Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 163

Thread: Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1

    Angry Sentenced to Death for Shopping at COSTCO

    This man was slaughtered on the sidewalk after a COSTCO employee saw his legally carried weapon and created a panic. I read this article with horror and disgust. This is the kind of thing that happens in third world police states, not here in our country.
    I can't speak for all of you but as for me I will never shop at COSTCO again.

    Here's the link.
    http://standupamericaus.com/legally-...lt-first:38508
    Last edited by NickinSeattle; 09-21-2010 at 03:41 PM. Reason: misspelling

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by NickinSeattle View Post
    This man was slaughtered on the sidewalk after a COSTCO employee saw his legally carried weapon and created a panic. I read this article with horror and disgust. This is the kind of thing that happens in third world police states, not here in our country.
    I can't speak for all of you but as for me I will never shop at COSTCO again.

    Here's the link.
    http://standupamericaus.com/legally-...lt-first:38508
    Sad and horrible, and I don't know about there but the Costco near me has a big sign prohibiting firearms next to the door--he DID NOT have the right to be carrying in the store. If he had listened to the store employee (or the big sign) and left he would still be alive. That said, the police did not react properly at all and this should not have happened, regardless

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    There is video on the internet of the news story. I remember seeing it after it happened. Very troublesome.

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Tears formed in my eyes after this. THIS MAN WAS MURDERED, scratch that, EXECUTED, by armed criminals. THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN EDITED BY THE MODERATOR FOR VIOLATING THE FORUM RULES.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN EDITED BY THE MODERATOR FOR VIOLATING THE FORUM RULES. What a horrible thing to say.

  6. #6
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What a horrible thing to say.
    Professional municipal hit squads exist extra-Constitutionally.

    They serve no purpose but to enforce punitive laws and generate revenue. On rare occasion one may commit a random act of kindness or act with civic responsibility - but such examples are few and far between.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Wastelander View Post
    Sad and horrible, and I don't know about there but the Costco near me has a big sign prohibiting firearms next to the door--he DID NOT have the right to be carrying in the store. If he had listened to the store employee (or the big sign) and left he would still be alive. That said, the police did not react properly at all and this should not have happened, regardless
    I don't give a FLYING **** if he wasn't allowed to carry there. It did not warrant being shot, much less four times in the back, once through the armpit while his hands were up, etc.

    It was murder, plain and simple, and looking at the history of this PD, it will likely go unpunished. Also to blame are those who said he was "possibly on narcotics" and "acting suspiciously".

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by wylde007 View Post
    Professional municipal hit squads exist extra-Constitutionally.
    That is just factually inaccurate. Apart from specifying rights that government may not infringe, The Constitution is silent on municipal governments and municipal police forces. The Constitution's near-exclusive raison d'etre is to define the limitations of the federal government.

    Furthermore, referring to police forces as "hit squads" qualifies, IMO, as cop-bashing and, if the owners agree with that assessment, is a violation of Rule 6.

    Moving on.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by sultan62 View Post
    I don't give a FLYING **** if he wasn't allowed to carry there. It did not warrant being shot, much less four times in the back, once through the armpit while his hands were up, etc.

    It was murder, plain and simple, and looking at the history of this PD, it will likely go unpunished. Also to blame are those who said he was "possibly on narcotics" and "acting suspiciously".
    I do not disagree with you that he should not have been shot, nor do I disagree that what the police did was murder an innocent man. I merely stated that this whole mess could have been avoided, regardless of the mentality of the individual police officers involved

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    229
    It seems that all of the news media video is gone..... hmmmmm. Anyways, here is some extra reading. It was posted before just can't find the thread.
    http://www.702shooter.com/community-...lelight-vigil/

