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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The officer is still alive too and so is his child. They were not shot.

Or beaten to death. Thank God!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just glad that the innocent baby wasn't hurt.

You should be glad that more innocent people weren't killed by a trigger happy cop firing 10 shots into a crowded Costco.

Amazing how only the assailant and the two people rushing in to protect the assailant were shot. No one else was. It's almost like the cop was not firing willy nilly into the crowd. He was actually taking down the people threatening him.

This. There was no harm to any innocent parties or non-combatants here.

Trying to explain to a man with a gun that your son is mentally ill does not make you a "combatant". What is wrong with you? A cop shot 3 people in 3 seconds. There was no harm done to him or his kid yet 3 other people were shot.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just glad that the innocent baby wasn't hurt.

You should be glad that more innocent people weren't killed by a trigger happy cop firing 10 shots into a crowded Costco.

Amazing how only the assailant and the two people rushing in to protect the assailant were shot. No one else was. It's almost like the cop was not firing willy nilly into the crowd. He was actually taking down the people threatening him.

This. There was no harm to any innocent parties or non-combatants here.

Trying to explain to a man with a gun that your son is mentally ill does not make you a "combatant". What is wrong with you? A cop shot 3 people in 3 seconds. There was no harm done to him or his kid yet 3 other people were shot.

+1

WTF?!!

[Anonymous]

They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

[Anonymous]

^The parents put themselves physically into the middle of this - that is why they got shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

The fact that the ONLY people shot were the attacker and his accomplices shows that he didn’t “fire wildly into a crowd.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

The officer was protecting the public and his own son by neutralizing a violent, aggressive person. The parents got shot when they tried to physically intervene. They were not on the sidelines, they were in the middle of it.

No innocent bystander got hurt. The situation was contained.

[Anonymous]

If you think that you can violently assault a random person and that it's the victim's responsibility to "diffuse" your craziness before they defend themselves and their own child.....then you would be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

You're comparing this case to Philando Castile?!

You are batsh!t insane. You have a major problem distinguishing nuances in different cases. There have been some truly egregious cases of police officers getting away with murder. This is not one of them. Reminds me of the Bijan Ghaisar case - you don't attack others or use your vehicle as a weapon and claim victim. French was a dangerous schizophrenic, and while he may have been driven by his severe mental illness, he also violently attacked a man with his child.

Do things like that and people are going to defend themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

The fact that the ONLY people shot were the attacker and his accomplices shows that he didn’t “fire wildly into a crowd.”

The fact that you continue to call the parents "'accomplices" and neglect the potential harm to other bystanders shows that you're not willing to think seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

You're comparing this case to Philando Castile?!

You are batsh!t insane. You have a major problem distinguishing nuances in different cases. There have been some truly egregious cases of police officers getting away with murder. This is not one of them. Reminds me of the Bijan Ghaisar case - you don't attack others or use your vehicle as a weapon and claim victim. French was a dangerous schizophrenic, and while he may have been driven by his severe mental illness, he also violently attacked a man with his child.

Do things like that and people are going to defend themselves.

It's exactly the same. The cop was scared, and reacting with disproportionate force because he had a hair trigger, and a gun. Yes, in this case he was actually being attacked -- but just because you have a right to defend yourself does not mean you have a right to injure bystanders. In defending themselves (or conducting other law enforcement activities) cops don't have the right to endanger others disproportionately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

The fact that the ONLY people shot were the attacker and his accomplices shows that he didn’t “fire wildly into a crowd.”

The fact that you continue to call the parents "'accomplices" and neglect the potential harm to other bystanders shows that you're not willing to think seriously.

Because of the officer's quick action, no bystanders (including the innocent baby) were harmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were trying to stop the officer from shooting their violent son. When you come between an officer trying to neutralize a violent, irrational assailant there is a high likelihood that you are going to get shot, too.

I understand why the parents did what they did but that does not mean that the police officer acted improperly when he shot them.

Yes, he did. The WHOLE point of police officers is to protect the public. Not fire wildly into a crowd and put everyone at risk, just because they are scared. We have SO many stories of bad, poorly-trained police officers who clearly don't have the aptitude for this, and end up shooting innocent civilians just because they perceive risk to themselves. I can't express how backwards this is. Police officers are supposed to protect the public, not arm themselves to the teeth and then go around shooting wildly whenever they feel scared. It's not this guy, but also Philado Castile, Justine Diamond, Botham Jean ... It's seriously sad and shocking how willing the average american is to countenance that they could just be SHOT because a police officer gets scared.

You're comparing this case to Philando Castile?!

You are batsh!t insane. You have a major problem distinguishing nuances in different cases. There have been some truly egregious cases of police officers getting away with murder. This is not one of them. Reminds me of the Bijan Ghaisar case - you don't attack others or use your vehicle as a weapon and claim victim. French was a dangerous schizophrenic, and while he may have been driven by his severe mental illness, he also violently attacked a man with his child.

Do things like that and people are going to defend themselves.

It's exactly the same. The cop was scared, and reacting with disproportionate force because he had a hair trigger, and a gun. Yes, in this case he was actually being attacked -- but just because you have a right to defend yourself does not mean you have a right to injure bystanders. In defending themselves (or conducting other law enforcement activities) cops don't have the right to endanger others disproportionately.

And what you fail to see is that this is ALSO about guns in public places. While people have a right to defend themselves, this does NOT give them the right to shoot into crowds. Period. That's why I think concealed carry should be banned - it does more harm than good. Everyone faces the risk of some random bad thing happening to them in public, but that does not give them the right to then harm other people.

[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.

.

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

Who were the two elderly people killed?

Paola and Russell French. They died begging the cop not to shoot their son and trying to explain that he was mentally disabled.

They dead AND outraged. Quite an accomplishment!

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-26/parents-wounded-in-corona-costco-shooting-furious-at-district-attorney