Off duty cop in alleged road rage shooting

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

FzSBLACKMAGICK wrote:

I did not read this whole thread and so I do not know if anyone mentioned it, but imagine as a CCW holder, you see a guy shooting at a women and her 8 yr. old son in a parking lot...

What would be the first thing you do?

I can only speak for myself, but suffice it to say, there would be one less LEO around.

Imagine your horror thinking you've saved someone's life from a BG, and lo and behold, you've just killed a cop.

How the hell are we supposed to know it's an off duty cop doing this???

Scary chit.

Thanks for bringing this back on topic..

This is a excellent question because you only get a nano-second to decide... civilian shooting at two other civilians. Is it the husband trying to kill his ex-wife?

Unfortunately, there have been off duty LEOs that have been shot by LEOs. I know of at least two in DC alone.

Taking legal action while off duty can get you shot by someone who has no clue what is going on.

You as someone that is armed must quickly decide.

You know what...? Now you are in the same shoes as a cop is every day! You do not have time to sit back and decide for a few hours and collaborate with people on line behind a computer screen after knowing all the details.

If you do shoot.... you would be killing an undercover cop! If you do not shoot... you let the jilted ex-husband kill his wife!

So let's say you just shoot!! You walk over and then you see a badge around the guys neck you could not see from the angle you were at. :uhoh:

What do you do now? Run home and get on the computer and collaborate with others on what you will do now?

The carrying of a firearm is a huge responsibility. Be sure you know what is going on before you jump in.

"The carrying of a firearm is a huge responsibility. Be sure you know what is going on before you jump in. "

This is VERY important as a CFPermit holder, even as a NON-Permit holder alike. I usually tell people that asks me "Do you carry that thing just for fun?" I just look at them and say. -"Even IF I have the unfortunate opportunity to use my firearm in aJUSTIFIED (Good Shoot)situation I will more than like be cuffed, hauled away and I just lost about $40,000 - $50,000 to have an attorney to help me out. Do I carry it for fun ? I don't think so. I believe that YOU are important enough to protect and I am willing to take that risk." At this point they usually don't have that grin on their face when they asked the 1st question.


LEO 229, eventhough we have a difference in opinion at times...this we do both agree at. To quote one of my favorite movies. Peter Parkers Grandfather says -"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"

We always have to remember that our $.40 round can cost us $40,000:uhoh:- to life. Use it wisely.

Just my .40

TJ

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

That is so true....

Let me add this...

A cop is givenadditional protections and understanding while acting under police powers and some people do not understand how a cop can "get off." Had a civilian done the same thing they would be charged.

I can say that most cops if not all do NOT want to shoot orkill people. This is a big headache and very stressful wondering if you still have a job afterward. Sure, paid vacation but can you imagine the sleepless nights and the stress while you wait to here if you will be prosecuted or not??!!

But if the police did not have an extended level of protectionor backing by the department and attorneys... who is going to really want to take a risk for the people? I wouldwant to sit in my car and wait till all the shooting is done so that I did not have a chance at making a mistake.

Cops are expected to go in and take action! They do the best they can with what little information they have. Sometimes cops do not get to sit back and compute possible outcomes when they have to make a split second decision.

They have to act on what they know and sometimes they are wrong.

No human is so perfect that they can be tossed into an unknown situation knowing very little about the event and be expected to correctly achieve the desired outcome by someone else.

If you think you can.... I would love to see you on a shoot/don't shoot scenarios. I have done several and I am excellent.....but I too had made mistakes and killed the wrong people.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

marine dad wrote:

"He paints all LEOs with broad "bad apple" brush strokes. :lol:"
you sir, are a damn liar. please provide ANY evidence that i have EVER done the above, or admit you are a police apologists moron

Marine dad, I hate to tell you this, but that is how you come off to me too, just as a regular member sitting here reading your posts. Not in any way intending to flame you. Just letting you know that at least one non-LEO affiliated member does have that perception as well. I quickly recalled many of the posts Nitrovic and LEO228 posted, most of which made me cringe or shake my head. It appears from your comment that is not your intent which is the ONLY reason I am commenting. Now to get back OT ....

I'm sort of disappointed to see some of the blatant speculation and non-sequitor leaps in this thread. Even if the LEO White acted with malice or the PD is covering for him, it is no more an indictment of all LEOs than the instances where an OC or CC citizen got overly aggressive and pulled the trigger indicts any of the rest of us.

