Man killed in Tyson’s Corner shooting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?

At this point, good. Tysons has been plagued with shootings, thefts, fights, etc. for the past 2 years. I hope this incident will deter the criminals who are now coming in droves to commit acts of violence at the mall. I go there with my family. I will not mourn the loss of another criminal who tried to rob the mall and put innocent lives in danger. He made his choice. And it turned out to be a very bad one.

No. This is America and we have laws. We don’t murder people for theft.

Actually, it's legal to use deadly force to protect property in Texas. Derives from horse thieving days, when one could be hanged for stealing horses. Not that it stopped all horse thieves, just sayin' that it's not unacceptable in all of America to use deadly force to stop a thief.

Texas wasn't part of the US then. Arguably, it's not part of the US now. You should need a passport to enter. Texas is such a backwater. Doesn't even have a functional electrical grid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

In another countries they are arrested and prosecuted. In Fairfax county ran by democrat commonwealth attorney, they released back to the streets. In another states they are glorified and made a heroes, like Floyd.

DemocratIC.

Capitalize the D and add the "ic".

Failure to do that just proclaims your idiocy. As does the remainder of your sentence construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?

At this point, good. Tysons has been plagued with shootings, thefts, fights, etc. for the past 2 years. I hope this incident will deter the criminals who are now coming in droves to commit acts of violence at the mall. I go there with my family. I will not mourn the loss of another criminal who tried to rob the mall and put innocent lives in danger. He made his choice. And it turned out to be a very bad one.

It won't deter anything. It will create more division and hate. Didn't you follow the news the last few years?

Nah, the "division and hate" started when criminals started committing crimes in a place where tweens and teens and families spend their very little leisure time.

[Anonymous]

Gee, I hope whatever the criminal stole was worth risking and losing his life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

I agree that police are over militarized but the comparison to Europe misses the point that most Europeans are unarmed. WE have a public that is armed to the teeth. So what do you do when you have an armed assailant who is an immediate threat to the general public?
There is a difference between the police violence of unarmed individuals who are, in many cases, pulled over for minor, if not made up, traffic stops and executed. Or individuals who are clearly in mental health crises. Save your energy defending those guys. This guy shot in Tysons was clearly in the middle of a crime. He's not the one who deserved saving.

Most Americans are unarmed. Most Europeans are unarmed, but not all. Not all American criminals are armed.

So you're saying that shoplifters deserve to be shot? That's....astonishing.

It’s not a question of deserve vs. didn’t deserve. What it boils down to is basically if you shoplift and run from police, and have an extensive criminal history, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that you may be shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

I agree that police are over militarized but the comparison to Europe misses the point that most Europeans are unarmed. WE have a public that is armed to the teeth. So what do you do when you have an armed assailant who is an immediate threat to the general public?
There is a difference between the police violence of unarmed individuals who are, in many cases, pulled over for minor, if not made up, traffic stops and executed. Or individuals who are clearly in mental health crises. Save your energy defending those guys. This guy shot in Tysons was clearly in the middle of a crime. He's not the one who deserved saving.

Most Americans are unarmed. Most Europeans are unarmed, but not all. Not all American criminals are armed.

So you're saying that shoplifters deserve to be shot? That's....astonishing.

It’s not a question of deserve vs. didn’t deserve. What it boils down to is basically if you shoplift and run from police, and have an extensive criminal history, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that you may be shot.

+1

I can't believe anyone is arguing this. Pathetic - they want Tysons to be as crummy as where they live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

I agree that police are over militarized but the comparison to Europe misses the point that most Europeans are unarmed. WE have a public that is armed to the teeth. So what do you do when you have an armed assailant who is an immediate threat to the general public?
There is a difference between the police violence of unarmed individuals who are, in many cases, pulled over for minor, if not made up, traffic stops and executed. Or individuals who are clearly in mental health crises. Save your energy defending those guys. This guy shot in Tysons was clearly in the middle of a crime. He's not the one who deserved saving.

Most Americans are unarmed. Most Europeans are unarmed, but not all. Not all American criminals are armed.

So you're saying that shoplifters deserve to be shot? That's....astonishing.

And a distortion of most people’s view. There is a big difference between claiming someone “deserves to be shot”—I don’t think shoplifters deserve to be shot—and saying (as I would) that committing crimes, including property crimes, is inherently risky and, absent meaningful wrongdoing by the police, in most cases the criminal has only themselves to blame for creating a dangerous situation and usually doesn’t deserve a lot of sympathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live near Tysons. The cop made the right decision.

If you live in Tysons, you should know that the cop will be prosecuted for murder.

As the law may require, if we’re being honest.

They need to defund more police in Northern Virginia. People has been livingg in a big comfortable bubble there. We are already seeing more homeless on the intersections, tents in the woods along NoVa trails.

So defund the police so the criminals can just steal whatever they want? They can walk into my home and steal my car? No big deal to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?

At this point, good. Tysons has been plagued with shootings, thefts, fights, etc. for the past 2 years. I hope this incident will deter the criminals who are now coming in droves to commit acts of violence at the mall. I go there with my family. I will not mourn the loss of another criminal who tried to rob the mall and put innocent lives in danger. He made his choice. And it turned out to be a very bad one.

