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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do people know he violently attacked him?

Video. Witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what would have happened if Sanchez hadn't carried a gun into Costco. Alas, we'll never know.

Maybe the large violent mentally ill man would have severely injured someone in the store and you’d all be here saying that Sanchez was a shitty cop for not stopping the guy.

Lethal force was the only option? Bullshit.

Ok, so what was another option? You are the victim of a violent, unprovoked attack by a large mentally ill man. You and your child have been knocked to the ground. What are you going to do to protect your kid? If it’s so easy, please do tell.

I don't know, but "shoot wildly into the crowd" is not the right answer.

I HAVE been the victim of an unprovoked assault. I was walking in a crosswalk, and a young man crossing in the other directly punched me out of the middle of nowhere. I sat on the ground confused for a second, watched him walk away, thought for a minute about going after him, reassessed, and walked in the other direction. So, based on that experience, I can say that it is extremely feasible to keep your wits about you when you are randomly attacked, and not act on your first impulse.

Also, I don't think that I would immediately conclude "start a firefight in a crowded store" was the best way to protect my child. Where was the kid while he was shooting? Lying on the ground? My #1 concern would be to grab my kid and run away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone actually tell who is who and what happens?

It seems like there is an initial altercation between a person in a striped shirt and a person in a reddish / dark shirt. The altercation is very brief and then they both fall to the floor.

A few seconds later while both are still on the floor there is a flurry of activity just behind them and it looks like people knock a few things down or fall down. It is very hard to tell.

Was the cop one of the people on the ground? Did he keep shooting others from the ground?

The story is this: Mentally ill man bumps armed cop in store. Cop falls to the ground. Cop panics and shoots into a crowded Costco. Cop gets let off for "self defense." The end.

No, the story is this.

Large mentally ill man randomly hits another man holding a child violently in the back of his head. That man, hid child, mentally ill man, and his father all fall to the ground. Dad-mode kicks in and he shoots person who attacked him, because holy crap, you and your child have just been violently knocked down hard by a large 6 foot man.

People who are liable to go into "dad-mode" and start shooting in a CROWDED PUBLIC PLACE when they get knocked should not have guns. Period. While it's possibly justified that he doesn't get charged criminally, he absolutely should not have a gun.

Can you honestly say how you'd react if you were suddenly violently attacked without provocation while holding your young child? Be honest now.

I don't own any guns and loathe them, but it's not like he shot random innocents. He shot the person who randomly attacked him. Maybe that's not the best thing one can do, but in the heat of the moment after just being attacked it's kind of understandable.

First -- if anyone is going to concealed carry a gun, then they have a HIGH duty to keep their wits about them and only use it when actually necessary. This "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is extremely bad, and is inappropriate for civilians, and unacceptable for police officers.

Second -- he did not shoot someone who was an imminent threat to him. He shot wildly into the crowd, killed the mentally disabled man, seriously wounded bystanders, caused a stampede that injured others, and could have done much worse damage.

I think you’re confused.

[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:Costco shooting: LAPD officer won’t face criminal charges in killing of intellectually disabled man
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-25/costco-shooting-lapd-officer-wont-will-face-charges-in-killing-of-intellectually-disabled-man

Good.
From the article:
"Investigators with the district attorney’s office said no words were exchanged before French accosted Sanchez.

“There was no previous altercation. ... There was no inadvertent bumping. The officer [carrying his child] was hit in the head,” Hestrin said."

Great. So cops are allowed to shoot wildly into crowded spaces because they get bumped. Just awesome.

NP - did you watch the video?

Sorry, you don't get to go around violently knocking people in the heads randomly and without any provocation, particularly if they're holding a child.

I'm not a fan if guns, or even a lot of cops, but I can't blame the officer for instinctively trying to protect himself and his child after being violently hit.

This is the right call by the DA.

What if you were standing in Costco and got shot by this dude? Would you be happy to consider yourself collateral damage to his right to self defense? The issue is not that he defended himself, but that he HAD A GUN and will not be held accountable for SHOOTING INNOCENT BYSTANDERS with his gun. This all points in one direction: people who cannot be safe with guns, should NOT be allowed to have them in public. Drawing your weapon and shooting at any physical altercation in a crowded space means you do not have the right mental state to own a gun. Period.

