut, police apologists on this thread, twisting themselves into pretzels to try and justify what this reckless off duty cop did.

[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.

Of course 58 is elderly. What are you talking about? What do you consider 58, middle aged? If the average life expectancy is 80, then 58 is definitely elderly.

58 is not elderly

[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:

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.

+1 I can't believe that someone could look at this situation with a disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition at the hospital, and a cop unharmed, and say that everything went correctly in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so many gun nut, police apologists on this thread, twisting themselves into pretzels to try and justify what this reckless off duty cop did.

So many ignorant smug gun haters in this thread, spouting off when they don't know the facts, and when they have no idea what constitutes justifiable use of force anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so many gun nut, police apologists on this thread, twisting themselves into pretzels to try and justify what this reckless off duty cop did.

So many clairvoyant posters able to discern the truth without any evidence either way.

[Anonymous]

+1 I can't believe that someone could look at this situation with a disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition at the hospital, and a cop unharmed, and say that everything went correctly in this situation.

If you are attacked and have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger, then "attacker ends up dead and you are unharmed" is precisely the desired and proper outcome.

[Anonymous]

The police officer was not uninjured, at least per attorney statement. He was taken to the hospital. He was treated for something. Then they sent him home. By his account, he was knocked unconscious -- which means he sustained a concussion/closed head injury/traumatic brain injury. People sometimes never recover from even "minor" brain injury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so many gun nut, police apologists on this thread, twisting themselves into pretzels to try and justify what this reckless off duty cop did.

So many ignorant smug gun haters in this thread, spouting off when they don't know the facts, and when they have no idea what constitutes justifiable use of force anyway.

You're right. Many people don't know the facts. But. In the moment, the cop was a private citizen, not a cop. Justifiable force does not apply. In CA, he is required to use proportional force as a citizen, not stand your ground.

He will get away with this, however, because he is a cop, even if off duty. If anyone else shot an unarmed citizen, they would be arrested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 I can't believe that someone could look at this situation with a disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition at the hospital, and a cop unharmed, and say that everything went correctly in this situation.

If you are attacked and have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger, then "attacker ends up dead and you are unharmed" is precisely the desired and proper outcome.

No. Attacking someone without sufficient mental capacity means the cop basically killed someone who had the mental equivalent of a minor child. And the elderly parents of that child are in the hospital in critical condition. If you see this as "the proper outcome," I recommend counseling because you sound like a sociopath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The police officer was not uninjured, at least per attorney statement. He was taken to the hospital. He was treated for something. Then they sent him home. By his account, he was knocked unconscious -- which means he sustained a concussion/closed head injury/traumatic brain injury. People sometimes never recover from even "minor" brain injury.

Acoording to his lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so many gun nut, police apologists on this thread, twisting themselves into pretzels to try and justify what this reckless off duty cop did.

So many ignorant smug gun haters in this thread, spouting off when they don't know the facts, and when they have no idea what constitutes justifiable use of force anyway.

Drama llama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The police officer was not uninjured, at least per attorney statement. He was taken to the hospital. He was treated for something. Then they sent him home. By his account, he was knocked unconscious -- which means he sustained a concussion/closed head injury/traumatic brain injury. People sometimes never recover from even "minor" brain injury.

Acoording to his lawyer.

+1 Let's see the video. I predict will involve the disabled non-verbal man bumping hard into a police officer and his kid by accident. Police officer reacts violently by killing him and the parents and will say that he feared for his life, due to traumatic events during his time on the force. He will plead justifiable homicide and will be acquitted by a jury.

[Anonymous]

Much of this thread is ridiculous speculation—there is no public explanation of what happened yet.

Maybe wait and hear the story before you judge anyone.

The available information is also conflicting...some stories are saying that the man who was killed was mentally disabled but, his Facebook page says that he’s studying accounting at a university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Much of this thread is ridiculous speculation—there is no public explanation of what happened yet.

Maybe wait and hear the story before you judge anyone.

The available information is also conflicting...some stories are saying that the man who was killed was mentally disabled but, his Facebook page says that he’s studying accounting at a university.

Yes, everyone is saying let's wait for the video. But you do know that mentally disabled people can attend school, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 I can't believe that someone could look at this situation with a disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition at the hospital, and a cop unharmed, and say that everything went correctly in this situation.

If you are attacked and have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger, then "attacker ends up dead and you are unharmed" is precisely the desired and proper outcome.

No. Attacking someone without sufficient mental capacity means the cop basically killed someone who had the mental equivalent of a minor child. And the elderly parents of that child are in the hospital in critical condition. If you see this as "the proper outcome," I recommend counseling because you sound like a sociopath.

NP to this thread.

I don't know what exactly unfolded in Costco, but I don't know what bringing up the "gentle giant's" mental capacity has anything to do with this story. The cop may have gravely overreacted, but he's not psychic. This is not something he could have possibly known. The victim's mental capacity is completely irrelevant - all the cop knew, was he was dealing with a grown adult man.