Costco shooter was a cop... and all 3 victims were unarmed
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Another thing to consider when you speculate about what the family’s attorney is or isn’t saying/doing is to consider that he represents Russell and Paola French and the estate of Kenneth French. Russel French is still is the hospital in serious condition, and likely can only spend limited time discussing the matter with his attorney. Paola French is in a coma, so much like Russell French is the only person with authority on her behalf. Kenneth French is dead, and as next of kin Russell and Paola French are probably the only people with authority on behalf of the estate. What this all means is that their attorney is very limited in what he can do right now, because he needs his clients’ consent to do things like make public statements calling for release of the tape. His highest priority right now will be obtaining/preserving evidence on behalf of his clients for whenever any of them are well-enough to proceed, not making a public spectacle. |
Anonymous
Liable for what? The fact that a cop doesn't have any self-control? |
Anonymous
This has been a terrible nightmare for those parents, no question. But they used their membership to get their son into Costco and they more than likely did have some sort of guardianship over him if he was mentally incapacitated. I am NOT saying that they should be held liable for bringing him into the store, my question is COULD they be held responsible for bringing him into that store? |
Anonymous
That makes sense. Thank you for that clear explanation. |
Anonymous
And my answer was to the legal question of whether they could, not the philosophical question of whether they should. Unless they had legal guardianship, they generally can’t be held responsible for his autonomous behavior. |
Anonymous
If they did have legal guardianship then they could be held responsible? |
Anonymous
You sound like a sick person. The son is dead. The parents in critical condition in the hospital for a week now, and you want to blame them for bringing their adult son into a store, where a trigger happy cop shot all 3 of them. |
Anonymous
Even then, likely not. Most of the time parental liability arises from instances where kids engage in intentional/deliberately malicious actions, not from careless, reckless, negligent, etc., behavior. If their son is sufficiently lacking in cognitive capacity that they could get guardianship, it’s hard to argue he has the cognitive capacity for that kind of malicious/willful behavior. The other theory that possibly could be pursued (if California allows it) is if he had a recent history of similar violent behavior that his parents weren’t making an effort to address and they keep taking him out without adequate supervision, but that’s a really hard one to prove. And ultimately, the guy suffered at most minor injuries, so there’s not a whole lot for him to recover to make a lawsuit worthwhile. He is going to face a civil suit from the French family, though. That’s all but certain. |
Anonymous
It was a question. I specifically said that I was not saying that they SHOULD be held liable. I was only asking if they COULD be held liable. |
Anonymous
DP. Given how you keep harping on it when you already have an answer, it kind of seems like you want the answer to be different. The answer is that it in highly unlikely the parents could be held responsible here. The end. |
Anonymous
| Funny how the story became that the baby was slammed to the ground when there is absolutely no evidence that happened. |
Anonymous
Anything to make the story revolve around a child |
Anonymous
DP. Yet.... so many have kept referring to the 32 year old unmedicated, apparently violent schizophrenic man as a boy or child. |
Anonymous
| I apologize if this has already been posted but I wonder how the situation would have unfolded if no one had been armed with a gun? |
Anonymous
Sure. It’s hilarious when children are placed in dangerous situations! |