Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 119

Thread: Off duty cop in alleged road rage shooting

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NoVa by way of Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008..._433_17_08.txt

    Off-duty SDPD officer identified in alleged road rage shooting By: COLLEEN MENSCHING - Staff Writer
    Sequence of events still unclear | Monday, March 17, 2008 11:07 PM PDT

    OCEANSIDE -- Police weren't saying much Monday about a suspected road rage incident Saturday night in which an off-duty San Diego police officer shot and wounded a Camp Pendleton woman and her 8-year-old son.

    The off-duty officer, Franklin "Frank" White of Oceanside, fired an undisclosed number of shots during the incident, which happened at about 9:30 p.m. in a shopping center parking lot off Old Grove Road, said Oceanside police Sgt. Kelan Poorman.

    The woman and child remained hospitalized Monday, but authorities said their injuries were not life threatening.

    White is on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the Oceanside Police Department's criminal investigation and an internal review by the San Diego Police Department, Chief William Lansdowne said Monday. White has worked for the San Diego Police Department since October 2005.

    Poorman said the incident apparently began when one car cut off another car in traffic. He said one driver followed the other driver to the parking lot of the Lowe's Home Improvement store on Old Grove Road, where the shooting took place. He declined to say which car White was driving.

    The other driver, a white female in her 20's, was not armed, according to Poorman. Parties from both cars called police, he said.

    Poorman said he did not know whether White -- who was accompanied by his wife at the time of the incident --- was inside or outside of his car during the shooting, or whether White acted in self-defense.

    "I think that's probably why the shots were fired, but I'd be speculating," Poorman said.

    The injured woman is married to a Marine and lives on Camp Pendleton, Poorman said. She was taken to Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego, where she is still a patient.

    As of Monday afternoon, she had not been interviewed, but investigators did speak with her son at Rady Children's Hospital, Poorman said.

    He said Oceanside investigators are still trying to obtain surveillance video from businesses in the area

    White was not in a police vehicle at the time of the incident, Poorman said.

    State and federal laws give off-duty police officers the right to carry a weapon.

    A countywide policy adopted in May 2007 addresses when and how off-duty officers may intervene when they observe a law being broken, said San Diego Police Department spokeswoman Monica Munoz.

    The policy states that law enforcement officers retain "full power and authority" to perform policing duties when not on duty, including carrying a weapon.

    Munoz said she could not comment on whether San Diego police official believe White fired his gun in a police capacity because they are not conducting the investigation into the incident.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Grrr Don't post a 2 week old story and leave it to everyone else to check for followups :X
    March 20 (woman hires atty w/police shooting experience)

    March 26 (Atty says shooting not justified) - and in other news Al Gore says global warming is real, George Bush says attacking Iraq was justified, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi say that taxes should be raised on the evil rich, and Hillary Clinton misspoke.

    March 28 (her atty claims coverup - includes pic of bullet wound)

    March 29 (city stands by officer)

    March 31 (Police refuse to release 911 tapes)

    April 1 (Still not releasing 911 tapes - more details)

    April 2 (claim filed in behalf of shot boy - more details of incident but still not making sense


    There, that brings the story current.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    This will be an interesting one to follow.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    How about the idiots saying that since this woman had a DUI conviction she's automatically guilty. Gotta love it!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I really hate when people start talk about"Cover up" almost immediately all because the police will not release details.

    Departments are not going to release all the details for a few reasons.

    The most important is that two investigations are being done at the same time and the two groups are not allowed to talk about it.

    Internal Affairs does their investigation to see if general orders and department regulations were followed.

    The Criminal Investigation Detective does his investigation to determine if a crime was committed.

    Keep this one very important thing in mind... The officer is.. what is the phrase so many here like to say..... "Innocent until proven guilty??"

    The officer SHALL talk to internal affairs and tell them everything!! He does not get an attorney either. If he fails to speak with them he WILL BE FIRED!!

    The officer does NOT have to speak with the detective working the criminal investigation. If he does... the officer can have an attorney present and can refuse to answer.

    IA and the detective CANNOT SHARE OR COMPARE NOTES! This is because the officer is compelled to speak to AI and it is not fair to use information against you that you are forced to provide.

    So does the public want the detective to speak to the media BEFORE the investigation has been completed? Maybe they would like IA to speak and tip off the Detective?

    And finally.... The family WILL SUE the department and the local government is not going to be so willing to give them all the ammo they need. The people of the community are going to suffer in the end from the large payout.

    It is nice to know all the details right away but some things that are very sensitive take time. You want to be sure you put out all the facts.

