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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]An  duty cop shooting 3 shoppers in a Costco is not enforcing the law. Step away from the LSD.[/quote]

PP cited a duty to retreat in CA. Response addressed lack of duty to retreat on part of police. Then you chime in with your witty personal insult.

Rest assured that the officer in question is going to assert that he was acting legally to defend himself, his child and others when he was brutally blindsided without provocation. You don't have to like the information provided but attacking the messenger on a subject you know nothing about hardly raises the tenor of the discussion.

The fact is that there should not be special privileges for police. They should be judged by more rigorous standards, not less rigorous. They should be expected to act reasonably and not be able to escalate situations in the guise of merely carrying out the law. Not relevant here, but vehicle pursuits are a perfect example. Police pursue a stolen vehicle at high speed. A property crime, but they endanger everyone they pass.  [/quote]

He's off duty, which means he was not acting as a cop.  He was just a guy in Costco.  You keep chiming in as some kind of false authority and twisting further and further from reality to keep justifying a murder.  First you said that you (general you, not cops alone) can shoot someone in self defense, and defense does not have to be proportional to the threat.  That was 100% wrong.  Then you said [i][b]cops [/b][/i]don't have to react with proportional force; in fact cops are supposed to escalate situations.  That is also wrong.  Now you've pulled my quote, bizarrely edited it to say "an duty cop" instead of "an off-duty cop" and are coloring in your fever dream with more embellishments ("brutally blindsided without provocation"?), while accusing me of personally insulting you (??) and simultaneously backpedalling to say that truly you don't think the cop was right in his behavior, after a full page of trying to be his pro bono comments section lawyer without understanding the law.

You can't draft the narrative and then call yourself the messenger.  You tried to prove that he was within his rights, when he was not.  Now you're trying to write a fictional account of a man "brutally blindsided" who had no choice but to shoot an entire family, which is all pulled out of your @ss, while also pretending you have no choice but to relay the facts.  You look more ridiculous with each post.  Just stop digging.[/quote]

DP here - I think you're misreading the PP.  PP is saying what the officer is [i]going to[/i] assert, not what PP is asserting.  And the next paragraph talks about how cops should be held to a higher standard, and should be held responsible for failing to de-escalate.  Just saying.[/quote]

That's the backpedalling, yes.  Doesn't change the fact he spent the last page telling everyone who said you can't shoot a person in self defense if you haven't even been touched that they were wrong on the law (they weren't) and to "try again." [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics