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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Ok, whatever, wave your hand around and talk in generalizations and deflect arguments you don’t like. Keep being a hysterical liberal stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Ok, whatever, wave your hand around and talk in generalizations and deflect arguments you don’t like. Keep being a hysterical liberal stereotype.

deflect what ... exactly? I'm talking in specifics, and not ignoring anything. you're the one making ridiculous factual leaps (calling the parents "accomplices") and refusing to engage with the facts, or place any apparent limits on the right to self defense. on the other hand, I'm looking at the actual facts and ALL the interests here -- while the ONLY viewpoint you are willing to consider is the scared cop. I readily admit that getting hit sharply from behind while holding a child would make one scared and reactive. My point is that being scared and reactive does NOT justify shooting into a crowd. Especially if you are police officer, and should be able to assess the situation and not cause danger for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Ok, whatever, wave your hand around and talk in generalizations and deflect arguments you don’t like. Keep being a hysterical liberal stereotype.

deflect what ... exactly? I'm talking in specifics, and not ignoring anything. you're the one making ridiculous factual leaps (calling the parents "accomplices") and refusing to engage with the facts, or place any apparent limits on the right to self defense. on the other hand, I'm looking at the actual facts and ALL the interests here -- while the ONLY viewpoint you are willing to consider is the scared cop. I readily admit that getting hit sharply from behind while holding a child would make one scared and reactive. My point is that being scared and reactive does NOT justify shooting into a crowd. Especially if you are police officer, and should be able to assess the situation and not cause danger for others.

You sound just as dumb as Trump...yes your argument is PERFECT, you have perfectly considered everything in your perfect reasoning. Everyone who doesn’t agree is SAD.

No one here has said they refuse to place limits on self defense.
This case is not the same as the other cases you mention.
Innocent bystanders in the crowd were not shot and killed.
I didn’t call the parents accomplices, but, they also weren’t uninvolved.

[Anonymous]

A federal jury in Riverside Wednesday awarded $17 million in damages to the family of a mentally disabled man who was fatally shot by an off-duty LAPD officer inside a Costco in Corona more than two years ago.


https://apple.news/A5nFthtndTtSh85y17pxb9Q

[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.

Exactly. Anyone trained well in gun use would be more restrained. He didn’t need to shoot at all, certainly didn’t need to shoot to kill.