    And then.... the victim appears to be refusing to speak with the detective so this is causing the investigation to stall a little.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I really hate when people start talk about"Cover up" almost immediately all because the police will not release details.

    Departments are not going to release all the details for a few reasons.

    The most important is that two investigations are being done at the same time and the two groups are not allowed to talk about it.

    Internal Affairs does their investigation to see if general orders and department regulations were followed.

    The Criminal Investigation Detective does his investigation to determine if a crime was committed.

    Keep this one very important thing in mind... The officer is.. what is the phrase so many here like to say..... "Innocent until proven guilty??"

    The officer SHALL talk to internal affairs and tell them everything!! He does not get an attorney either. If he fails to speak with them he WILL BE FIRED!!

    The officer does NOT have to speak with the detective working the criminal investigation. If he does... the officer can have an attorney present and can refuse to answer.

    IA and the detective CANNOT SHARE OR COMPARE NOTES! This is because the officer is compelled to speak to AI and it is not fair to use information against you that you are forced to provide.

    So does the public want the detective to speak to the media BEFORE the investigation has been completed? Maybe they would like IA to speak and tip off the Detective?

    And finally.... The family WILL SUE the department and the local government is not going to be so willing to give them all the ammo they need. The people of the community are going to suffer in the end from the large payout.

    It is nice to know all the details right away but some things that are very sensitive take time. You want to be sure you put out all the facts.

    And then.... the victim appears to be refusing to speak with the detective so this is causing the investigation to stall a little.

    "Keep this one very important thing in mind... The officer is.. what is the phrase so many here like to say..... "Innocent until proven guilty??""

    I'm so sorry LEO, but we all feels the same way when you and your fellow LEO's pulls us over/approches us for merely OCing. Hrrmmm:quirky

    Just my...

    TJ


  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I really hate when people start talk about"Cover up" almost immediately all because the police will not release details.

    SNIP
    It seems a big part of what they are using for the "cover up" complaint is that the woman who was shot was tested for drugs and alcohol but the LEO involved was not. It is unfortunate that something as simple as a quick blood draw that could have ameliorated the "cover up" contention was not done. I would think that in a situation like this that LE would want to voluntarily submit to such a test even if unnecessary based on behavior. Oh well. I don't have any opinion at this point on the case given the sketchy information. Just find it interesting.

    Thank you for the description of the process, LEO229.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    "Keep this one very important thing in mind... The officer is.. what is the phrase so many here like to say..... "Innocent until proven guilty??""

    I'm so sorry LEO, but we all feels the same way when you and your fellow LEO's pulls us over/approches us for merely OCing. Hrrmmm:quirky

    Just my...

    TJ
    Sorry.... the job of a LEO is to be suspiciousof what they see and to act on it.

    It would be a wonderful world to just believe EVERYONE is innocent!! Yaa!!

    But if that were the case.... why would the LEO investigate and look into matters that were suspicious. It is a crappy job to have to be accusatory but one that is necessary.

    Many crimes have been solved and/or prevented due to a LEO checking on things that are suspicious.

    Please watch Forensic Files one day and see how some cold cases were solved. One instance was a cop stopping a guy walking around at night. Not breaking the law... but his shoes tracks in the snow solved the case!!!

    The LEO does not automatically think anyone is "guilty" of a crime... but they sure may believe the person is involved in criminal activity. There is a difference but many people cannot understand that.

    As for OCing and being approached. Yes, it is legal but that does not mean you will NEVER be approached or your never be approachedby a LEO just because it is legal.

    Many things are legal and people still get approached. Sitting in a car during a bank robbery, hanging out behind a business at night, carrying an axe handle in the city. All legal but there is always a chance something may not be right.

    Some people are just "suspicious." I know a great number of unarmed people that were not breaking any laws but were acting or reported to be suspicious. This does not mean a LEO should not approach them.

    Unfortunately... some LEOs are not aware it is legal to OC a gun and stop them for that reason alone. I will give them this much.... They are stopping someone they believe is breaking the law. They are approaching an armed person and often times NOT drawing a gun on them.

    So they are at least doing their job and placing themselves in a dangerous situationfor what they believe is for the good of the people.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    "Keep this one very important thing in mind... The officer is.. what is the phrase so many here like to say..... "Innocent until proven guilty??""

    I'm so sorry LEO, but we all feels the same way when you and your fellow LEO's pulls us over/approches us for merely OCing. Hrrmmm:quirky

    Just my...

    TJ
    Sorry.... the job of a LEO is to be suspiciousof what they see and to act on it.

    It would be a wonderful world to just believe EVERYONE is innocent!! Yaa!!

    But if that were the case.... why would the LEO investigate and look into matters that were suspicious. It is a crappy job to have to be accusatory but one that is necessary.

