• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Sterling Costco Shooting ruled justified

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
This is crazy, just reading it. They're alleging that after four shots she continued to walk the floor, but earlier in the article it says she dropped to the floor after the -second- shot.

http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/costco_shooting_justified898

They interviewed 40 people looked at footage, and, IMO, scoured events to try to find a way to justify this travesty. Two cops against a tiny Filipino woman, 5'-5'2 in height, -armed- with scissors and a paring knife. The second officer did not shoot, which tells me something.

Here's the pdf:
http://www.loudoun.gov/documents/18/10495/7.30.2013 - Costco Report_201308011014506622.pdf
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Looks like someone has a good civil case against Tazer ... device did not work, likely causing the lady to behave differently.

I'm guessing that the second cop did not know how to use his gun, hence no shooting from him.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Sorry but she gave them an excuse to gun her down and they took the opportunity..
This is not going to change any time soon.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
In a huge store with plenty of space to regroup, the cops chose to shoot her five times, rather than grab a 5'long shopping cart and pin her to the wall or knock her down?

According to the shooter, she didn't react to being shot with a .40 once but fell down with the second shot. Then, miraculously got back up - allegedly - and "continued to walk the floor for a little bit" requiring three more shots. Elfego Bacca personified.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Why would bad cops use actual tactics when it's just waaay easier to shoot the perp? Common sense. Come on. /s
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I've always said NOVA COPS all shaved their legs. Used to have one here. One of Ed's buddies.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Similar event happened here in Idaho....http://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...ho-police-fatally-shoot-knife-wielding-woman/

It seems LEO's need to change their rules of engagement for knife wielding perps. I would think a few shots from a shotgun with less than lethal munitions or tasers should be the first method to subdue v lethal force.

Agreed about tactics. Although that woman seemed very defiant and threatening, I don't think 15 seconds of "Drop the knife!" is a very adequate non-violent/non-lethal attempt.
 
Last edited:

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Agreed about tactics. Although that woman seemed very defiant and threatening, I don't think 15 seconds of "Drop the knife!" is a very adequate non-violent/non-lethal attempt.

They KNEW going into the situation it was a small middle-aged female with a knife acting upset. When they arrived she was not endangering anyone. It's not like they were ambushed. Ask yourself how you'd come up on the scene. Why not grab a shopping cart, or a large blanket and between the two of them just throw it over her? Why not wait for reinforcements and just stay out of her way? Don't they still carry PR-24 batons?
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Agreed about tactics. Although that woman seemed very defiant and threatening, I don't think 15 seconds of "Drop the knife!" is a very adequate non-violent/non-lethal attempt.

Yup. Here is a good example of a take down by LVPD with bean bag ammo. First they disarm him with a well placed shot to the hand wielding the hammer, then one to the torso to take him down. The shots take place at about the 30 second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2KCI_1Zz2g


The best scenario, imo, would be for one leo to have the less than lethal rounds at the ready and the other one to have lethal rounds just in case the perp is on PCP or some other scenario were the perp keeps coming at them.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Let me put it simply, she met the level of deadly force so deadly force was used. Long gone are the days when police actually tried to find a solution without harming someone. Even when shooting them is justified. The deputy is not guilty of a crime, but our society is guilty of lack of empathy for our fellow human beings. This is not just a police problem, it is a society problem, people would rather solve their problems with violence instead of reason.

I will add this, there are very few deadly force incidents in Britain, if the winds of politics and emotions change the police could lose their guns forever.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate just to see if anybody can get past their anti-cop anti-shoot bias and provide a response that stays on track and is not laden with feewings (sic).

Let's suppose that the responding cops decided that firearms against a 5-foot/5-foot one-ish little Oriental lady should not be the first or only choice but the action of last resort. They try the trusty TASER (Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle - you should go read it) and it does not incapacitate her. They get the brilliant idea of ramming her up against a wall/display shelf with a shopping cart, or run to housewares to grab a rug/blanket/bath sheet to swarm & smother her.

They ram her with the shopping cart and because she is such a bitty thing she takes it full in the chest, suffering a punctured lung if not her sternum puncturing her heart. She - or her heirs and assigns if she dies - sues the bejabbers out of the cop(s) and because ramming with a shopping cart is not in the continuum of force it is ruled grossly or wantonly negligent. They lose qualified immunity. What does that tell every cop and every cop-trainer?

