Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an off-duty cop wear a gun?

Because you are never off duty. You are always a target.

Everyone's just starring in their own little John Wick movie these days, aren't they.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an off-duty cop wear a gun?

Because you are never off duty. You are always a target.

Everyone's just starring in their own little John Wick movie these days, aren't they.

+100. I have a cop who is an LEO and I see the stuff he and his wife post to LEO facebook pages and it seems like they all sit around hyping each other up about how they're under siege at all times. The more paranoid and histrionic you are about the grave danger of the job, and the more filled with rage toward the perceived out group, the better LEO/LEO spouse you're being. It's gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the College Park Ikea a few months ago and a pretty large man aggressively rushed towards me. I stopped walking immediately and turned to face him. He stopped maybe 3 feet away from me and just stared at me, with his fists clenched. You know what I did? I assessed the situation, realized he was with a group of people, and a woman was coming over to get him. He clearly had some sort of intellectual disability, so I just stepped away from him and let the woman guide him away.

These cops surely have much more training in assessing situations than I do. If I can diffuse a situation in Ikea, surely these cops can diffuse situations as well before they turn deadly. Police are way too eager to arbitrarily impose the death penalty on people who are just out in public going about their lives, and it must stop.

Well, that's great, but him being with a group of people was actually no guarantee that he wasn't going to attack you. You didn't come through this unscathed due to your good judgment. You got lucky.

The cop in Costco and his child were seemingly unscathed, so the "attacker" couldn't have been too violent.

You're not required to permit an attacker to inflict any harm on you before you defend yourself. Try again.

And you don't go about defending yourself by shooting someone. If someone punched you, you punch him back, not shoot him dead,.Trigger happy cop.

You aren't a lawyer. There is no requirement to respond with equal force. The law allows for you to defend yourself. If you can make the argument that this was an appropriate response it would be legal. You need to consider far more than punching.

Or you can turn and run to safety. Why is that never an option here? Costcos are huge.

The last officer to do that is facing charges for dereliction of duty. Good idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an off-duty cop wear a gun?

Because you are never off duty. You are always a target.

Everyone's just starring in their own little John Wick movie these days, aren't they.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the College Park Ikea a few months ago and a pretty large man aggressively rushed towards me. I stopped walking immediately and turned to face him. He stopped maybe 3 feet away from me and just stared at me, with his fists clenched. You know what I did? I assessed the situation, realized he was with a group of people, and a woman was coming over to get him. He clearly had some sort of intellectual disability, so I just stepped away from him and let the woman guide him away.

These cops surely have much more training in assessing situations than I do. If I can diffuse a situation in Ikea, surely these cops can diffuse situations as well before they turn deadly. Police are way too eager to arbitrarily impose the death penalty on people who are just out in public going about their lives, and it must stop.

Well, that's great, but him being with a group of people was actually no guarantee that he wasn't going to attack you. You didn't come through this unscathed due to your good judgment. You got lucky.

The cop in Costco and his child were seemingly unscathed, so the "attacker" couldn't have been too violent.

You're not required to permit an attacker to inflict any harm on you before you defend yourself. Try again.

And you don't go about defending yourself by shooting someone. If someone punched you, you punch him back, not shoot him dead,.Trigger happy cop.

You aren't a lawyer. There is no requirement to respond with equal force. The law allows for you to defend yourself. If you can make the argument that this was an appropriate response it would be legal. You need to consider far more than punching.

Or you can turn and run to safety. Why is that never an option here? Costcos are huge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An duty cop shooting 3 shoppers in a Costco is not enforcing the law. Step away from the LSD.

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.

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 cops 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.

DP here - I think you're misreading the PP. PP is saying what the officer is going to 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does an off-duty cop wear a gun?

Because you are never off duty. You are always a target.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An duty cop shooting 3 shoppers in a Costco is not enforcing the law. Step away from the LSD.

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.

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 cops 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.

Anonymous wrote:Why does an off-duty cop wear a gun?

Anonymous wrote:

An duty cop shooting 3 shoppers in a Costco is not enforcing the law. Step away from the LSD.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The man who supposedly assaulted the police officer was a big guy. I can see how the police officer would have felt threatened being attacked by that guy especially since he was carrying his young child.

If the elderly parents tried to physically intervene in some way, hitting the officer or otherwise getting physical with him, that may have prompted the shooting. We don't know what happened.

I hope they got this on surveillance video.

And yet here you are creating your own narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the College Park Ikea a few months ago and a pretty large man aggressively rushed towards me. I stopped walking immediately and turned to face him. He stopped maybe 3 feet away from me and just stared at me, with his fists clenched. You know what I did? I assessed the situation, realized he was with a group of people, and a woman was coming over to get him. He clearly had some sort of intellectual disability, so I just stepped away from him and let the woman guide him away.

These cops surely have much more training in assessing situations than I do. If I can diffuse a situation in Ikea, surely these cops can diffuse situations as well before they turn deadly. Police are way too eager to arbitrarily impose the death penalty on people who are just out in public going about their lives, and it must stop.

Well, that's great, but him being with a group of people was actually no guarantee that he wasn't going to attack you. You didn't come through this unscathed due to your good judgment. You got lucky.

The cop in Costco and his child were seemingly unscathed, so the "attacker" couldn't have been too violent.

You're not required to permit an attacker to inflict any harm on you before you defend yourself. Try again.

And you don't go about defending yourself by shooting someone. If someone punched you, you punch him back, not shoot him dead,.Trigger happy cop.

You aren't a lawyer. There is no requirement to respond with equal force. The law allows for you to defend yourself. If you can make the argument that this was an appropriate response it would be legal. You need to consider far more than punching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the College Park Ikea a few months ago and a pretty large man aggressively rushed towards me. I stopped walking immediately and turned to face him. He stopped maybe 3 feet away from me and just stared at me, with his fists clenched. You know what I did? I assessed the situation, realized he was with a group of people, and a woman was coming over to get him. He clearly had some sort of intellectual disability, so I just stepped away from him and let the woman guide him away.

These cops surely have much more training in assessing situations than I do. If I can diffuse a situation in Ikea, surely these cops can diffuse situations as well before they turn deadly. Police are way too eager to arbitrarily impose the death penalty on people who are just out in public going about their lives, and it must stop.

Well, that's great, but him being with a group of people was actually no guarantee that he wasn't going to attack you. You didn't come through this unscathed due to your good judgment. You got lucky.

The cop in Costco and his child were seemingly unscathed, so the "attacker" couldn't have been too violent.

You're not required to permit an attacker to inflict any harm on you before you defend yourself. Try again.

Anonymous wrote:The man who supposedly assaulted the police officer was a big guy. I can see how the police officer would have felt threatened being attacked by that guy especially since he was carrying his young child.

If the elderly parents tried to physically intervene in some way, hitting the officer or otherwise getting physical with him, that may have prompted the shooting. We don't know what happened.

I hope they got this on surveillance video.

Anonymous wrote:Why does an off-duty cop wear a gun?