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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which crowd did the officer fire into? I am guessing you believe no one made it out of the Costco alive like some of the other deluded posters on this thread.

[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.

No, it's completely different. The officer wasn't scared - he was in shock after being suddenly hit in the head from behind. There's a big difference. I'm baffled you can't discern the difference between this case and others like Castille.

And he didn't injure bystanders - he shot at his attacker and people who were protecting his attacker. There's a good chance he didn't know exactly who hit him; if you watch the video, you can see the dad pull his son away while they both fall. It was a chaotic situation, and I can't blame someone for defending themselves against those involved in attacking him.

Nobody else not involved was injured or harmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The officer did NOT shoot into the crowd. The officer shot and killed the man who was attacking him and the two people who inserted themselves into the middle of the situation.

Lesson: Don't violently punch random strangers in the head because you could very well get shot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which crowd did the officer fire into? I am guessing you believe no one made it out of the Costco alive like some of the other deluded posters on this thread.

Have you ever been to a Costco in the middle of the day? He shot into a crowded place and hit 2 people who had done nothing to him in addition to the man who hit him, because he was panicked and had a gun. Although he did not shoot any other bystanders, the gunshots created a panic and people were injured trying to get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it's completely different. The officer wasn't scared - he was in shock after being suddenly hit in the head from behind. There's a big difference. I'm baffled you can't discern the difference between this case and others like Castille.

And he didn't injure bystanders - he shot at his attacker and people who were protecting his attacker. There's a good chance he didn't know exactly who hit him; if you watch the video, you can see the dad pull his son away while they both fall. It was a chaotic situation, and I can't blame someone for defending themselves against those involved in attacking him.

Nobody else not involved was injured or harmed.

WTF??? So you think if you have a gun, something hits you, you can turn around and just shoot whoever you see??? And this is how you think our brave, trained law enforcement officers should react?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it's completely different. The officer wasn't scared - he was in shock after being suddenly hit in the head from behind. There's a big difference. I'm baffled you can't discern the difference between this case and others like Castille.

And he didn't injure bystanders - he shot at his attacker and people who were protecting his attacker. There's a good chance he didn't know exactly who hit him; if you watch the video, you can see the dad pull his son away while they both fall. It was a chaotic situation, and I can't blame someone for defending themselves against those involved in attacking him.

Nobody else not involved was injured or harmed.

WTF??? So you think if you have a gun, something hits you, you can turn around and just shoot whoever you see??? And this is how you think our brave, trained law enforcement officers should react?

Except that did not happen. Jesus, you are dense.

[Anonymous]

Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which crowd did the officer fire into? I am guessing you believe no one made it out of the Costco alive like some of the other deluded posters on this thread.

Have you ever been to a Costco in the middle of the day? He shot into a crowded place and hit 2 people who had done nothing to him in addition to the man who hit him, because he was panicked and had a gun. Although he did not shoot any other bystanders, the gunshots created a panic and people were injured trying to get out.

Yet, the officer did not shoot anyone other than the violent man and the people stepping in to protect the violent man. Why is that?

You can not blame the officer for this violent episode. The mentally ill man is the one who created a dangerous situation for innocent people. The cop simply neutralized the dangerous person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

Yep. If a 115 pound woman goes for a jog one day and she is attacked by a violent murderer/rapist I can only hope that she is armed and can defend herself. I wish Molly Tibbetts had been armed and prepared to defend herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

Yep. If a 115 pound woman goes for a jog one day and she is attacked by a violent murderer/rapist I can only hope that she is armed and can defend herself. I wish Molly Tibbetts had been armed and prepared to defend herself.

Lol @ your fantasy of jogging with a gun. What a bunch of psychopaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

Yep. If a 115 pound woman goes for a jog one day and she is attacked by a violent murderer/rapist I can only hope that she is armed and can defend herself. I wish Molly Tibbetts had been armed and prepared to defend herself.

Lol @ your fantasy of jogging with a gun. What a bunch of psychopaths.

Huh? Cops train and run with guns ALL the time. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to do the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

Yep. If a 115 pound woman goes for a jog one day and she is attacked by a violent murderer/rapist I can only hope that she is armed and can defend herself. I wish Molly Tibbetts had been armed and prepared to defend herself.

Lol @ your fantasy of jogging with a gun. What a bunch of psychopaths.

Huh? Cops train and run with guns ALL the time. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to do the same?

Female runner here who loathes guns but also doesn't blame the dad/cop for doing what he did.

PP, you obviously don't run. Running around the block with a gun? I guess. Running 10 miles with a gun? No way. I don't understand how people go for even short jogs with their giant vests of liquids and gu. You want to be as light as possible for running any sort of distance.

[Anonymous]

NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.