Not a single innocent by stander was shot.
A man who attacked an innocent man and baby was shot. His accomplices, who knowingly brought this violent dangerous man in public, were also shot. None of those 3 people were "innocent" and none were "bystanders."

His PARENTS were shot. Unless you think this is guilt by association? They were trying to defuse the situation. The fact that the shooter could not keep his wits about him and assess the situation means that HE SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN.

They KNEW he was prone to violence and still CHOSE to bring him into a crowded public place. That is the exact opposite of trying to defuse a situation, it is INTENTIONALLY bringing it on!

What makes you think they knew that? And by that argument, the shooter is equally morally/legally liable, because he KNEW he had a hair-trigger response and would not be able to properly assess threat. He's unfit to be a police officer, much less conceal carry in public places.

And do you honestly think all parents of kids with mental illness deserve to get shot when their kids have behaviors in public? Wow.

NP, of course they knew that - the parents were responsible for their mentally ill son. They knew he had a change in his medication. And they should not have brought a large, unstable man in public. Attacking people is unacceptable, and being mentally ill is not an excuse. When your "behavior" is violent and hurts other people, you can't be surprised with other people fight back to protect themselves.

You don't have the right to kill bystanders because you overreact to threat. Period.

Which "bystanders" were killed?

He seriously injured the parents, injured other people in the store (by causing a panic stampede) and could have injured/killed more people. He also used disproportionate force against his attacker. You're not permitted to kill anyone you're threatened by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone actually tell who is who and what happens?

It seems like there is an initial altercation between a person in a striped shirt and a person in a reddish / dark shirt. The altercation is very brief and then they both fall to the floor.

A few seconds later while both are still on the floor there is a flurry of activity just behind them and it looks like people knock a few things down or fall down. It is very hard to tell.

Was the cop one of the people on the ground? Did he keep shooting others from the ground?

The story is this: Mentally ill man bumps armed cop in store. Cop falls to the ground. Cop panics and shoots into a crowded Costco. Cop gets let off for "self defense." The end.

No, the story is this.

Large mentally ill man randomly hits another man holding a child violently in the back of his head. That man, hid child, mentally ill man, and his father all fall to the ground. Dad-mode kicks in and he shoots person who attacked him, because holy crap, you and your child have just been violently knocked down hard by a large 6 foot man.

People who are liable to go into "dad-mode" and start shooting in a CROWDED PUBLIC PLACE when they get knocked should not have guns. Period. While it's possibly justified that he doesn't get charged criminally, he absolutely should not have a gun.

Can you honestly say how you'd react if you were suddenly violently attacked without provocation while holding your young child? Be honest now.

I don't own any guns and loathe them, but it's not like he shot random innocents. He shot the person who randomly attacked him. Maybe that's not the best thing one can do, but in the heat of the moment after just being attacked it's kind of understandable.

First -- if anyone is going to concealed carry a gun, then they have a HIGH duty to keep their wits about them and only use it when actually necessary. This "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is extremely bad, and is inappropriate for civilians, and unacceptable for police officers.

Second -- he did not shoot someone who was an imminent threat to him. He shot wildly into the crowd, killed the mentally disabled man, seriously wounded bystanders, caused a stampede that injured others, and could have done much worse damage.

I think you’re confused.

Is there no limit to what you think someone with a gun is entitled to do?

[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:Costco shooting: LAPD officer won’t face criminal charges in killing of intellectually disabled man
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-25/costco-shooting-lapd-officer-wont-will-face-charges-in-killing-of-intellectually-disabled-man

Good.
From the article:
"Investigators with the district attorney’s office said no words were exchanged before French accosted Sanchez.

“There was no previous altercation. ... There was no inadvertent bumping. The officer [carrying his child] was hit in the head,” Hestrin said."

Great. So cops are allowed to shoot wildly into crowded spaces because they get bumped. Just awesome.

NP - did you watch the video?

Sorry, you don't get to go around violently knocking people in the heads randomly and without any provocation, particularly if they're holding a child.

I'm not a fan if guns, or even a lot of cops, but I can't blame the officer for instinctively trying to protect himself and his child after being violently hit.

This is the right call by the DA.

