Fatal mixup at Costco

William Parcher said:
.....
Maybe what he said was, "Police! Put the child down slowly! Put the child down now!"

We have almost no idea what happened or was said or what.
Click to expand...

What? Who? The cop was holding his own child. Who would he have ordered to "put the child down slowly?" Himself? Nobody's claiming anybody else grabbed his kid.
 
Bob001 said:
Nobody's claiming anybody else grabbed his kid.
Click to expand...
There is a hell of a lot missing from the reports about what happened. That includes what the dead guy did after knocking out the cop and what the cop then said and did.

We have next to no information at all.
 
William Parcher said:
There is a hell of a lot missing from the reports about what happened. That includes what the dead guy did after knocking out the cop and what the cop then said and did.

We have next to no information at all.
Click to expand...

According to the LA times (I can't link because it's behind a paywall) the cop got pushed from behind. When he went down he said he woke up "and was fighting for his life", though no one was actually attacking him at that point. He identified himself as a police officer (after waking up, before shooting). The Frenches father put himself in between the cop and the son and got shot for it. There is absolutely no mention of the cop being afraid for his kid, his kid being approached, his kid being in harms way, or anything like that at all.
 
...and the video is missing the few seconds when the cop was supposedly "unconscious".
 
The shooting officer is Salvador Sanchez. The Daily Mail has his picture and various stories from lawyers and witnesses. The cop's lawyer says that Sanchez feared for his son's life.

Hopefully video will show details and he will be charged if that is appropriate.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...bal-man-Costco-dead-mans-mom-not-survive.html

Article also mentions why he wasn't arrested and that witnesses are still being interviewed and investigation ongoing.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
The shooting officer is Salvador Sanchez. The Daily Mail has his picture and various stories from lawyers and witnesses. The cop's lawyer says that Sanchez feared for his son's life.

Hopefully video will show details and he will be charged if that is appropriate.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...bal-man-Costco-dead-mans-mom-not-survive.html
Click to expand...

I read that same thing just now, but it doesn't say why he feared for his son's life. Only that he feared for his son's life.

It also said the cop shot somewhere between 7 and 8 times. Seriously, what in the actual ****? If the dad was in between the two he couldn't possibly have been rushing the cop. That's extremely excessive and it's inside a ******* store. What was this cop thinking?
 
I Am The Scum said:
Rage appears to be the most prudent explanation.
Click to expand...

IMO this is the most likely the actual explanation but certainly it is not one to put forward as a legal and socially acceptable justification. After some time to consider the possibilities, the shooter chose the "my little kid was in danger" gambit. Frankly I doubt it will work, but who knows given the enormous freedom we have recently given cops to shoot people at will if they can argue that they were in some manner or other "frightened," however much a reach this might have been. I seem to remember a time when it was important that a cop not be easily frightened: that it was in fact a central part of their ability to do their job properly and protect the innocent, rather than blow their heads off. And I still believe that most cops are brave; perhaps I am naive.
 
plague311 said:
Even if we take into account your definition it still doesn't give him any reason to reach for a gun and shoot. I get that William keeps busting out this random ass "but they were after my kids!" style of argument, despite there being absolutely no evidence that he thought that at all. Either way, being pushed, stunned, dazed, etc. doesn't give you a right to shoot someone. Let alone fire your weapon dangerously into a line of people waiting for food. It's, and I feel like I've said this before, negligent.
Click to expand...
It provides a credible reason for believing in imminent threat to one's person and family. Which is the clearest, most quintessential legal justification for shooting.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Rage appears to be the most prudent explanation.
Click to expand...

A blow to the head can cause a psychosis: Inability to distinguish thoughts from reality. He THOUGHT he was being attacked by the people who were helping him up? And defending yourself, or ypur kid, even from unreasonable fear, is legal.
 
casebro said:
A blow to the head can cause a psychosis: Inability to distinguish thoughts from reality. He THOUGHT he was being attacked by the people who were helping him up? And defending yourself, or ypur kid, even from unreasonable fear, is legal.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that therefore imply that the schizophrenic dead guy, even if he actually attacked the cop, if it was through fear, would have been acting legally too?
 
p0lka said:
Wouldn't that therefore imply that the schizophrenic dead guy, even if he actually attacked the cop, if it was through fear, would have been acting legally too?
Click to expand...

No - he would still be acting illegally but he could be found not legally responsible for his actions due to mental illness.
 
rockinkt said:
No - he would still be acting illegally but he could be found not legally responsible for his actions due to mental illness.
Click to expand...
I was replying to this..
casebro said:
A blow to the head can cause a psychosis: Inability to distinguish thoughts from reality. He THOUGHT he was being attacked by the people who were helping him up? And defending yourself, or ypur kid, even from unreasonable fear, is legal.
Click to expand...
If what you are saying rockinkt is correct, then the cop would also be acting illegally but he could be found not legally responsible for his actions due to head trauma inducing temporary psychosis?

Not legal as casebro said?
I'm not from the US so forgive my daft questions.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
I was replying to this..

If what you are saying rockinkt is correct, then the cop would also be acting illegally but he could be found not legally responsible for his actions due to head trauma inducing temporary psychosis?

Not legal as casebro said?
I'm not from the US so forgive my daft questions.
Click to expand...

Happy to answer to the best of my ability.
I am a former cop from Canada but our laws regarding mens rea are pretty well the same as the US.

The issue of "reasonable fear" in a criminal case is a very subjective situation but is usually dealt with by the court deciding if the actions were within what a "reasonable person would think given the same set of circumstances".

Therefore, it follows that "unreasonable fear" is not an excuse for criminal behaviour. However, if the "unreasonable fear" is brought about by temporary psychosis - in this case due to a blow to the head - then that may be used as a defense.

So yes, the cop could be found to have been acting without legal authority but not be responsible criminally for his actions due to a temporary condition brought on by a blow to the head.

edited to add: Unless his brains were pretty scrambled from the blow I cannot see any justification for the discharge of his firearm given the information we have at this time.
 
Last edited:
There are reports saying that only parts of the encounter were recorded on the surveillance cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom