Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Also - in this day and age, shooting in a crowded, public place is guaranteed to cause a stampede. This injures people (as it did in this case). Another reason against concealed carry and poorly trained cops.

And BTW - the victims were shot IN THE BACK.

This crappy excuse for a law enforcement officer completely lost his mind.

+1. And which story did he tell the grand jury? The first one, when he said he was knocked unconscious and fighting for his life? Or the real one which had him shooting less than 4 seconds after falling down? He missed with four shots that could have killed anyone else in the store. French was TWENTY FEET AWAY when he was shot. And yes, PP is right, French and his parents were all shot in the back. It is beyond absurd to think that shooting into a crowd, killing this person and nearly killing his parents, was the proper response to this incident.

It’s just sad to read that so many posters defend the right of a trained off duty law enforcement officer (or anyone with a gun for that matter) to execute someone on the spot in the name of self defense. Wild West is still the wild west.

More ...

"Hestrin would have filed charges had the person doing the shooting been a civilian, said Galipo.

Others agreed.

Sanchez didn't need to shoot French and his parents to protect himself and his child, said Pasadena attorney John Burton.

"When one uses more force than is necessary in a self-defense situation, that's well-recognized in the criminal law and is sometimes called imperfect self-defense," said Burton, former president of the National Police Accountability Project. He said an ordinary citizen would have been charged with manslaughter or even first degree murder."

Here's so more information. For those of you claiming that the cop was "attacked," that's far from clear:

"Sanchez opened fired almost immediately — less than 3.8 seconds after being struck by French, according to investigators. It remains unclear whether French intentionally or accidentally hit Sanchez. His intellectual disability left him unable to communicate verbally and made him awkward sometimes in public, according to his parents ...

Juries rarely convict police officers — off-duty or not. And Hestrin said if he could not convince the required 12 of 19 grand jurors to indict, it was unlikely he could convince 12 trial jurors to convict.

But Galipo wondered how hard Hestrin argued for criminal charges during the secret proceedings, where only prosecutors are allowed to present evidence and call witnesses.

French's parents testified and relayed to Galipo what they were asked by Hestrin's prosecutors.

"Half the questions they were asked had nothing to do with the incident," Galipo said. "They wanted to know about his mental disability, whether there were any prior acts of violence."

https://laist.com/2019/09/26/lapd-cop-costco-shooting-unarmed-man-no-criminal-charges.php

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Also - in this day and age, shooting in a crowded, public place is guaranteed to cause a stampede. This injures people (as it did in this case). Another reason against concealed carry and poorly trained cops.

And BTW - the victims were shot IN THE BACK.

This crappy excuse for a law enforcement officer completely lost his mind.

Do you realize you're leaving out a significant detail in your retell of this story, that's different from the rest? I'll give you a minute to think about what MAJOR information you're omitting.

I'm not leaving anything out. Do you mean that the people shot were his parents? I don't think that proves what you think it does. The cop should have had the wherewithal to assess the situation before shooting people (in the back). It will all come out in greater detail in the civil suit, and we'll be back here. He may or may not lose the civil case, but that won't be because he wasn't incompetent and reckless.

Once again for those of you in the back: being scared, even being attacked in public, does NOT give you the right to shoot your gun wherever you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Also - in this day and age, shooting in a crowded, public place is guaranteed to cause a stampede. This injures people (as it did in this case). Another reason against concealed carry and poorly trained cops.

And BTW - the victims were shot IN THE BACK.

This crappy excuse for a law enforcement officer completely lost his mind.

Do you realize you're leaving out a significant detail in your retell of this story, that's different from the rest? I'll give you a minute to think about what MAJOR information you're omitting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Also - in this day and age, shooting in a crowded, public place is guaranteed to cause a stampede. This injures people (as it did in this case). Another reason against concealed carry and poorly trained cops.

And BTW - the victims were shot IN THE BACK.

This crappy excuse for a law enforcement officer completely lost his mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Ok so explain Justine Diamond, Philando Castile, Botham Jean to me. All the same - hair trigger cops who should not have weapons.

