Woman Fatally Shot by Police at Cosco Handing Out Pizza Samples.

Nowadays, if you work at Costco, it's better to act like this:



We truly live in an Idiocracy, and it didn't take centuries to get there.

The real conspiracy here is that the cop who shot this lady will be promoted within a year. It happens all the time. I wish I had the time, energy and, resources to research this phenomenon. I still prefer cops to thugs.

reply to post by MongusePro


Why were the homicidal maniacs called in the first place?

This was a Costco they sell everything. Someone should have gone to the fishing isle and gotten a net to throw over her. there are 100 way to keep a person from hurting themselves or others and I can't think of anyway to bring them back to life.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Law enforcement officers, out in public, practicing a 'shoot to kill' policy is absolutely disgraceful, doesn't matter what country you're in. If you think it's acceptable, then you must believe that it's ok to live in a society where things like being mentally or emotionally unstable, drunk, or generally disoriented can get you shot dead by a police officer who couldn't be bothered to get his hands dirty?

edit on 2-6-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

In a case where the officer is going to be pulling the trigger of his firearm, I happily support a policy of shoot to kill. This is not to offer any commentary on how any individual situation gets to that point, but once it escalates to that level, I want them to be shooting to end it immediately. The LAST thing I want is some hot shot officer trying to shoot them in the leg or arm and increasing the possibility of collateral damage.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by flyswatter

 

So you'd rather a copy empty a full magazine trying to shoot her in the leg? Oh, never mind the potential collateral damage from the rounds that miss.

One did manage to fire 5 times and put collateral damage on the other deputy. About the same result.

edit on 6/2/2013 by roadgravel because: typo

And if that is the case, the officer who fired the bullet that injured the other was (most likely) not paying enough attention to what was around AND behind the intended target.

reply to post by flyswatter


If you live in the US then you're welcome to live in a society which permits it's police force to kill it's citizens. I do not, and would not find this treatment acceptable. There are so many cases in the US where law enforcement shoot first ask questions later, and not only that but deliberately shoot with the intention to kill their targets, as I've stated in an earlier post, if you find this acceptable then it will continue. The problem is in the assessments of danger made by the individual police officers during a particular situation, obviously if a person is trying to kill them(the police) or another civilian then lethal force should be permitted. Time and time again though we see trigger happy cops taking the life of somebody that seems to have some kind of psychological disorder, "she has a knife.....kill her". Not in any way justifiable in my opinion. How people defend this brutality is beyond me.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by flyswatter

 

If you live in the US then you're welcome to live in a society which permits it's police force to kill people. I do not, and would not find this treatment acceptable. There are so many cases in the US where law enforcement shoot first ask questions later, and not only that but deliberately shoot with the intention to kill their targets, as I've stated in an earlier post, if you find this acceptable then it will continue. The problem is in the assessments of danger made by the individual police officers during a particular situation, obviously if a person is trying to kill them(the police) or another civilian then lethal force should be permitted. Time and time again though we see trigger happy cops taking the life of somebody that seems to have some kind of psychological disorder, "she has a knife.....kill her". Not in any way justifiable in my opinion. How people defend this brutality is beyond me.

edit on 2-6-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

So if you're over here in the US and an individual attacks you with a knife, we'll make sure to tell the cops to make sure to only injure the person, not kill them. If they hit you in the process, we'll refer them to your statements.

Obviously the above is poking fun at your statement, because nobody wants you, the cop, or the knife-wielding individual in that kind of situation. But given that situation with myself ... if a person is attacking me with a knife and a cop has their weapon pulled and pointed ... I want the cop to shoot for the largest part of the attacker's body, and I want the cop to make sure that person isnt going to be able to harm me.

Any gun-mongering society will eventually kill itself out to extinction where the only important lesson learnt will be the one learnt too late.

Anybody supporting gun ownership is simple another log in an ever-growing fire, one which shall, as above, burn itself out over time, logs included.

Your gun may make 'you' feel safe, and a few other million people say the same thing. Indiviually, it cannot be denied that a gun can protect. The flaw is in being part of a nation of gun owners and ignoring the obvious fact that less guns means less gun-related crime and death.

If only the same energy given to gun ownership efforts could be given to non-ownership; you would then all inhabit a safer place in which, thanks to your own non-ownership, has incredibly low gun crime due to the massively less circulation of guns.

Your argument of "I have a gun to protect myself from the other nutters" would then be null and void since others would also not have guns, nor the next, the next, ad nauseum...

But, enjoy logging your fire; it won't last long.

reply to post by flyswatter


If somebody is trying to kill me in the situation you describe, then yes I agree. However if a person is not responding to a police officers demands to lay down a knife, or if they become enraged due to a police officer trying to electrocute them for not complying with their demands then that still doesn't mean they deserve death. Police officers are not supposed to be the "judge, jury and executioners" in situations where somebody is deemed as being a potential danger, but you see that happening all the time in the US.

reply to post by Lostmymarbles


Good luck. The majority of posters in this thread are either pro-shooting or anti-cop. There doesn't seem to be much interest in your kind of questions here, where a single line in a news story is all the justification anyone needs to reach a verdict in the shooting death of a fellow human being.

reply to post by DB340


Another way to look at it is that if you take away all firearms from the lawful then only the unlawful will possess them.