I get that you're concerned about safety. But do you understand that shoplifting shouldn't result in an execution?

Being shot while resisting arrest is not “an execution.” Committing crimes and fleeing from the police is an inherently risky thing to do, as in the chaos of such events it’s quite foreseeable that the police can believe themselves threatened and need to take action. Obviously what the bodycam footage shows is important here.

Yes, that pretty much is.

~reasoning needed~ If you can’t see the difference between killing someone in cold blood and killing someone in the context of a struggle caused by the decedent’s own wrongful conduct, there is no helping you. I wouldn’t even bother to respond, except this view is quite dangerous and is causing significant problems. It’s a fully generalized argument against policing: because it’s too dangerous for the criminals, the cops shouldn’t pursue suspects or try to subdue those resisting arrest. The implication of this is that people just need to accept a vastly higher property crime rate than they are comfortable with. That won’t work and it won’t end well.

^^*cool shifting of ‘facts’ to suit your argument*
~lacks basis in fact and proper legal reasoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

I agree that police are over militarized but the comparison to Europe misses the point that most Europeans are unarmed. WE have a public that is armed to the teeth. So what do you do when you have an armed assailant who is an immediate threat to the general public?
There is a difference between the police violence of unarmed individuals who are, in many cases, pulled over for minor, if not made up, traffic stops and executed. Or individuals who are clearly in mental health crises. Save your energy defending those guys. This guy shot in Tysons was clearly in the middle of a crime. He's not the one who deserved saving.

Most Americans are unarmed. Most Europeans are unarmed, but not all. Not all American criminals are armed.

So you're saying that shoplifters deserve to be shot? That's....astonishing.

It’s not a question of deserve vs. didn’t deserve. What it boils down to is basically if you shoplift and run from police, and have an extensive criminal history, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that you may be shot.

We don’t know the facts yet, but we know he was shoplifting and was well known to police. He resisted arrest and took off. If he had a gun (maybe he was known to have a gun, maybe he just used a gun to rob the store) and turned toward police in a threatening fashion while in the woods, it’s reasonable to expect to he shot. There is video. We will see what happened.

[Anonymous]

We need to keep the DCUM (DC Urban Marauders) out of VA

[Anonymous]

This is what I would expect in Tysons Corner...2 failing shopping centers and rows of empty offices. And now with easy metro access from the bad parts of DC. Quite a mixture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

I agree that police are over militarized but the comparison to Europe misses the point that most Europeans are unarmed. WE have a public that is armed to the teeth. So what do you do when you have an armed assailant who is an immediate threat to the general public?
There is a difference between the police violence of unarmed individuals who are, in many cases, pulled over for minor, if not made up, traffic stops and executed. Or individuals who are clearly in mental health crises. Save your energy defending those guys. This guy shot in Tysons was clearly in the middle of a crime. He's not the one who deserved saving.

Most Americans are unarmed. Most Europeans are unarmed, but not all. Not all American criminals are armed.

So you're saying that shoplifters deserve to be shot? That's....astonishing.

It’s not a question of deserve vs. didn’t deserve. What it boils down to is basically if you shoplift and run from police, and have an extensive criminal history, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that you may be shot.

We don’t know the facts yet, but we know he was shoplifting and was well known to police. He resisted arrest and took off. If he had a gun (maybe he was known to have a gun, maybe he just used a gun to rob the store) and turned toward police in a threatening fashion while in the woods, it’s reasonable to expect to he shot. There is video. We will see what happened.

It does not matter.
Regardless of facts, police will say they felt threatened when they opened fire and shot.
Even if it ever got to an indictment, no jury would ever convict in this scenario. Has never happened and never will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Police can’t summarily execute someone for being a repeat shoplifter or a general nuisance, regardless of where they live. We need to understand if the man was also carrying, fighting with the officers, or actively resisting arrest.

Criminals actively resist arres in many other countries and are not shot and killed for it--rather, they are just arrested. The US needs a different way to train police. They're trained in quasi military bootcamp style whereas in many European countries they go through YEARS of training in conflict deescalation, etc.

I agree that police are over militarized but the comparison to Europe misses the point that most Europeans are unarmed. WE have a public that is armed to the teeth. So what do you do when you have an armed assailant who is an immediate threat to the general public?
There is a difference between the police violence of unarmed individuals who are, in many cases, pulled over for minor, if not made up, traffic stops and executed. Or individuals who are clearly in mental health crises. Save your energy defending those guys. This guy shot in Tysons was clearly in the middle of a crime. He's not the one who deserved saving.

Most Americans are unarmed. Most Europeans are unarmed, but not all. Not all American criminals are armed.

So you're saying that shoplifters deserve to be shot? That's....astonishing.

And a distortion of most people’s view. There is a big difference between claiming someone “deserves to be shot”—I don’t think shoplifters deserve to be shot—and saying (as I would) that committing crimes, including property crimes, is inherently risky and, absent meaningful wrongdoing by the police, in most cases the criminal has only themselves to blame for creating a dangerous situation and usually doesn’t deserve a lot of sympathy.

This is exactly what we're saying. No sympathy here.

[Anonymous]

There was no weapon https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/police/police-no-weapon-found-officers-shot-kill-man-outside-tysons-corner-mall/65-28c10742-cdfc-4e4d-9e57-4a02483be992