Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

What’s dangerous is thinking someone who is volatile and violent should be allowed everywhere on earth just because “omg, disability inclusion!”

I agree -- this volatile and violent police officer never should have been allowed in public with a gun.

Who let that armed nut job into Costco?

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

For the last damned time - It was a QUESTION. There was a lawyer or at least someone with legal experience on this thread earlier and I was curious to know if a legal guardian could be held liable in a situation like this. The law is weird, it does not always make sense nor is it always on the decency. You can't just assume that things work the way that you think that they do legally.

It has been asked and answered, you're just trolling against people with disabilities at this point. Again, 1 disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition, and your instinct is to blame the victims, rather than the shooter. Gross.

+1

Disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

What’s dangerous is thinking someone who is volatile and violent should be allowed everywhere on earth just because “omg, disability inclusion!”

I agree -- this volatile and violent police officer never should have been allowed in public with a gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

None of this would have happened had the officer not been pushed hard to the ground out of nowhere by a 'gentle giant'.

Shooting three people is not an appropriate response to getting pushed by one. If you don’t understand this, you have no business owning a gun and are a threat to decent society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

None of this would have happened had the officer not been pushed hard to the ground out of nowhere by a 'gentle giant'.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting follow-up from the L.A. Times. Unlike with most shootings where reader opinions are pretty evenly split, the readers overwhelmingly do not believe the cop’s story.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-costco-shooting-reader-reactions-20190622-story.html

It's Los Angeles. If you lived there you would understand the anti-cop culture there.

You clearly didn’t read the piece, because they’re talking about the feedback the L.A. Times itself receives in the form of letters to the editor, comparing how those letters have split after past shootings as compared to that one. After other shootings, letters to the editor received by the LA Times from its readership has been roughly evenly split in their support of the officer vs the victim. Here, almost all of that same readership questions the credibility of the cop’s story.

And thankfully we have courts of law instead of uninformed opinions sent to the LA times.

Yes, the same courts of law that are supposed to determine whether someone is guilty of assault instead of the cowboy with a gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

What’s dangerous is thinking someone who is volatile and violent should be allowed everywhere on earth just because “omg, disability inclusion!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

For the last damned time - It was a QUESTION. There was a lawyer or at least someone with legal experience on this thread earlier and I was curious to know if a legal guardian could be held liable in a situation like this. The law is weird, it does not always make sense nor is it always on the decency. You can't just assume that things work the way that you think that they do legally.

It has been asked and answered, you're just trolling against people with disabilities at this point. Again, 1 disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition, and your instinct is to blame the victims, rather than the shooter. Gross.

DP-
Please stfu. The poster was asking a question. It has no bias one way or the other. You keep dredging it back up and assigning meaning to it. Honestly it must be exhausting looking for outrage all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

For the last damned time - It was a QUESTION. There was a lawyer or at least someone with legal experience on this thread earlier and I was curious to know if a legal guardian could be held liable in a situation like this. The law is weird, it does not always make sense nor is it always on the decency. You can't just assume that things work the way that you think that they do legally.

It has been asked and answered, you're just trolling against people with disabilities at this point. Again, 1 disabled man dead, his parents in critical condition, and your instinct is to blame the victims, rather than the shooter. Gross.

^on the side of decency

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

For the last damned time - It was a QUESTION. There was a lawyer or at least someone with legal experience on this thread earlier and I was curious to know if a legal guardian could be held liable in a situation like this. The law is weird, it does not always make sense nor is it always on the decency. You can't just assume that things work the way that you think that they do legally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting follow-up from the L.A. Times. Unlike with most shootings where reader opinions are pretty evenly split, the readers overwhelmingly do not believe the cop’s story.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-costco-shooting-reader-reactions-20190622-story.html

It's Los Angeles. If you lived there you would understand the anti-cop culture there.

You clearly didn’t read the piece, because they’re talking about the feedback the L.A. Times itself receives in the form of letters to the editor, comparing how those letters have split after past shootings as compared to that one. After other shootings, letters to the editor received by the LA Times from its readership has been roughly evenly split in their support of the officer vs the victim. Here, almost all of that same readership questions the credibility of the cop’s story.

And thankfully we have courts of law instead of uninformed opinions sent to the LA times.

Anonymous wrote:Could the parents be held liable for bringing their unmedicated son into Costco?

As a parent of a child with learning disabilities and an advocate with people with disabilities, this comment is one of the most offensive things I have read. This is dangerous ignorance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting follow-up from the L.A. Times. Unlike with most shootings where reader opinions are pretty evenly split, the readers overwhelmingly do not believe the cop’s story.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-costco-shooting-reader-reactions-20190622-story.html

It's Los Angeles. If you lived there you would understand the anti-cop culture there.

You clearly didn’t read the piece, because they’re talking about the feedback the L.A. Times itself receives in the form of letters to the editor, comparing how those letters have split after past shootings as compared to that one. After other shootings, letters to the editor received by the LA Times from its readership has been roughly evenly split in their support of the officer vs the victim. Here, almost all of that same readership questions the credibility of the cop’s story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting follow-up from the L.A. Times. Unlike with most shootings where reader opinions are pretty evenly split, the readers overwhelmingly do not believe the cop’s story.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-costco-shooting-reader-reactions-20190622-story.html

It's Los Angeles. If you lived there you would understand the anti-cop culture there.

I'm the OP of this thread, and I actually find the insinuation that everyone who is against the cop must be "anti-cop" to be offensive. I live in a neighboring county, so maybe you weren't talking about me because I'm not technically LA, but I have something of a connection to the police and I'm most certainly not anti-cop. However, I'm human and I can see trends and patterns and it has not escaped me that whenever there is a police shooting, the instinct is to protect the cop even if all evidence and witnesses point to the fact that the cop just murdered someone. Anyone else would be in jail, and the cops are at most put on "administrative leave" (a vacation paid for by us) for as long as possible while they make sure that there's absolutely no possible chance of the cop not being found guilty of something pretty bad before they make an arrest. That's unacceptable.

FWIW, the shooting also occurred in a neighboring county and not in LA, with a small piece of another county separating them. So saying the shooting occurred in LA is a bit like implying that Loudon is the same as DC.

Anyway, it scares the hell out of me to think that this man might come down for the day to enjoy OC and shoot one of my kids because they accidentally knocked him.

Good cops everywhere should be appalled by this officer and the treatment of the case so far. And, if they were smart cops, they would be clearly distinguishing themselves and their departments from him, and that starts with treating him like the dangerous criminal he is. Protecting this murderer does more to harm police public relations than anything else I can think of, and a lot of the police departments here spend a fair bit of time, money and effort into building community relations.

My personal impression thus far, baring evidence surfacing to the contrary, is that an intellectually disabled man got excited about getting a sample and pushed forward in anticipation. I read a few reports that the officer was "feeding his child samples" in the line, which I don't think is great etiquette or respecting the people behind you in the line, so maybe the victim was frustrated and excited, or maybe it was even a genuine mistake if he saw the man getting samples and assumed he would then be moving out of the way so others could get theirs, as most people would do. Who knows. But in any case, it's very clear to me and everyone I know that the man didn't deserve to be shot and neither did his parents.