“Protect” Minnesota – most likely their “executive director” and one of very few actual members, the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence – reported on what the belived to be their bete noir, a good guy with a gun, doing something allegedly stupid and horrible.
Oh, no!
On the one hand, it touches all “P”M’s hot buttons: a gun and a civilian. Sounds bad.
But on the other hand, you need to remember – the Reverend (and, really, any anti-gun leader) has never, not once, said anything about guns, gun owners, the 2nd Amendment or its history, gun laws, crime or statistics that is simultaneously substantial, original and true.
With that in mind, you need to merely cast a wider net. Was this an example of a “good guy with a gun” getting into a squabble and blazing away?
Look a little closer.
Oh.
I think we’re on the brink of a Berg’s 21st Law: “The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence’s first draft is never right, and almost always comical”.
Worth noting as well is that California does not have shall issue concealed carry. So even if it had been a non-officer involved, it still would have been one of the approved elites at fault.
And that noted, it’s not even super clear that the officer is at fault. The testimony is that he was assaulted while holding his small child, which is, to put it mildly, an odd posture for someone picking a fight.
So other than the complete disintegration and misrepresentation of all apparent facts about the case, great job, “Rev.” Nord-Bence.
You right-wing kooks are denying the obvious solution: take guns away from cops.
Look, the more guns on the street, the more opportunities for people to get shot, right? Then it stands to reason that taking guns off the streets makes the streets safer. And who’s the most prominent group of gun-carriers? Cops, obviously.
Disarming all on-duty cops would instantly take hundreds of guns off the streets. Criminals, knowing they were not at risk of being shot, would have no incentive to carry their own guns. Arrests would stop being deadly confrontations and become opportunities for peaceful communication to resolve differences.
And what purpose does arming off-duty cops serve? None at all. That’s like allowing ordinary citizens to defend themselves. It can only lead to tragedy. If an off-duty cop has a problem, s/he/it should call for an on-duty cop and wait in line just like everybody else.
No, the Reverend Nancy is entirely correct and you’re all hopelessly wrong.
Also, by pointing our her errors, you’re engaging in mansplaining, which is a sexist hate crime. For shame!
The reason it isn’t an anecdote in support of any point Nord Bence would want to make is that the shooter is not a civilian carry-er.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-killed-duty-officer-california-costco-was-mentally-challenged-cousin-n1018086
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-costco-shooting-off-duty-officer-intellectual-disability-20190616-story.html
As far as it goes though… superficially there’s very little reason to support that this cop had reason to pull his gun and blow away a family.
So, it’s a Bad Thing to be armed while doing so-called every day activities or even believe there is a need to be armed? From what I found, Corona is not the safest of towns (but certainly not the worst either) and the Costco is located in some of the worst (aka most dangerous) parts of town. It would seem like an area where carrying would be prudent. And especially as an off-duty officer. This is without judging any of the participants in lieu of more info.
What I find odd is that notion that carrying while performing every day activities is ill-advised and/or shameful. So you should only carry when participating in non-daily activities? Like going out to eat? Or to a concert? Ball game? Or, as is implied, only when you know something is going to happen? Again, in lieu of the facts, how could you possibly know you might be accosted in Costco? It would seem like carrying while doing every day activities is *exactly* correct.
Well this is certainly not a carrying citizen acting in proper self defense of a legitimate threat, so I would not be too gleeful in whatever Nord Bence thinks of it. But right, it doesn’t make whatever point she might be trying to make.
That was not righteous self defense. The off duty cop will be charged with killing the unarmed adult disabled child and shooting his unarmed 60 year old parents in the aisle there at Costco.
Ya know, granted… if my aunt was a man she’d be my uncle… but the example suits Nord Bence’s point if the guy isn’t a cop, who you assume will continue to have carry rights if someday civilian carry rights are abolished.
Where did you get your info, John K? I just read a report from a local TV station updated (as I write) 40-some minutes ago and there have been no charges. The deceased is still described as attacking the shooter who was holding a child.
Just google costco shooting.
The officer’s story is going to turn out to be… whats the word… bullship.
There’s no way on earth, no matter what happened, that drawing your Glock and mowing down an adult disabled child and his 60 year old parents, including mom, is going to adjudicated as ‘reasonable’. He’s getting charged.
John, I’ve read the same articles, and suffice it to say that the question is going to be answered about the same way it was for Lennie Small in Of Mice and Men–was the decedent’s size, strength, and behavior sufficient to prove to the shooter that he was in grave danger of death or grievous bodily harm?
Nobody wants to see the death of anyone, in particular a disabled person, but having grown up with a young man with Down’s–I’d wrestle him being half his weight and sometimes win, and then I saw him in a meet and something “clicked” where he was wrestling someone who appeared to be far his superior, physically speaking–and he won quickly by pin. So it’s not impossible that a frightened man of that description could pose a lethal threat, especially to the child being held.
And the parents? It might be inexcusable, or it might be they got shot trying to protect their son or pull him back. Let’s let the legal process work out here.
You’re both missing the point.
It doesn’t matter whether the deceased was a Gentle Giant or a fearsome warrior like Goliath himself. It doesn’t matter that the shooter and his child felt they were in danger. It doesn’t matter that Costco is in a bad part of town. It doesn’t matter that the shooter had a day job as a cop.
What matters is the principle of the thing. People should not defend themselves with firearms, plain and simple. Only official government agents should use firearms, and then only while on duty and in uniform. That policy was made clear to us years ago, when a certain departed canine explained that the proper response to some joker shooting up the movie theatre was for patrons to attack him with their bare hands, using their mad Ninja skilz.
Sure, a few people will die while waiting for the cops. What you don’t understand is at their deaths, while tragic, save lives (particularly the lives of hood rats and gang bangers who otherwise would be gunned down by racists with badges).
If this shooter’s child had been killed, that would have been regrettable but it would have made society a better place for those of us who live in nice neighborhoods and drive Volvos. So it all works out for the best in the end.
Nah – it walks like a duck. This is a guy who was on orange and went to red on whimsy because law enforcement metastized his existing social misfit-ism.
Ya know… there’s that basic trope, the bulletproof warrior cop who lives by Cooper’s code, which is as true as the other one is false…ie, developmentally disabled people out there are not commonly and reasonably misperceived as dangerous because of the awkward things they do, alrighty. I’m saying, given the choice between the provocative DD person and the paranoid cop, one of them is way more likely an explanation.
There’s no circumstance in which you mow down a family in Costco as a function of some perception of danger, because that danger is not real. An argument over who is in line to get bulk drumsticks is not a mugging.
Another falsehood is that Costco officially bans guns from their stores. I challenge anyone to find a posting sign as required by MN law at the entrance to the Costcos in Woodbury, Maplewood, Burnsville or Eden Prairie.
John, again, if you’re right, that’ll come out soon enough. If you’re not, I’ve put together a plausible explanation.
Loren: regarding Costco, I googled it, and apparently it’s actually in the customer contract that non-officers won’t carry there. If you’re a member, look closely.
law enforcement metastized his existing social misfit-ism.
Bingo.
Cops have always drawn aggressive men to their ranks, but the cop code of honor kept them on the right side of the law. Today, many cops are nothing but aggressive thugs with a badge.
Consider the number of LEO M/C’s (motorcycle clubs) that emulate not just the brotherhood, but every aspect of 1%er outlaw clubs.
There have been LEO clubs for years. But they always held to their own standards that coincided with the oaths they took. Now there are dozens of national Cop clubs sporting 3 piece patches, that have been involved in several violent altercations, some resulting in death, with real M/C’s.
Their day jobs give them the power, but not the respect that fear brings. They want to play outlaw, but count on their job to protect them from the consequences outlaws face.
Dang, been at least 2 days since my last moderation. Glad to see I haven’t lost the knack.
Lots more questions than answers in this case so far. The Cop’s attorney claims the man was knocked unconscious. Did he then regain consciousness and assess the situation, concluding that an elderly couple and their disabled son were his assailants? The attorney says he was hit from behind. Did he even see who hit him? Or, did he regain consciousness and shoot the first three people he saw?
Regarding the case, apparently the events are on surveillance video. So every statement made by both sides here can be checked out, and we can learn whether, and how (if it was true) the officer figured out who attacked him. Or didn’t.