Page 1 of 1

CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:05 am
by philip964
https://news.yahoo.com/shooting-inside- ... 03366.html

I heard about this on the news and figured another nut job mass shooting in a gun free zone. (Costco membership fine print prohibits guns inside the store, they generally don't have signs) I also figured it was an illegal gun because who can legally carry in California.

Well I was wrong. Office duty police officer holding his child was assaulted by a man with a Mohawk. Mohawk man died. Two of his relatives were wounded. Either the officer was a bad shot or most likely the relatives decided to get involved. The officer fired six times.

I know I'm going to get it from our Mohawk wearing readers, but yeah, like a face tattoo only smarter, as you can change your mind as you get older and decide a face tattoo was what you wanted all along.

Re: CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:31 pm
by C-dub
To be clear, I had to read the article and the officer did not die. The mohawked attacker died and two of his relatives were also critically injured by the officer.

What really bugs me, though, is that witnesses described the scene as sheer terror and chaos. Even the person that was able to capture video and audio of the event even though she claimed all she wanted to do was get her daughter and get out safely. Yet she has the calmness to think to herself she should record this in her phone. SMH!

Re: CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:01 pm
by philip964
C-dub wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:31 pm
To be clear, I had to read the article and the officer did not die. The mohawked attacker died and two of his relatives were also critically injured by the officer.

What really bugs me, though, is that witnesses described the scene as sheer terror and chaos. Even the person that was able to capture video and audio of the event even though she claimed all she wanted to do was get her daughter and get out safely. Yet she has the calmness to think to herself she should record this in her phone. SMH!
Sorry corrected my summary to be more clear.

Re: CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:37 am
by mcscanner
Six rounds, 1 fatality and 2 critically injured while holding a child during an assault. I think the officer did well under those circumstances.
It's like landing an airplane. If you can walk away from the landing its good. If the plane is still usable its great.

Mike

Re: CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:58 am
by chasfm11
The story brings up a couple of interesting questions.

1. Was the officer attacked because he was in uniform? Does being in uniform and being assaulted by more than one adult, especially when you have a child to protect change anything?
2. There is no mention of a deadly weapon by the attackers. I'm assuming that would change the matter to ag. assault. One of the situations that has always worried me was being assaulted by multiple youths, responding with deadly force and ending up in jail. I do not believe that our current court situation is neutral toward old white men who try to defend themselves. I wonder if police officers fare any better.

Re: CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:25 am
by 03Lightningrocks
philip964 wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:05 am

I know I'm going to get it from our Mohawk wearing readers, but yeah, like a face tattoo only smarter, as you can change your mind as you get older and decide a face tattoo was what you wanted all along.
"rlol"

Funny thing. You don't see many guys over fifty with a face tat. So does that say something about guys with face tats longevity?

Re: CA: 1 dead 2 wounded at Costco shooting. Not what you might think.

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am
by flechero
chasfm11 wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:58 am
The story brings up a couple of interesting questions.

1. Was the officer attacked because he was in uniform? Was he in uniform? I thought they referred to him as off duty- as if to justify that he could legally have a weapon in CA since it's so rare. Does being in uniform and being assaulted by more than one adult, especially when you have a child to protect change anything? IMO, yes- having a child with you diminishes your ability to run, defend yourself/protect child and to fight... holding a child greatly exaggerates it.
2. There is no mention of a deadly weapon by the attackers. I'm assuming that would change the matter to ag. assault. They don't need weapons to kill you, so the lack of additional weapons shouldn't matter. Plus they attacked a person holding a child which limits his options to defend, as mentioned above One of the situations that has always worried me was being assaulted by multiple youths, responding with deadly force and ending up in jail. I do not believe that our current court situation is neutral toward old white men who try to defend themselves. That's true, but it's going to be jury dependent... and is not worth dying to ensure you are not treated unfairly I wonder if police officers fare any better.
my thoughts in blue