    Many crimes have been solved and/or prevented due to a LEO checking on things that are suspicious.

    Please watch Forensic Files one day and see how some cold cases were solved. One instance was a cop stopping a guy walking around at night. Not breaking the law... but his shoes tracks in the snow solved the case!!!

    The LEO does not automatically think anyone is "guilty" of a crime... but they sure may believe the person is involved in criminal activity. There is a difference but many people cannot understand that.

    As for OCing and being approached. Yes, it is legal but that does not mean you will NEVER be approached or your never be approachedby a LEO just because it is legal.

    Many things are legal and people still get approached. Sitting in a car during a bank robbery, hanging out behind a business at night, carrying an axe handle in the city. All legal but there is always a chance something may not be right.

    Some people are just "suspicious." I know a great number of unarmed people that were not breaking any laws but were acting or reported to be suspicious. This does not mean a LEO should not approach them.

    Unfortunately... some LEOs are not aware it is legal to OC a gun and stop them for that reason alone. I will give them this much.... They are stopping someone they believe is breaking the law. They are approaching an armed person and often times NOT drawing a gun on them.

    So they are at least doing their job and placing themselves in a dangerous situationfor what they believe is for the good of the people.
    Sure...the Equal applies to LEO's. Cause there are PLENTY that are Guilty of a crime one way or another.

    What makes you feel that LEO's are more "special" than civilians.

    TJ

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Sure...the Equal applies to LEO's. Cause there are PLENTY that are Guilty of a crime one way or another.

    What makes you feel that LEO's are more "special" than civilians.

    TJ
    You said they were "special".... not me.



    Here is the difference in the LEO and the civilian.....

    The LEO is EMPLOYED to snoop around and be suspicious. He or she is EXPECTED to search out and find crime and stop it. Citizens are not expected to dothis and only do so on a voluntary basis or for pure curiosity.

    The LEO in his or her uniform is a universal symbol of trust and that they have have beenthroughly checked and are of sound character.

    Civilians do not have to go through ANY CHECKS to be a civilian!!!There is simply no indicator thata civiliancan or shouldbe trusted and you have to decidenot knowing anything about their background or history.

    Are there a fewcops guilty ofcommitting crimes? Sure!Every job in the world has had someone commit a crime. But the ratio of cops committing crimes are far less that that of the civilian population.

    So if I need help will..... I run to the cop... or to the civilian I know nothing about??

    When I am approached by a cop and a civilian which one and I going to be more suspicious about??

    Stranger, Danger!!!

    I am going to have to take my chances and trustthe cop. I know he has been checked out and passed all the criteria to be a cop. The odds are far less that the cop is going to con me, cut me, kill me, rob me, or rape me.

    EDIT: Am I special? I guess I am!

    I have applied for a job that so many people want and do not qualify for. I have passed all the tests that are given, made it through the academy, and the months of field training. I made it past the one year of probation and I am responsible for the lives of thousands of people.

    I have the authority to do more things than a civilian can do and people run to me when they need help.

    Do you think I should not feel a little special? :?

    But being special does not mean that I am better than anyone else.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    This lady sounds pretty sketchy. If she's not telling the story of what happened to the media, it's because her lawyer told her not to. If she was 100% in the right, and this cop just got angry and shot her, her lawyer wouldn't have advised against talking to the press.

    My guess is that she cut him off pretty bad and he decided to follow her into a parking lot because he thought she was drunk. When he tried to approach the vehicle to inform her that he was a police officer, she tried to run him down, so he shot at her. That's just a guess, but I'll bet you it's what happened. This kind of situation is exactly the kind of thing that the police department will want to have proof of before releasing a statement to the press. It is also the kind of thing that this woman will not want to leak to the press. She may want to lie about what happened and try to get public sympathy, but her lawyer has advised against it, because she'll just be digging herself a hole if the police can prove that the shooting was self defense.

    Again, I have no idea what happened, but that is my speculation. And this is coming from a guy that is always skeptical of the police, and has had little but bad experiences with bad cops... I'm pretty skeptical about this woman, and I think we're going to find that this was a self defense shooting.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    All the more reason why off duty LE should have no more authority than Joe Citizen.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    All the more reason why off duty LE should have no more authority than Joe Citizen.
    What authority do that have off duty that civilians do not have?

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Sure...the Equal applies to LEO's. Cause there are PLENTY that are Guilty of a crime one way or another.

    What makes you feel that LEO's are more "special" than civilians.

    TJ

    You said they were "special".... not me.



    You said "Here is the difference in the LEO and the civilian....."
    LOE's ARE CIVILIANS. I THINK YOU ARE GETTING MILITARY AND LOE CONFUSED. LOE's are just civilians unless they are on active military duty. A small point but an important point.

    The LEO is EMPLOYED to snoop around and be suspicious. He or she is EXPECTED to search out and find crime and stop it. Civilians are not expected to dothis and only do so on a voluntary basis or for pure curiosity.

    The LEO in his or her uniform is a universal symbol of trust and that they have have beenthroughly checked and are of sound character.

    Civilians do not have to go through ANY CHECKS to be a civilian!!!There is simply no indicator thata civiliancan or shouldbe trusted and you have to decidenot knowing anything about their background or history.

    Are there a fewcops guilty ofcommitting crimes? Sure!Every job in the world has had someone commit a crime. But the ratio of cops committing crimes are far less that that of the civilian population.

    So if I need help will..... I run to the cop... or to the civilian I know nothing about??

    When I am approached by a cop and a civilian which one and I going to be more suspicious about??

    Stranger, Danger!!!

    I am going to have to take my chances and trustthe cop. I know he has been checked out and passed all the criteria to be a cop. The odds are far less that the cop is going to con me, cut me, kill me, rob me, or rape me.

    EDIT: Am I special? I guess I am!

    I have applied for a job that so many people want and do not qualify for. I have passed all the tests that are given, made it through the academy, and the months of field training. I made it past the one year of probation and I am responsible for the lives of thousands of people.

    I have the authority to do more things than a civilian can do and people run to me when they need help.

    Do you think I should not feel a little special? :?

    But being special does not mean that I am better than anyone else.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Reston, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    From the article:

    "The policy states that law enforcement officers retain "full power and authority" to perform policing duties when not on duty, including carrying a weapon."

    I was an active duty Marine for eight years. If there's one thing they drill into your Jarhead, it's that you are a Marine 24/7. I think it's highly impractical to tell a lawman not to be a lawman when he puts blue jeans on.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    You said "Here is the difference in the LEO and the civilian....."
    LOE's ARE CIVILIANS. I THINK YOU ARE GETTING MILITARY AND LOE CONFUSED. LOE's are just civilians unless they are on active military duty. A small point but an important point.
    I meant "citizen.." Sorry if I did time in both military and LE fields and have used both words almost equally.

    It was really pointless for you to even bring up. It means nothing.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Reston, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    LOE?



    Small point...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Rey wrote:
    LOE?



    Small point...
    I think it is Law Officer Extraordinary


    Looks like we all are human and make minor errors but we all know what is being said. Well, at least some of us.... !!

    But it is so minor I did not care to really say anything.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Reston, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    I know...

    I just love editing the editor.

    To keep it on topic - When I first read the article I thought to myself, holy cow, that cop's gonna fry. I thought he was a lunatic (shooting an eight year old???). But as more comes out the whole self defense theory is sounding more and more plausible. I'm glad I did not post a knee-jerk reaction comment (ahem) until I found out more.

    You just never know. And you still don't.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    This lady sounds pretty sketchy. If she's not telling the story of what happened to the media, it's because her lawyer told her not to. If she was 100% in the right, and this cop just got angry and shot her, her lawyer wouldn't have advised against talking to the press.

    My guess is that she cut him off pretty bad and he decided to follow her into a parking lot because he thought she was drunk. When he tried to approach the vehicle to inform her that he was a police officer, she tried to run him down, so he shot at her. That's just a guess, but I'll bet you it's what happened. This kind of situation is exactly the kind of thing that the police department will want to have proof of before releasing a statement to the press. It is also the kind of thing that this woman will not want to leak to the press. She may want to lie about what happened and try to get public sympathy, but her lawyer has advised against it, because she'll just be digging herself a hole if the police can prove that the shooting was self defense.

    Again, I have no idea what happened, but that is my speculation. And this is coming from a guy that is always skeptical of the police, and has had little but bad experiences with bad cops... I'm pretty skeptical about this woman, and I think we're going to find that this was a self defense shooting.
    I tend to agree. I believe this will wind up being a self-defense shooting, but the 8 year old boy, though just a bystander, is innocent and the officer will have to answer to that. Wouldn't you or I have to answer if a stray bullet hits an innocent?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Dahwg wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    This lady sounds pretty sketchy. If she's not telling the story of what happened to the media, it's because her lawyer told her not to. If she was 100% in the right, and this cop just got angry and shot her, her lawyer wouldn't have advised against talking to the press.

    My guess is that she cut him off pretty bad and he decided to follow her into a parking lot because he thought she was drunk. When he tried to approach the vehicle to inform her that he was a police officer, she tried to run him down, so he shot at her. That's just a guess, but I'll bet you it's what happened. This kind of situation is exactly the kind of thing that the police department will want to have proof of before releasing a statement to the press. It is also the kind of thing that this woman will not want to leak to the press. She may want to lie about what happened and try to get public sympathy, but her lawyer has advised against it, because she'll just be digging herself a hole if the police can prove that the shooting was self defense.

    Again, I have no idea what happened, but that is my speculation. And this is coming from a guy that is always skeptical of the police, and has had little but bad experiences with bad cops... I'm pretty skeptical about this woman, and I think we're going to find that this was a self defense shooting.
    I tend to agree. I believe this will wind up being a self-defense shooting, but the 8 year old boy, though just a bystander, is innocent and the officer will have to answer to that. Wouldn't you or I have to answer if a stray bullet hits an innocent?
    I think under the circumstances, assuming that my example of the woman trying to run him over with the vehiclewas true, the officer couldn't be held responsible for injuring a passenger of that vehicle. I don't think you or I would be held responsible either. Fortunately, that kid is going to be OK. Imagine being that cop and finding out that you'd just shot an 8 year old! This incident has to have shaken him up quite a bit. If the charging car theory is correct, I hope that his department is merciful toward him about the innocent bystander. I hope that the kid doesn't suffer any prolonged side effects from the gunshot wound.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Dahwg wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    This lady sounds pretty sketchy. If she's not telling the story of what happened to the media, it's because her lawyer told her not to. If she was 100% in the right, and this cop just got angry and shot her, her lawyer wouldn't have advised against talking to the press.

    My guess is that she cut him off pretty bad and he decided to follow her into a parking lot because he thought she was drunk. When he tried to approach the vehicle to inform her that he was a police officer, she tried to run him down, so he shot at her. That's just a guess, but I'll bet you it's what happened. This kind of situation is exactly the kind of thing that the police department will want to have proof of before releasing a statement to the press. It is also the kind of thing that this woman will not want to leak to the press. She may want to lie about what happened and try to get public sympathy, but her lawyer has advised against it, because she'll just be digging herself a hole if the police can prove that the shooting was self defense.

    Again, I have no idea what happened, but that is my speculation. And this is coming from a guy that is always skeptical of the police, and has had little but bad experiences with bad cops... I'm pretty skeptical about this woman, and I think we're going to find that this was a self defense shooting.
    I tend to agree. I believe this will wind up being a self-defense shooting, but the 8 year old boy, though just a bystander, is innocent and the officer will have to answer to that. Wouldn't you or I have to answer if a stray bullet hits an innocent?
    I think under the circumstances, assuming that my example of the woman trying to run him over with the vehiclewas true, the officer couldn't be held responsible for injuring a passenger of that vehicle. I don't think you or I would be held responsible either. Fortunately, that kid is going to be OK. Imagine being that cop and finding out that you'd just shot an 8 year old! This incident has to have shaken him up quite a bit. If the charging car theory is correct, I hope that his department is merciful toward him about the innocent bystander. I hope that the kid doesn't suffer any prolonged side effects from the gunshot wound.
    It's still pretty stupid to be pulling someone over at night without a marked car. Why not take her tags and call it in for a uniformed officer to back you up?
    Going in to a Dark parking lot at night after an altercation on the road sounds like a violation of ALL the THREE S's to me whether you're a cop or a civilian.
    Bottom line is, he and this situation is being treated VERY differently than if the shooter was one of us.

  24. #24
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    It has been a long week. 3 S's?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    ufcfanvt wrote:
    It's still pretty stupid to be pulling someone over at night without a marked car. Why not take her tags and call it in for a uniformed officer to back you up?
    Going in to a Dark parking lot at night after an altercation on the road sounds like a violation of ALL the THREE S's to me whether you're a cop or a civilian.
    Bottom line is, he and this situation is being treated VERY differently than if the shooter was one of us.
    Duh! This is very different.

    You have someone with more authority possibly taking action under the color of law. This is a cop who has shot someone and we all know that there is a serious ass investigation ANY time a police officer uses deadly force.

    Several people get involved and go over the case with a fine tooth comb to be sure everything was done 100% proper so that nobody can come back and accuse them of wrongdoing.

    We all know this happens when the decision is not what "some" of the people demand. Next they call the FBI to investigate the department and review the case. These people are high up in the department and they do not want to lose their job over some rookie officer.

    If a citizen shoots another there is an investigation andthe citizen does not have to say a word!! The cop in this shooting is compelled to talk to IA. Maybe even have some of the details leaked to the criminal investigators.

    So this IS different.


Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •