Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was he carrying his gun into Costco if he’s off duty and just shopping with his child?

Same reason firefighters keep fire extinguishers in their cars and EMTs carry first aid kids and CPR masks. To do that they need to do in an emergency.
I am not condoning this shooting as I dont know the situation, just answering your question.

Right. In case he needs to shoot any scary people with special needs or their elderly caregivers. My neighbor is blind, deaf, and completely nonverbal, and sometimes he bumps into people in crowded places. He never apologizes either. I wonder if, when he bumps into the wrong off duty cop someday, he’ll shoot his guide dog too since he doesn’t have elderly parents with him to shoot.

He’ll use a “caring for my own child is so stressful” defense. It’s worked for child abusers and wife batterers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure he had his reasons to shoot.

Only someone who is incredibly stupid would believe this.

NP. I believe only someone who is incredibly stupid would rush to judgement on case like this when all the facts are not known.

What is in dispute? That an unarmed person was shot?

Dp- unless you were there and witnessed this event, I think it’s better to STFU and wait until the facts come out. Be rational, not emotional.

Well, the only holder of the official “facts” has an incentive to protect the cop and is refusing to share any information, so what does that tell you?

Three unarmed people were shot. Other bystanders were terrified by the shooting including young children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

The only witness accounts so far say there was an argument, not a physical attack. No need for a gun for a verbal dispute.

1st bolding: The option of walking away is always available.
2nd: You are completely disqualified for voicing opinions if this is how you describe the victim in this scenario. Or his parents.

You don't get to shoot people willy nilly, esp if you are a trained cop. This guy opened fire in a busy store. He was at the very least negligent, closer to homicidal.

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

Yes, that’s never happened. Nor do people with their kids with them drive drunk or at insanely high speed. And it’s never happened that a person holding their child has gotten into an armed standoff with police.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

The only witness accounts so far say there was an argument, not a physical attack. No need for a gun for a verbal dispute.

How was there a verbal dispute when the man was non-verbal?

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

You seem to be doing a good job of creating a narrative out of whole cloth that tries to excuse murder. You don't by any chance work for the LAPD, do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure he had his reasons to shoot.

Only someone who is incredibly stupid would believe this.

NP. I believe only someone who is incredibly stupid would rush to judgement on case like this when all the facts are not known.

What is in dispute? That an unarmed person was shot?

Dp- unless you were there and witnessed this event, I think it’s better to STFU and wait until the facts come out. Be rational, not emotional.

Well, the only holder of the official “facts” has an incentive to protect the cop and is refusing to share any information, so what does that tell you?

Anonymous wrote:You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

The only witness accounts so far say there was an argument, not a physical attack. No need for a gun for a verbal dispute.

You people are nuts if you think a man who was holding his child is going to pick a fight with some gigantic stranger.

You're also crazy if you think the guy has any obligation to go "hand to hand" against a monstrous, blank-faced attacker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the son had done something to provoke the cop, it doesn’t justify shooting three unarmed people. That cop is psychotic, as is the department protecting him.

+1.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was he carrying his gun into Costco if he’s off duty and just shopping with his child?

Same reason firefighters keep fire extinguishers in their cars and EMTs carry first aid kids and CPR masks. To do that they need to do in an emergency.
I am not condoning this shooting as I dont know the situation, just answering your question.

Uh, no. His job isn't shooting unarmed people. That's not what you do in emergencies.

Anonymous wrote:Why was he carrying his gun into Costco if he’s off duty and just shopping with his child?

Same reason firefighters keep fire extinguishers in their cars and EMTs carry first aid kids and CPR masks. To do that they need to do in an emergency.
I am not condoning this shooting as I dont know the situation, just answering your question.

Lot of these cops are insecure for whatever reason, thus the inevitable escalation. As if he could not have walked away, etc. Instead they always over-react and results are irreversible.
What if the parents had guns and were also trigger happy numb-nuts, that would have really put his own kid in a danger. Just so stupid, boggles my mind.

How threatening would the situation have to be for the officer to draw his gun? Unbelievable.