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?
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
Body cam footage will tell the story. They have not said whether or not the person was armed or pulled a gun first.
Well it was notably absent in all the early reports. Besides, they need time to plant that evidence.
It’s protocol to do an investigation (e.g. review bodycam tape, interview officers who discharged the weapon) before releasing that info to the public. In this case both a uniformed and plain clothed officer were involved and per the briefing both discharged the weapon. That would indicate that both felt there was an immediate reason to discharge their weapon.
Two wrongs don’t make it right. And the police always lead with how they were placed in danger before they fired. Not so here.
Sorry, incorrect. They cannot fully search the scene for evidence due to lack of daylight so they are resuming the search of the area tomorrow. They would not lead with info they do not have.
Don’t be sorry.
Police always say they (or another person) were in danger before they fire. Always. Classic CYA.
FFX Police Chief did not say that tonight. He said they needed to complete the investigation before commenting on that. Which is the right thing to do.
Anonymous wrote:Wow, the old saying "VA don't play" reaches new heights.
Hope the facts can be disclosed soon.
Anonymous wrote: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?
Body cam footage will tell the story. They have not said whether or not the person was armed or pulled a gun first.
Well it was notably absent in all the early reports. Besides, they need time to plant that evidence.
It’s protocol to do an investigation (e.g. review bodycam tape, interview officers who discharged the weapon) before releasing that info to the public. In this case both a uniformed and plain clothed officer were involved and per the briefing both discharged the weapon. That would indicate that both felt there was an immediate reason to discharge their weapon.
Two wrongs don’t make it right. And the police always lead with how they were placed in danger before they fired. Not so here.
Sorry, incorrect. They cannot fully search the scene for evidence due to lack of daylight so they are resuming the search of the area tomorrow. They would not lead with info they do not have.
Don’t be sorry.
Police always say they (or another person) were in danger before they fire. Always. Classic CYA.
Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?
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?
Body cam footage will tell the story. They have not said whether or not the person was armed or pulled a gun first.
Well it was notably absent in all the early reports. Besides, they need time to plant that evidence.
It’s protocol to do an investigation (e.g. review bodycam tape, interview officers who discharged the weapon) before releasing that info to the public. In this case both a uniformed and plain clothed officer were involved and per the briefing both discharged the weapon. That would indicate that both felt there was an immediate reason to discharge their weapon.
Two wrongs don’t make it right. And the police always lead with how they were placed in danger before they fired. Not so here.
Sorry, incorrect. They cannot fully search the scene for evidence due to lack of daylight so they are resuming the search of the area tomorrow. They would not lead with info they do not have.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?
Body cam footage will tell the story. They have not said whether or not the person was armed or pulled a gun first.
Well it was notably absent in all the early reports. Besides, they need time to plant that evidence.
It’s protocol to do an investigation (e.g. review bodycam tape, interview officers who discharged the weapon) before releasing that info to the public. In this case both a uniformed and plain clothed officer were involved and per the briefing both discharged the weapon. That would indicate that both felt there was an immediate reason to discharge their weapon.
Two wrongs don’t make it right. And the police always lead with how they were placed in danger before they fired. Not so here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?
Body cam footage will tell the story. They have not said whether or not the person was armed or pulled a gun first.
Well it was notably absent in all the early reports. Besides, they need time to plant that evidence.
It’s protocol to do an investigation (e.g. review bodycam tape, interview officers who discharged the weapon) before releasing that info to the public. In this case both a uniformed and plain clothed officer were involved and per the briefing both discharged the weapon. That would indicate that both felt there was an immediate reason to discharge their weapon.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok so just theft? They absolutely had to hunt him down and kill him?
Body cam footage will tell the story. They have not said whether or not the person was armed or pulled a gun first.
Well it was notably absent in all the early reports. Besides, they need time to plant that evidence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It was in the woods across the street from Bloomingdales/the old LL Bean. Were they chasing him?
What woods??
Where are their woods in Tysons???
I literally posted a pic, smartbutt.