What if you were standing in Costco and got shot by this dude? Would you be happy to consider yourself collateral damage to his right to self defense? The issue is not that he defended himself, but that he HAD A GUN and will not be held accountable for SHOOTING INNOCENT BYSTANDERS with his gun. This all points in one direction: people who cannot be safe with guns, should NOT be allowed to have them in public. Drawing your weapon and shooting at any physical altercation in a crowded space means you do not have the right mental state to own a gun. Period.

Not a single innocent by stander was shot.
A man who attacked an innocent man and baby was shot. His accomplices, who knowingly brought this violent dangerous man in public, were also shot. None of those 3 people were "innocent" and none were "bystanders."

His PARENTS were shot. Unless you think this is guilt by association? They were trying to defuse the situation. The fact that the shooter could not keep his wits about him and assess the situation means that HE SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN.

They KNEW he was prone to violence and still CHOSE to bring him into a crowded public place. That is the exact opposite of trying to defuse a situation, it is INTENTIONALLY bringing it on!

What makes you think they knew that? And by that argument, the shooter is equally morally/legally liable, because he KNEW he had a hair-trigger response and would not be able to properly assess threat. He's unfit to be a police officer, much less conceal carry in public places.

And do you honestly think all parents of kids with mental illness deserve to get shot when their kids have behaviors in public? Wow.

NP, of course they knew that - the parents were responsible for their mentally ill son. They knew he had a change in his medication. And they should not have brought a large, unstable man in public. Attacking people is unacceptable, and being mentally ill is not an excuse. When your "behavior" is violent and hurts other people, you can't be surprised with other people fight back to protect themselves.

You don't have the right to kill bystanders because you overreact to threat. Period.

Which "bystanders" were killed?

He seriously injured the parents, injured other people in the store (by causing a panic stampede) and could have injured/killed more people. He also used disproportionate force against his attacker. You're not permitted to kill anyone you're threatened by.

Again, which bystanders were killed?

The parents were not bystanders. They were accomplices.

[Anonymous]

Accomplices? How? The parents were trying to defuse the situation. By making such an absurd claim, I can tell you have no interest in actually protecting public safety at all. So bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone actually tell who is who and what happens?

It seems like there is an initial altercation between a person in a striped shirt and a person in a reddish / dark shirt. The altercation is very brief and then they both fall to the floor.

A few seconds later while both are still on the floor there is a flurry of activity just behind them and it looks like people knock a few things down or fall down. It is very hard to tell.

Was the cop one of the people on the ground? Did he keep shooting others from the ground?

The story is this: Mentally ill man bumps armed cop in store. Cop falls to the ground. Cop panics and shoots into a crowded Costco. Cop gets let off for "self defense." The end.

No, the story is this.

Large mentally ill man randomly hits another man holding a child violently in the back of his head. That man, hid child, mentally ill man, and his father all fall to the ground. Dad-mode kicks in and he shoots person who attacked him, because holy crap, you and your child have just been violently knocked down hard by a large 6 foot man.

People who are liable to go into "dad-mode" and start shooting in a CROWDED PUBLIC PLACE when they get knocked should not have guns. Period. While it's possibly justified that he doesn't get charged criminally, he absolutely should not have a gun.

Can you honestly say how you'd react if you were suddenly violently attacked without provocation while holding your young child? Be honest now.

I don't own any guns and loathe them, but it's not like he shot random innocents. He shot the person who randomly attacked him. Maybe that's not the best thing one can do, but in the heat of the moment after just being attacked it's kind of understandable.

First -- if anyone is going to concealed carry a gun, then they have a HIGH duty to keep their wits about them and only use it when actually necessary. This "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is extremely bad, and is inappropriate for civilians, and unacceptable for police officers.

Second -- he did not shoot someone who was an imminent threat to him. He shot wildly into the crowd, killed the mentally disabled man, seriously wounded bystanders, caused a stampede that injured others, and could have done much worse damage.

I think you’re confused.

Is there no limit to what you think someone with a gun is entitled to do?

Is there no limit to how dramatic you can be? You’ve just spewed a bunch of crap to make your point—you keep saying “he shot wildly into a crowd,” “he caused a stampede,” “he killed bystanders.” From what I’ve seen, none of this is strictly accurate. And stop calling the guy “mentally disabled” like he was a harmless kid with a learning disability. He was “mentally ill” and off his meds.

[Anonymous]

Sorry PP but you lost me when you called the dead man's parents who were also shot accomplices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry PP but you lost me when you called the dead man's parents who were also shot accomplices.

The parents dove into the middle of this situation in an attempt to protect their son from being shot. They wound up getting shot themselves in the process.

I totally understand why the parents wanted to protect their mentally ill son but I also understand why the police officer fired at them. At the time, the cop only knew that he had been attacked by the assailant, knocked to the ground and two other people were rushing at him.

It was a sad and bizarre situation.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand what relevance it is that the man killed was mentally disabled. It's irrelevant. He was a grown adult man who violently attacked another person carrying their child, totally unprovoked.

You could make the argument that anyone who ever engages in violence is mentally ill. It has zero relevance when it comes to other people just wanting to defend themselves against any violent action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone actually tell who is who and what happens?

It seems like there is an initial altercation between a person in a striped shirt and a person in a reddish / dark shirt. The altercation is very brief and then they both fall to the floor.

A few seconds later while both are still on the floor there is a flurry of activity just behind them and it looks like people knock a few things down or fall down. It is very hard to tell.

Was the cop one of the people on the ground? Did he keep shooting others from the ground?

The story is this: Mentally ill man bumps armed cop in store. Cop falls to the ground. Cop panics and shoots into a crowded Costco. Cop gets let off for "self defense." The end.

No, the story is this.

Large mentally ill man randomly hits another man holding a child violently in the back of his head. That man, hid child, mentally ill man, and his father all fall to the ground. Dad-mode kicks in and he shoots person who attacked him, because holy crap, you and your child have just been violently knocked down hard by a large 6 foot man.

People who are liable to go into "dad-mode" and start shooting in a CROWDED PUBLIC PLACE when they get knocked should not have guns. Period. While it's possibly justified that he doesn't get charged criminally, he absolutely should not have a gun.

Can you honestly say how you'd react if you were suddenly violently attacked without provocation while holding your young child? Be honest now.

I don't own any guns and loathe them, but it's not like he shot random innocents. He shot the person who randomly attacked him. Maybe that's not the best thing one can do, but in the heat of the moment after just being attacked it's kind of understandable.

First -- if anyone is going to concealed carry a gun, then they have a HIGH duty to keep their wits about them and only use it when actually necessary. This "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is extremely bad, and is inappropriate for civilians, and unacceptable for police officers.

Second -- he did not shoot someone who was an imminent threat to him. He shot wildly into the crowd, killed the mentally disabled man, seriously wounded bystanders, caused a stampede that injured others, and could have done much worse damage.

I think you’re confused.

Is there no limit to what you think someone with a gun is entitled to do?

+1

Now you are getting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry PP but you lost me when you called the dead man's parents who were also shot accomplices.

The parents dove into the middle of this situation in an attempt to protect their son from being shot. They wound up getting shot themselves in the process.

I totally understand why the parents wanted to protect their mentally ill son but I also understand why the police officer fired at them. At the time, the cop only knew that he had been attacked by the assailant, knocked to the ground and two other people were rushing at him.

It was a sad and bizarre situation.

It is sad and bizarre that someone is shopping in a public place armed with a gun.

[Anonymous]

You can not violently PUNCH someone in the head, knock them to the ground and expect nothing bad to happen right back at you.

No one knows why this guy attacked a father carrying a small child. But I do understand why the cop defended himself and his child. For all he knew it was a violent street thug with a grudge coming after him.

Lesson: If you do not want to get shot don't violently attack random people - they may, in fact, be armed and able to defend themselves!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry PP but you lost me when you called the dead man's parents who were also shot accomplices.

The parents dove into the middle of this situation in an attempt to protect their son from being shot. They wound up getting shot themselves in the process.

I totally understand why the parents wanted to protect their mentally ill son but I also understand why the police officer fired at them. At the time, the cop only knew that he had been attacked by the assailant, knocked to the ground and two other people were rushing at him.

It was a sad and bizarre situation.

It is sad and bizarre that someone is shopping in a public place armed with a gun.

It's sad and bizarre that someone is bringing their large, emotionally and physically unstable, grown adult child out in public. He had serious issues and a change in medication, and the parents thought it fit to bring a loose cannon out in a public place?