Also exlain - do you think anyone has a right to fire their gun into a crowded Costco for self defense?

ALL descriptions of this incident hinge on the shooter being "panicked" and "disoriented." Do you honestly think that's the kind of condition in which you should be shooting in a crowded Costco?

None of what I wrote is a lie. This is not a story of a law enforcement officer who calmly and expertly assessed this situation and did what he needed to do to protect the public. This is a story of a panicked, poorly trained man who NEVER should have had a gun. Like many cops, sadly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

And you keep making sh!t up, as none of these things happened. No innocent bystander was killed or endangered.

If his parents are guilty of anything, why weren't they charged? They did nothing wrong. They were bystanders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

NO—it is YOU who continues to miss the point. Gun control is never going to happen if the dialogue is clouded by people like you who just screech hysterical lies. No one will ever listen to sane gun control arguments because your bullshit is getting in the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

Yep. If a 115 pound woman goes for a jog one day and she is attacked by a violent murderer/rapist I can only hope that she is armed and can defend herself. I wish Molly Tibbetts had been armed and prepared to defend herself.

Lol @ your fantasy of jogging with a gun. What a bunch of psychopaths.

Huh? Cops train and run with guns ALL the time. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to do the same?

Female runner here who loathes guns but also doesn't blame the dad/cop for doing what he did.

PP, you obviously don't run. Running around the block with a gun? I guess. Running 10 miles with a gun? No way. I don't understand how people go for even short jogs with their giant vests of liquids and gu. You want to be as light as possible for running any sort of distance.

Also female runner here.

How do you run long distance without water/fuel? I don't love running with my vest but there's no way I could do 10+ miles on a trail without it.

Admittedly I don’t really do more than around 10 miles. It’s a combination of adapting and knowing where water fountains are if necessary in warmer weather. The fountains are usually shut off in the winter, but really you just train yourself and adapt. I say this as someone’s who’s probably in the top 3 sweatiest percentile and not at all a natural runner (started about 6 years go).

Carrying anything else beyond necessary (key, phone, earbuds) is just a pain in the ass!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

And you keep making sh!t up, as none of these things happened. No innocent bystander was killed or endangered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.

g*d d*mn you people just continue to miss the point. NOBODY says he didn't have the right to self defense. What we are saying is that the right to self defense does NOT give you the right to shoot into a crowded Costco at the height of the Saturday shopping crowd, and kill bystanders, and endanger others. This is why there should be no concealed carry. The right to self defense =/= the right to endanger other people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the officer in uniform? If not, to any reasonable person he’s just another psycho in cargo shorts who pulled out a gun in public and created a panic. He should absolutely be charged for shooting the parents.

I'd support a random dad in cargo shorts defending himself and his baby from an aggressive, menacing assailant, too.

You can not go around attacking innocent people and expect nothing bad to happen to you in return. We can't live in a world where the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

This post just explained SO MUCH about why you like guns.

Yep. If a 115 pound woman goes for a jog one day and she is attacked by a violent murderer/rapist I can only hope that she is armed and can defend herself. I wish Molly Tibbetts had been armed and prepared to defend herself.

Lol @ your fantasy of jogging with a gun. What a bunch of psychopaths.

Huh? Cops train and run with guns ALL the time. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to do the same?

Female runner here who loathes guns but also doesn't blame the dad/cop for doing what he did.

PP, you obviously don't run. Running around the block with a gun? I guess. Running 10 miles with a gun? No way. I don't understand how people go for even short jogs with their giant vests of liquids and gu. You want to be as light as possible for running any sort of distance.

Also female runner here.

How do you run long distance without water/fuel? I don't love running with my vest but there's no way I could do 10+ miles on a trail without it.

Anonymous wrote:NO CHARGES.

seriously. They are not going to prosecute.

Good. I'm not a gun person at all, but I just can't blame anyone for defending themselves when suddenly hit upside the head by a big schizophrenic man while holding their toddler.