Access to them has never stopped criminals before - I believe some of our country's earliest gangsters got their weapons by burglarizing government depots and the local police who did not possess such firepower were typically overwhelmed.

Besides, I don't expect to have a uniformed officer following me around 24/7 to protect me in these cases.

But in such conversations, the gun-supporting party always give excessive examples. Yours, for example, as well as one up above when somebody talks about a guy brandishing a knife and how he wants the cops to shoot the attacker. First, at least you have more chance to run away from a knife and more chance to live if stabbed at all. Second, why shoot to kill? Third, why not have one cop per group who is armed and trained to make the important kill/disable decision, rather than a possy of gun-laden, trigger-happy cops?

Your example of saying criminals will still get hold of guns; it cannot be denied, but it can be countered that such situations would be more tight now than they were and criminals would have a harder time getting hold of them. Also, there would not be deaths at home when kids get hold of them or even are encouraged to use them by the parents

Day by day, people live normally and with simply 75% less guns in circulation in homes/cars/various buildings, the country would be incomparably safer.

I do, however, agree that a headteacher or head of department in a school recieve specialised training and only they know the code to the gun cabinet should a kid go crazy. Again, if guns were less accessible, such events would have occurred less; not never, but less.

But my metaphorical point still stands: logs being added, fire soon to burn out.

reply to post by DB340


Would the incidents be less?

Probably.

Who wants to be first in line to take that risk?

Not me.

We can't un-invent guns.

So.. say you're a police officer. You get a call from dispatch saying there is a woman at costco holding scissors and a knife and making threats to employees. You've been on the force for 15 years and have seen your friends get stabbed by the most unlikely person.

What do you do when she starts walking towards you with the knife? You don't let her get closer, that's for sure. A knife at close range can kill a man with a gun quite easily and you'd be a fool to not shoot first. Try defending yourself when your bleeding out from the 6inch gash on your throat. How about people get some common sense, you'd be screaming for his head if this went the other way and she successfully went on a stabbing spree because she ran out of pizza samples.

What's wrong with these burly cops they only rely on their guns subduing a little woman by shooting her to death?
----
I searched for photos how dangerous would this woman really be and what a bummer, does this woman really needs to be stopped with bullets? Even an average person can tackle her without even shedding a single sweat...

Originally posted by DB340
Any gun-mongering society will eventually kill itself out to extinction where the only important lesson learnt will be the one learnt too late.

Anybody supporting gun ownership is simple another log in an ever-growing fire, one which shall, as above, burn itself out over time, logs included.

Your gun may make 'you' feel safe, and a few other million people say the same thing. Indiviually, it cannot be denied that a gun can protect. The flaw is in being part of a nation of gun owners and ignoring the obvious fact that less guns means less gun-related crime and death.

If only the same energy given to gun ownership efforts could be given to non-ownership; you would then all inhabit a safer place in which, thanks to your own non-ownership, has incredibly low gun crime due to the massively less circulation of guns.

Your argument of "I have a gun to protect myself from the other nutters" would then be null and void since others would also not have guns, nor the next, the next, ad nauseum...

But, enjoy logging your fire; it won't last long.

A perfect example of the successful indoctrination being accomplished in schools and the Media.

Originally posted by VforVendettea
reply to post by MongusePro

 

Why were the homicidal maniacs called in the first place?

This was a Costco they sell everything. Someone should have gone to the fishing isle and gotten a net to throw over her. there are 100 way to keep a person from hurting themselves or others and I can't think of anyway to bring them back to life.


I

Well probably because the suspect was threatening people with a knife and scissors.

Next time you see someone doing that go throw a net on them and have fun dealing with the aftemath.

Its really simple to me, if she would not have chosen the path she did then this doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Lysergic
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Can't use a baton to hit a hand so a woman would drop a knife?


Surely they are taught the baton can be used for more than just bonking someone on the head.

If you're close enough to hit her hand with a baton, you're close enough to get stabbed or lose some fingers.

Originally posted by PtolemyII
The stun gun didnt work is the line for me.
I've never heard of a stun gun ,especially a police issued one ,not work . This stinks .

Defective cartridge, or you can hit with one dart and miss with the other, or one dart can hit something in a pocket like a wallet or cell phone and you won't get any effect. Broken wire will do it too. If you hit someone at too close a range so that the probes are only an inch apart will result in no incapacitation, also if you hit ribs instead of a more muscular area they will walk away from it.

Originally posted by jam321
if she was waving a knife and scissors threatening an average citizen and was shot, I imagine most folks would call it self defense.

Seems the police were in the right.

Nobody here knows anything about what happened.