Cops gun down man for legally carrying firearm... WND

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by Apheon
I fail to see why Cops feel the need to shoot you seven times...

I mean is that not obvious they are trying to kill you?

When I was in the Navy I believed in one shot one kill.

Did a Marine teach you that?

reply to post by kman420


Who, exactly, are you addressing with your post? Americans?
I understand your stance on the issue but you seem to be over-rationalizing the situation. This is SUPPOSED to be a civilized country where you have certain freedoms. One of which is legally carrying a firearm. We also give law enforcement more rights than ordinary citizens in exchange for them protecting us....not killing us. I highly doubt this individual thought he would be murdered by a police office for legally carrying a firearm.

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
reply to post by DrMattMaddix

 

This could happen to anyone of us! I am outraged, what the hell is going on? there is a war on the streets and I will not stand for it.

There really seems to be a war going on on US streets, in 2009 over 9000 murders by firearms. That's like three 9/11 attacks in a year. It's no wonder the cops are pissing their pants every time someone mentions a gun.

Seems to be a few people in the thread that don't understand what happened, so I will be kind enough to bottom line it for you.

1. Man walks into Costco with a gun (protected by CCW).
2. Costco informs man of ban on guns.
3. Man argues that he has the right according to his CCW.
4. Costco asks man to leave.
5. Man doesn't leave. (This violates his CCW, as he is now an unwanted trespasser on private property, and your CCW is void the moment you are involved in criminal activity.)
6. Cops respond to armed trespasser at Costco.
7. Situation escalates.
8. Trespasser is shot by cops.

This is why you can't carry a gun into Costco.

reply to post by BigBruddah

I'll tell you what the camera recorded too. The second gun in question is the one some "early responder" cop threw down to "convict" the victim. They call them "throw downs" because thats what they do. In a questionable shooting it's easy to just produce the concealed ankle holster "backup" that some cops carry and throw it down on the ground to bolster their justification for shooting.

"See, he was armed".

The camera would have recorded that part so... "Blip".

I'd be willing to bet that that firearm is "unregistered" as well. The cop who threw down the "second gun" didn't know there was a holstered gun on the victim (whoops). And of course the victim would have pulled his primary firearm and not a "second or backup" if he perceived there was a threat to his person. But he didn't. His weapon was holstered. He saw no reason to ever draw it.

It was the store security personnel that had a bone to pick and lied on the phone to police about the attitude of the shopper when confronted and then singled him out to police at the door.

" He's got a gun, he's got a gun!" Police were led to believe the man was threatening and so over reacted. Upon discovering later that they were misled, someone at the scene decided to produce a "throw down". Then they remembered the camera and "disabled" it as well.

I don't know this for sure, just explains certain elements.

The second firearm at the scene,
the camera glitch,
the embarrassment of explaining shooting a patron who had a concealed carry permit.

Or if you lived in a country where guns weren't so easily available you wouldn't need to be armed to go shopping. People just fight in England but as is the American way, laziest option first.

reply to post by Furbs

Man doesn't leave.

He was shot outside.

And escalation was on the part of police. They drew and discharged their weapons, not the store shopper. His weapon was still holstered. The "second" gun was not his. When the cops realized they had been misled about the "suspect" they threw down a second gun to "justify" the shooting. Then "disabled" the camera to hide that part.

Bet the second gun is not registered to the victim.

Bet it is in fact un-registered.

Bet there is no holster for it on the victim either.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Why the hell does anyone need a gun inside of Costco?

Irrational fear on the part of the gun owner is what caused this whole mess. Leave your gun at home, cowboy.

You should of been at the mass murder in The Texas restaurant some years back, you would of been begging one of the goods guys were there with a weapon, as the killer strolled thru restaurant killing people at his leisure. You would of been one of the ones trying to hide, crying for your life, in need of a change.

I'm afraid carrying that weapon into a store was a protocol error on the carriers part.Usually only armed criminals perform that act.The officers may have been over zealous in their response and that will be examined I'm sure.When weapons are involved (Americans are quite effective with them) then chances just should not be taken.I would see the circumstances on the shoot to see why the officers tweaked like that and from what we know it seems extreme.
I am sad to lose another brother.

Originally posted by CallYourBluff
Or if you lived in a country where guns weren't so easily available you wouldn't need to be armed to go shopping. People just fight in England but as is the American way, laziest option first.

Yah, thats why people get bashed with bricks, stabbed with knifes and burned by Molotovs, because nobody can shoot back.

Notice we don't have those kind of riots here? Because the population is armed.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Furbs

 

Man doesn't leave.

He was shot outside.

And escalation was on the part of police. They drew and discharged their weapons, not the store shopper. His weapon was still holstered. The "second" gun was not his. When the cops realized they had been misled about the "suspect" they threw down a second gun to "justify" the shooting. Then "disabled" the camera to hide that part.