They run at her while holding the corners of whatever it is they are planning to take her down and wrap her up with. She hits the corner of a display shelf on the way down, or bounces her head on the floor and ends up paralyzed (you pick how badly). Her family sues for the millions it will take to care for her the rest of her life, plus billions in pain and suffering and punitive damages. Smothering the allegedly emotionally disturbed is not in the conntinuum of force and is considered grossly or wantonly negligent. They lose qualified immunity. What does that tell every cop and cop-trainer?

More importantly - what happens to your cries for alternatives to using deadly force?

stay safe.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate just to see if anybody can get past their anti-cop anti-shoot bias and provide a response that stays on track and is not laden with feewings (sic).

Let's suppose that the responding cops decided that firearms against a 5-foot/5-foot one-ish little Oriental lady should not be the first or only choice but the action of last resort. They try the trusty TASER (Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle - you should go read it) and it does not incapacitate her. They get the brilliant idea of ramming her up against a wall/display shelf with a shopping cart, or run to housewares to grab a rug/blanket/bath sheet to swarm & smother her.

They ram her with the shopping cart and because she is such a bitty thing she takes it full in the chest, suffering a punctured lung if not her sternum puncturing her heart. She - or her heirs and assigns if she dies - sues the bejabbers out of the cop(s) and because ramming with a shopping cart is not in the continuum of force it is ruled grossly or wantonly negligent. They lose qualified immunity. What does that tell every cop and every cop-trainer?

They run at her while holding the corners of whatever it is they are planning to take her down and wrap her up with. She hits the corner of a display shelf on the way down, or bounces her head on the floor and ends up paralyzed (you pick how badly). Her family sues for the millions it will take to care for her the rest of her life, plus billions in pain and suffering and punitive damages. Smothering the allegedly emotionally disturbed is not in the conntinuum of force and is considered grossly or wantonly negligent. They lose qualified immunity. What does that tell every cop and cop-trainer?

More importantly - what happens to your cries for alternatives to using deadly force?

stay safe.

Your above IS how it was done in my years, and I never saw the payouts then as we do today for police actions. Most times if you are willing to just talk, that is all it takes. Plus let's remember qualified immunity.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
So your continuum of force is 1, 2, or 3 shots to the center of mass? What about 5 shots?

Blanketing or warding off with a shopping cart until backup arrives is NOT a sure death sentence, but shooting five times IS.

Your hypothetical is cr8p.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Lame argument by skidmark.

Sounds like the immunity crap needs to go for shooting and killing folks.

Amazing how much garbage is spewed without thought for a solution.

Lets just point out more problems like the poor cop being sued. The person is alive. A small price to pay for a human life. What if that was your mom or sister on a bad reaction to prescribed medication or something?
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I've already decided to not argue with the moderator's bff so I will keep this comment general...not in response to anyone specifically.
I could accept a citizen shooting in response to this threat for fear of their lives. But only a retard would believe this GROUP of trained cops couldn't restrain this person. Two people converging on her could easily control her limbs with only a small risk of injury. But, then again, why risk it? She could have been holding a Q-tip and these cowards would have murdered her anyway.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
It is the hammer syndrome, yes they were justified, but we don't have hit everything because we have a hammer. It seems that government no longer cares about their image, and the police just do what the bosses want.

Training has gone not only the police but the public in general that the only solution to problems is deadly force. It would seem police are not putting enough emphasis on problem solving by communication.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
This is why we need to:
1. Have strict rules of engagement - no shooting unless fired upon, back up, take cover, wait for backup, stop shooting dogs, stop shooting relatively weak individuals who aren't posing a direct danger, stop considering fleeing misdemeanors as shootable felonies (Patricia Cook).
and
2. Issue cops 5 shot revolvers as their duty weapon. Then they'd HAVE to restrain themselves, stop chasing people down for J-walking or minor burglary (Michael Brown), and wait for backup.

It's pathetic that a well-trained professional can't follow a rational RoE on their own.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
This is why we need to:
1. Have strict rules of engagement - no shooting unless fired upon, back up, take cover, wait for backup, stop shooting dogs, stop shooting relatively weak individuals who aren't posing a direct danger, stop considering fleeing misdemeanors as shootable felonies (Patricia Cook).
and
2. Issue cops 5 shot revolvers as their duty weapon. Then they'd HAVE to restrain themselves, stop chasing people down for J-walking or minor burglary (Michael Brown), and wait for backup.

It's pathetic that a well-trained professional can't follow a rational RoE on their own.

In the last decades the public has made police officers who shoot anybody heroes. Does anybody see the problem with that? WE are the problem, granted a few of us speak out, the rest of the community pats a shooter on the back. As long as it is not their loved one...

To change this we have to change the mind of the public, and then the public will force government to force LEA to return to being a community asset.
 
Last edited:
Top