  11. #11
    Regular Member smlawrence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Colfax, NC
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Wastelander View Post
    Sad and horrible, and I don't know about there but the Costco near me has a big sign prohibiting firearms next to the door--he DID NOT have the right to be carrying in the store. If he had listened to the store employee (or the big sign) and left he would still be alive. That said, the police did not react properly at all and this should not have happened, regardless
    Maybe I misread something but doesn't the last paragraph of the story from the first post link say that the store where this tragedy took place "DID NOT" have a sign prohibiting weapons. So therefore the store employee did not have the right to tell him that he couldn't be carrying the gun. I also don't see in the story that anyone asked him to leave. Once again leaving him with the right to shop while carrying his gun. I will however agree with you that the police seem to have reacted improperly.
    "God, Guns, & Guts Made America, Lets Use All 3!!!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by smlawrence View Post
    Maybe I misread something but doesn't the last paragraph of the story from the first post link say that the store where this tragedy took place "DID NOT" have a sign prohibiting weapons. So therefore the store employee did not have the right to tell him that he couldn't be carrying the gun. I also don't see in the story that anyone asked him to leave. Once again leaving him with the right to shop while carrying his gun. I will however agree with you that the police seem to have reacted improperly.
    The story I read stated that he bent over or knelt down, revealing his concealed handgun, at which point he was informed by an employee that he could not carry in the store. He then responded that it was his right to carry and he had a permit, and then the employee freaked out and told security, who freaked out and told the police, who freaked out and shot the man. Regardless of whether or not there was a sign, they were within their private property rights to ask him to leave and I was under the impression that all Costco stores do not allow guns, but I could very well be wrong and it could just be the one near me. In any case, I hope that this raises awareness for 2A rights and lands the murdering officers in prison--they give good officers a bad name.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Not being privy to all the facts, I can make very few definitive statements about this incident.

    One I can make is that all three officers that fired are at best incompetent and need to be fired and their CLEET status be changed to NONE, thereby making them ineligible for rehire at ANY police agency.

    At worst they need to be prosecuted for premeditated murder.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by smlawrence View Post
    Maybe I misread something but doesn't the last paragraph of the story from the first post link say that the store where this tragedy took place "DID NOT" have a sign prohibiting weapons. So therefore the store employee did not have the right to tell him that he couldn't be carrying the gun...
    Can you cite the relevant State law that supports this statement? I know from personal experience that, at least in Alabama, one can be asked to leave an establishment for carrying a firearm, even if no sign is posted.

  15. #15
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is just factually inaccurate.
    Wrong.

    Have you read any state Constitutions which specifically provide for municipal revenue-generating law-enforcement divisions?

    I'll wait.
    Furthermore, referring to police forces as "hit squads" qualifies, IMO, as cop-bashing and, if the owners agree with that assessment, is a violation of Rule 6.
    Opinion.

    THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN EDITED BY THE MODERATOR FOR VIOLATING THE FORUM RULES.Can you cite the relevant State law that supports this statement? I know from personal experience that, at least in Alabama, one can be asked to leave an establishment for carrying a firearm, even if no sign is posted.[/QUOTE]Can you cite relevant state law that provides for an otherwise law-abiding citizen to be murdered for what amounts to civil trespass while exercising a Constitutional right?

    Again, I'll wait.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I ask the poster for a cite to support your position, and you rubber-and-glue it.

    Moving on.
    Last edited by eye95; 09-22-2010 at 10:21 AM. Reason: I confused two ridiculous posts.

  17. #17
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Thumbs down

    You didn't ask me to cite anything.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is just factually inaccurate. Apart from specifying rights that government may not infringe, The Constitution is silent on municipal governments and municipal police forces. The Constitution's near-exclusive raison d'etre is to define the limitations of the federal government.

    Furthermore, referring to police forces as "hit squads" qualifies, IMO, as cop-bashing and, if the owners agree with that assessment, is a violation of Rule 6.

    Moving on.
    You are most definately wrong about the constitution eye 95. 14thA secion 1 applies to states (and their sub-divisions). It specifically states that the federal and state gov'ts must apply due process before depriving on of his life. Hit squads which derive their power from the state do not apply due process, thus they violate the 14th A.