Bet the second gun is not registered to the victim.

Bet it is in fact un-registered.

Bet there is no holster for it on the victim either.

Inside.. outside.. he was asked to LEAVE.

He did not leave. Outside is -still- Costco property.

Had the man simply left, he would not have been a trespasser and he would still be alive. Had he listened to the police officers and STOPPED what he was doing, he would still be alive.

Second gun means nothing and is giving in the article as a red herring. He had a gun, and he STILL had the gun when he was shot. He was armed. He didn't follow the lawful instructions of the police officers on the scene and he was taken out because of it.

Originally posted by neo96
The store was violating his constitutional right to carry does not matter they have no right to discriminate,because of irrational fears, and that guy is dead because of some half wit who does not understand what CCW is.

He should be alive right now, and he isn't.

Wrong the store has every right to have a no weapons policy on private property. When he was informed of this policy he should have left the store and not gotten into an argument with store personnel. Where the cops were in the wrong here is not talking to the store manager but instead they talked to the loss prevention officer. Because had they talked to the manager this guy would still be alive.

reply to post by Furbs

Had he listened to the police officers and STOPPED what he was doing, he would still be alive.

Bullspit. He didn't break any laws. In fact most concealed carry permit holders are more level headed than a lot of people ( like wannabe security guards).

The man calmly ignored the hype, continued shopping and left when he was done. Of course that justifies gunning him down... (according to you).

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Furbs

 

Had he listened to the police officers and STOPPED what he was doing, he would still be alive.

Bullspit. He didn't break any laws. In fact most concealed carry permit holders are more level headed than a lot of people ( like wannabe security guards).

The man calmly ignored the hype, continued shopping and left when he was done. Of course that justifies gunning him down... (according to you).

He broke the law the moment he didn't leave when he was asked to do so.
He broke the law -again- when he refused to obey lawful instructions of bonded police officers.

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix

Cops gun down man for legally carrying firearm... WND

[color=gold]by Jeff Knox

Yes the police state is out of hand. Yes there have been increasing murders by law enforcement.

I carry in Costco all the time, just actually keep it concealed. Costco is setting themselves up for a massive lawsuit if there is ever a mass shooting at one of their stores. Costco does not provide protection for their customers and prohibits the customers from protecting themselves, which would allow litigation by the victims' families.

This however I think is a different case. From opencarry.org,

Textmy brother works at that Costco, and the story was quite different than what Erik's family was pushing. I also studied this shooting very thoroughly in my crime class. He was a morphine addict, which was why the military booted him. He wasn't a war hero, never served overseas. He was caught in costco trying to steal beer while under the influence of 4x the normal amount of morphine that would sit any thing on two legs down. The security guard seen the gun in his waistband and moved all the shoppers outside without giving them an explanation so they wouldn't panic. Being curious, the shoppers waited around the main entrance outside until LEO's showed. Scott then came outside and when told to get on the ground, he then reached for his firearm. There was at least 20 people behind the cops and even if Scott fired one round, it couldve hit anyone. They fired several rounds but due to morphine, he remained on his feet. Metro was damned if they did, damned if they dont. If they decided to taser scott, and he managed to squeeze off a round killing an 8 year old, Metro would still be crucified in trying to act accordingly. He also had 3 magazines of .380acp in his pockets, and one in his firearm. I carry 5 in the cylinder and 25 on my belt, but four mags? IMHO i feel this was a suicide-by-cop sorta thing. I just didnt like how they blew him up to be the next Audie Murphy, and he was really nobody. The family agreed to drop the case if all legal fees were dropped also. They knew they had nothing to go on. Know when to quit.

Opencarry.org

reply to post by buster2010


What part of the second amendment are people not getting?


The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

reply to post by Furbs

He broke the law the moment he didn't leave when he was asked to do so.
He broke the law -again- when he refused to obey lawful instructions of bonded police officers.

He broke "store policy" not State Law governing concealed carry Laws. Big difference.
If store policy is the issue then the store should have one of these at the entrance:

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Furbs

 

He broke the law the moment he didn't leave when he was asked to do so.
He broke the law -again- when he refused to obey lawful instructions of bonded police officers.

He broke "store policy" not State Law governing concealed carry Laws. Big difference.
If store policy is the issue then the store should have one of these at the entrance:

Are you kidding me?

By breaking the store policy, he was no longer a welcomed guest of the store.. which is private property. The moment they asked him to leave and he didn't he was an unwelcome entity, legally a trespasser. Criminal Trespass is a misdemeanor. Having a concealed gun while committing a misdemeanor violates the CCW, which nullifies your protection, thus he was armed while committing a misdemeanor, now a felony charge.

To be a member of Costco, you already acknowledged their policy on guns. They even lay it out on their website. costco.egain.net... i

A CCW does not allow you to carry your weapon onto private property.

This guy is an idiot.