Instead of squabbling about a shooting in Chicago, for which there is already another thread, why not look for updates on this story. Like maybe the discovery of a video tape that shows some part of the incident (but brings up more questions and is superficially damning to White):

April 5 (nearby gas station has video of part of the incident - still no definite answers though)

April 6 (another op-ed from the North County Times - they are losing patience)

"Some have blasted critics of this silence for their impatience.

We stand, though, with the impatient ones; the ones who wonder:

-- Why their police department seems to be sheltering a fellow police officer;

-- Why lethal force was used in this matter;

-- Why their protectors seem to shrug off the notion that nothing's amiss when an out-of-town cop starts shooting up cars on their turf;

-- Why Oceanside police seem to be willing to tarnish the years of trust they have built with them.

There's an old saying about public perception becoming the reality. There's another old saying about when things look, walk and quack like ducks.

This silence is not helping public perceptions. And this incident is beginning to look like a duck."

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

What we have here is one department investigating the actions of an officer from ANOTHER department.

In that... I highly doubt they are so willing to just cover it up or gloss it over. They are going to do the best investigation they can and not assume anything till they have all the facts.

I want everyone to do this one thing.... read the comments that have been left by the people. See how most are out for blood and they do not even have all the facts.

All they know is a off duty cop shot at a mom and her son for no reason.

All anyone knows at the moment is that this started from the driving behavior of one of the drivers. I have no idea who was driving badly.

I submit that he was not shooting at the mom and the child. I think he was shooting at the vehicle driverand hit the occupant too. He would have to be either a rotten shot or the best marksman in the world to shoot the way he did.

Police are trained to shoot center mass but he hit an arm and a knee!! Those are hard targets to hit on purpose. Cops do not shoot to wound!!

And who in the world is going to purposefully shoot at a 8 year old child?? Honestly!!! :?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

:question:Why their police department seems to be sheltering a fellow police officer;

How are they sheltering him?

:question:Why lethal force was used in this matter;

Good question. But in what manner? We do not know what the citizen was doing at the time the shots were fired.

:question:Why their protectors seem to shrug off the notion that nothing's amiss when an out-of-town cop starts shooting up cars on their turf;

Who says theylike the idea of outside cops shooting at cars.

:question:Why Oceanside police seem to be willing to tarnish the years of trust they have built with them.

How are they tarnishing anything? They are conducting an complete investigation and only after they have finished and provided their decision can you say they have tarnished anything.



This is all called a "Knee Jerk Reaction" to what someone does not fully understand.

We sure hate it when cops do it.... right?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

A cop is givenadditional protections and understanding while acting under police powers and some people do not understand how a cop can "get off." Had a civilian done the same thing they would be charged.

QFT

I can say that most cops if not all do NOT want to shoot orkill people. This is a big headache and very stressful wondering if you still have a job afterward. Sure, paid vacation but can you imagine the sleepless nights and the stress while you wait to here if you will be prosecuted or not??!!

But if the police did not have an extended level of protectionor backing by the department and attorneys... who is going to really want to take a risk for the people? I wouldwant to sit in my car and wait till all the shooting is done so that I did not have a chance at making a mistake.

Cops are expected to go in and take action! They do the best they can with what little information they have. Sometimes cops do not get to sit back and compute possible outcomes when they have to make a split second decision.

They have to act on what they know and sometimes they are wrong.

No human is so perfect that they can be tossed into an unknown situation knowing very little about the event and be expected to correctly achieve the desired outcome by someone else.

If you think you can.... I would love to see you on a shoot/don't shoot scenarios. I have done several and I am excellent.....but I too had made mistakes and killed the wrong people.

You make some good points. Under the law and customs of our society, police officers are expected to take action, while the private citizen is expected to act only in self-defense. (This is related to the "moral obligation" thread, BTW)

Some of us think this has been taken too far, though. It's almost as if the law, and those who execute it, actually want to force private citizens to act like cowards, lest they spend time in jail, get a felony record, get the pants sued off them, or all of the above. At the same time, police officers are seen to be given too much latitude, especially when not in uniform or off duty.

The above post about what you would do if you came across this scene and didn't know the guy was a cop is a good thought exercise, and the answer depends partly on whether you yourself are a cop or not. Had a private citizen shot this cop, it's quite probable that elements of the justice system would spare no expense to see him burn.

That's a pretty strong incentive to not get involved.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 - you left out:

"We stand, though, with the impatient ones; the ones who wonder:" which is the precursor to the questions. At least they owned up to being impatient.