    The use of hit squads is pejorative, though perhaps not bashing. If police are empowered with super rights, including the right to inflict death upon the citizen without due process, and enjoy great shelter from said government legal system in doing so, coud they not be considered hit squads? It is all about context. In the context in which it is used for the Costco murder, it seems quite appropriate to many on this forum.

    The use of the word all, however, is certainly a false premise.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Wastelander View Post
    Sad and horrible, and I don't know about there but the Costco near me has a big sign prohibiting firearms next to the door--he DID NOT have the right to be carrying in the store. If he had listened to the store employee (or the big sign) and left he would still be alive. That said, the police did not react properly at all and this should not have happened, regardless

    Have you check the Costco where he was shopping? He has the right to carry his firearm if there was no sign prior to this event. And even if there is and he disregarded the sign, the police should have enough brain not to execute an individual. That's what they are trained for.

    He was an army veteran, a West Point grad, and an MBA. That idiot for a cop has been involved in a prior questionable shooting before. Which one has more integrity, you think?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Monroeville, Pa., ,
    Posts
    73

    Brothers in Outlaw

    this message has been edited by the moderator for violating the forum rules.

  21. #21
    XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Wastelander View Post
    Sad and horrible, and I don't know about there but the Costco near me has a big sign prohibiting firearms next to the door--he DID NOT have the right to be carrying in the store. If he had listened to the store employee (or the big sign) and left he would still be alive. That said, the police did not react properly at all and this should not have happened, regardless
    before you make accusations of what he did wrong take the time to read the article, misinformed people are what caused this incident so don't become one of them.....

    "For the record, the Costco did not have signs posted prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Scott did not violate any laws in carrying his weapon in the store."

    oh and your statement of...the story i read.....the original post here gives you a link

    Here's the link.
    http://standupamericaus.com/legally-...lt-first:38508
    Last edited by XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX; 09-24-2010 at 10:44 AM.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    John and Mike: Shouldn't this thread be moved to a more appropriate place?

    (On edit: Thanks for moving this from the Rules section.)


    I have been hesitant to comment on this story because I felt I was only getting one side. Reading reports of some of the testimony at the coroner's inquest leads me to believe that that one side was grossly inaccurate.

    After reading the testimony in the link, I conclude that Scott was under the influence. He was operating irrationally. He was carrying unlawfully (being under the influence). He behaved in a hostile way when legitimately confronted by a Costco employee. He failed to comply with the clear instructions of the officers on the scene. He attempted to disarm himself--even though he was not asked to do so. Disarming himself, even with the firearm in the holster gave the appearance of drawing his weapon. While it is unfortunate that the officer shot Scott, when Scott was not an actual threat, the officer reasonably believed Scott was drawing on him. The officer was, therefore, correct to fire on Scott, as would be any of the other officers who fired on Scott.

    The fault for what happened to Scott falls squarely on his shoulders. He should not have been carrying under the influence. When asked to leave, he should have left. When the officers told him to put up his hands and get on the ground, he should have followed those instructions and allowed the officers to disarm him. He made three very serious mistakes. Not making any one of those mistakes would have saved his life.

    The officers made one mistake. However, that mistake was a reasonable one to make and one for which they should bear no responsibility.
    Last edited by eye95; 09-26-2010 at 09:24 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288
    No video No truth
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  24. #24
    XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    you people
    does that mean people who oc ?
    does that mean people who have posted on this article?
    what exactly do you mean by you people ?
    Last edited by XxCaMeLxxToSiSxX; 09-25-2010 at 10:55 PM.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    One has to wonder why you are here. If you don't like OCers, your only purpose here would be to antagonize them. I gotta tell you, I have more respect for some of the folks here whose views I find extreme than I do for anyone who would deliberately place himself in a situation that facilitates his ability to be antisocial.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •