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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My heart goes out to those parents. If they had left him home alone while they went out shopping he could have attacked a neighbor walking down the street with the same result.

When you violently attack someone that person is allowed to defend themselves.

[Anonymous]

Bringing a large schizophrenic man with a recent change in medication to a public place was a very stupid move by the parents. When you're a danger to others, other people have a right to defend themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bringing a large schizophrenic man with a recent change in medication to a public place was a very stupid move by the parents. When you're a danger to others, other people have a right to defend themselves.

It was a misjudgment on their part. I don't know that they really had any great sure fire ways of handling him.

Bringing an hallucinating, mentally ill person into a crowded, somewhat chaotic place like Costco was clearly not a good call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bringing a large schizophrenic man with a recent change in medication to a public place was a very stupid move by the parents. When you're a danger to others, other people have a right to defend themselves.

Thank goodness that freak wasn't carrying a gun. His parents should have let him shop for himself rather than trying to help him. s/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bringing a large schizophrenic man with a recent change in medication to a public place was a very stupid move by the parents. When you're a danger to others, other people have a right to defend themselves.

Thank goodness that freak wasn't carrying a gun. His parents should have let him shop for himself rather than trying to help him. s/

His parents should have had some place safe to leave him so that they could go shopping w/o worrying what he might do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My heart goes out to those parents. If they had left him home alone while they went out shopping he could have attacked a neighbor walking down the street with the same result.

When you violently attack someone that person is allowed to defend themselves.

Or they could have had one parent do the shopping and the other stay home with him. This is not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other countries, this tragic event would have ended with the mentally disabled man being punched. Here in our US warzone--three people are dead--one mentally disabled and 2 elderly.

[Anonymous]

Nah, there’s PLENTY of places in the world where all three would’ve been just a dead, albeit by different means. I’ve been to some of those places... it’s much safer here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other countries, this tragic event would have ended with the mentally disabled man being punched. Here in our US warzone--three people are dead--one mentally disabled and 2 elderly.

You have obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Do some fact checking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I wonder what would have happened if the man never knocked a dad in the back of his head while he was carrying his toddler.

Actually I do know - everyone would have gone their separate, peaceful ways while stocking up on too many delicious Costco pastries.

Disabled man would have been arrested. Parents would sue for millions. Liberals would rally around them. Cop would lose his job for simply being hit.

[Anonymous]

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.

But that didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

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.

But that didn't happen.

that's exactly what happened.

btw cops are also trying to claim that Amber Guyer was justified in shooting, and they made the same argument for Justine Diamond's killer. At some point isn't the law enforcement community going to get embarassed about claiming all these scaredy cats had "no choice" but to shoot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other countries, this tragic event would have ended with the mentally disabled man being punched. Here in our US warzone--three people are dead--one mentally disabled and 2 elderly.

+1

[Anonymous]

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.

.

+1 All the dads I know don't carry weapons into Costco, nor would they kill 3 people (2 elderly!) after getting shoved.

[Anonymous]

10 shots in less than 4 seconds as two elderly people desperately tried to explain their son's disability. if there's any justice, this cop will lose his badge. he sounds mentally ill.

The encounter in the Corona warehouse store spanned just 3.8 seconds. Investigators relied on a single, poor-quality surveillance video and witness testimony — some of which had to be compelled through subpoenas.

Sanchez, holding his 1½-year-old son, was standing in line for food samples with his wife when French, without warning or provocation, knocked Sanchez and the child to the ground. Seconds later, prosecutors said, Sanchez fired 10 rounds from his handgun, believing his life and his son’s life were in immediate danger from an active shooter.

Four bullets struck French in the back and shoulder, one struck his mother in the stomach and another hit his father in the back, Corona police Chief George Johnstone said.

The gunfire prompted chaos inside the warehouse as terrified shoppers rushed to leave while police officers — who also believed there was an active shooter — ran inside.

Witnesses reported seeing Sanchez reach to the back of his head multiple times to look for blood, Hestrin said, noting that Sanchez’s claim of being knocked unconscious was not supported by any evidence.

Galipo has said Russell and Paola French were trying to explain to the officer that his son had a mental disability when shots rang out. French, of Riverside, had been taken off his medication because of other health complications, which may have affected his behavior that night, Galipo has said.