These are questions that many on this forum have asked in various ways to varying degrees. I think they are valid questions which may be easily and fully answered when the results of the investigation and the 911 tapes are finally released. I wouldn't say this is a case of knee-jerking as much as a case of perception. Most of the great conspiracy theories has arisen not from fact, but rather perception of a less than transparent investigative process. There may be very good reasons for the tight-lipped position of the authorities, but when the results are released, that position is going to need to be justified. Also, I can well see the consternation of the local citizens as to the length of the investigation. It seems to be inordinately long to make a preliminary finding of fact as to the events and actions of 4 citizens in a public place.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

A cop is givenadditional protections and understanding while acting under police powers and some people do not understand how a cop can "get off." Had a civilian done the same thing they would be charged.

QFT

...snipped

You would have to check the case law as I do not have it handy. It is what I recall from my training.My apologies for not spending a few hours to go find it.

I can give you one example I have handy... It deals with being sued as many cops are when they shoot someone and is being done in this case.

It would be unlikely that the officer would be charged criminally if what he did was proper and necessary in a split second decision but we know that anyone can sue everyone!


§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

snipped...... It seems to be inordinately long to make a preliminary finding of fact as to the events and actions of 4 citizens in a public place.

I think that what is delaying the investigation is that the lady will not talk to the police about what happened.

How do they know what to follow up on if they only have one side of the story.

If I am a victim.... and I also call 911... Why would I not give my side of the story to the police? I find this rather interesting.

I look forward to hearing both sides, eventually.

 

[FzSBLACKMAGICK]

imported post

She must of at the very least given a statement to her lawyers, especially if she intends to sue. I would imagine that through her lawyers the police dept. can continue the investigation. I can't imagine the lawyers witholding the information, but I'm no lawyer...maybe they would until it gets to court?

Again I'm no lawyer but it would seem right and proper that unless she rammed his vehicle with hers and/or brandished a weapon, he had no right to shoot.
It is entirely possible he became heated in road rage and went over the top.

Just as the scene I put forth earlier where a legally armed civilian most likely would have shot at the off duty officer, this woman had she had a weapon on her would have (it seems on the surface anyway) to be well within her rights to fire upon this driver if the off duty LEO fired first.

If it were I, rather than risk a shootout involving two moving? vehicles, (especially if my child were in the car) I would engage the full capacity of my LS1 engine with custom tune and Borla exhaust and high-tailed it on outta there, while dialing 911

This is a fascinating case, and thank God no one was killed.

At the very least itmakes you think.

Will be following this one closely.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I am sure her lawyer would get her side and then tell her to say nothing.

A lawyer will always tell you to keep your mouth shut and let him do the talking.

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway? EDIT: [This is in regards to this event..... She is supposed to be the victim]

Seems odd she got one so fast. You do not need one that quickly if you plan to sue someone.

Sure makes me wonder what her side is.

We shall see what gets released.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

FzSBLACKMAGICK wrote:

...Imagine your horror thinking you've saved someone's life from a BG, and lo and behold, you've just killed a cop...

Perhaps you've done both

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

-1

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

You're being facetious, right? Please tell me that was tongue in cheek!

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

-1

minusmore than that

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

You're being facetious, right? Please tell me that was tongue in cheek!

Just saying.. I have not yet meet a victim that ran out to get an attorney before reporting an attack on themto the police.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

That goes for cops too, RIGHT...?

Why don't you ask the Duke Lacrosse team?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

That goes for cops too, RIGHT...?

Why don't you ask the Duke Lacrosse team?

Not wanting to go off topic.....

The Duke Lacrosse team were victims of something and later arrested for statements they made as victims???

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And if you are not guilty of anything... why do you need a lawyer anyway?

That goes for cops too, RIGHT...?

Why don't you ask the Duke Lacrosse team?

Not wanting to go off topic.....

The Duke Lacrosse team were victims of something and later arrested for statements they made as victims???

Of what were they guilty?

If NOTHING, why did they need lawyers?

What would have happened to them had they NOT had lawyers?

Other people read what you write; do you?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

Of what were they guilty?

If NOTHING, why did they need lawyers?

What would have happened to them had they NOT had lawyers?

Other people read what you write; do you?

Sorry, you have lost me....

I am attempting to solicit more information on a Duke Lacrosse team that were victims and needed lawyers.

Maybe the problem is that you are not keeping up with the conversation... you must have missed this one....

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=9579&forum_id=4&jump_to=154247#p154247


Obviously those that are charged with a crime should get a lawyer.I am talking about victims that seem to need one recently.