Off-Duty Cop Crashes Motorcycle Into Little Girl Then Kills Her Enraged Dad!

reply to post by Trappenin


Who's to say he was driving reckless? Who's to say he was speeding? Do you know the speed limit on the road he was on?
Kids just RUN in the middle of the street, heedless of traffic. I know, I was a kid and did it myself. My son did it til I yanked his butt back and scolded him.
NONE of us were there, none of us know what really happened, but the LEO didn't shoot to kill, he shot te guy lower then center mass, possibly hoping to disable the guy.

Originally posted by Trappenin
If there really was no way to avoid the little girl, then take your punishment like a man.

And what you fail to understand is accidents happen.

If you are driving your car home and someone jumps in front of you, you do NOT deserve a beating for it. Your logic is absurd.

And what you fail to address is, this wasnt a simple beating. There were at least two people beating a man who was injured by an accident into unconciousness, and possibly death.

Originally posted by Trappenin
# happens, and you pay for quick decisions. Unless your a cop. Then you can shoot whoever, kill whoever, take down whoever, and it's all ok because of that shiny badge and the mindstate some cops have.

Cop should be charged with at least reckless driving, and manslaughter. At the very least.

No idea why you think he was driving recklessly, there is no indication whatsoever of that in the article. What we CAN gleen from the article however is that a VERY young child was wandering around at a late hour. Any responsible parent would have had her in bed at that time, or in the very least been looking after her.

reply to post by Trappenin


Read past the first page... You are missing extremely valuable information. And Off duty personel have to inform that they are Law Enforcement.

have you ever watched a little banny hen protect her chicks from preditors three and six times her size??? This is how some parents are with their children and it can be a total reflex, to me there is no right and no wrong in this story...Its a classic horrific accident all the way around...

Originally posted by Trappenin


The fact is, the cop should have been paying attention.

He did, that's why he was able to take evasive action which could have very well saved the child's life

It's impossible to know what actually happened unless you witnessed it, but there is no need to be driving a bike so fast you can't react to something jumping out in the road. That's reckless.

You say it's impossible to know what happened yet you say he was driving fast and recklessly with zero evidence of such (the current evidence leans heavily to him being attentive and following the speed limit), unless you're claiming you were there, you are quite the hypocrite.

Originally posted by Trappenin

What kind of example is this going to send to kids who see this story? That it's ok to shoot someone because they are beating you up? In some cases, yes, a gun might be necessary if you're about to die, but you don't shoot an unarmed man with a gun because you feel like your life is in danger.

It's a tough situation but in what world would you just allow yourself to be murdered when you have the means to stop it? You totally contradict yourself by saying a gun might be necessary if you're about to die but literally in the same sentence go on to say you shouldn't use a gun if someone is trying to kill you. MAKE UP YOUR MIND

TL;DR The man should have taken the beating like a man. He jumped off of his bike instead of turning his handlebars to avoid. Hitting a parked car versus jumping off your bike and letting it hit a little kid? Horrible decision.

Ok, now you're just flat out LYING. The article (which i'm willing to bet you have not read) clearly states he intentionally laid down the bike to avoid hitting the child, and not jumped off and let it keep going. Now I know you've clearly never been on a motorcycle so I'll explain it to you. There is no way, whatsoever, that he could have laid down this bike without turning the handlebars as hard as physically possible.

If there really was no way to avoid the little girl, then take your punishment like a man.

So, you're telling me, that if someone is in an accident (that is no fault of their own, mind you) after doing everything in their power to avoid it, you are within your right to murder or at least attempt to murder this person for causing slight injuries to your child? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

I believe that pulling a gun and shooting the man, especially if unarmed, is excessive. Especially considering that he did just hit the mans little girl. If I were to be in this situation it would more than likely be life in prison or death sentence. Why is it okay for the police officer? Does he have some sort of immunity? This is a very bad situation and while the man shouldn't have assaulted the officer, think about how you would feel if someone had just hit your daughter.

But it might teach everyone a lesson about using fists instead of the law.

LOL sad how they tell us not to use violence when the Police are clearly the trained ones with guns and trained to use force.

So in other words what this article is trying to say is "See what happens when you mess with us Cops"
"Next time, accident or not, you better think twice before trying to be a hero"

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
It looks as if the 18-yr old cousin was probably in charge of the little girl, being she was the one who also ran after the girl into the street.

The cop should have never pulled a gun in this circumstance. He couldn't defend himself without resorting to lethal force? Everyone is so quick to pull a gun out for any reason. A real man would have backed off and not escalated the fight, even if it meant taking a few blows from an enraged father.

He was already injured and trying to defend himself from being possibly beaten to death by two assailants. I'd like to see you just roll over and take it under those conditions.

/TOA

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by insaan

 

Do you really believe a barely conscious man being attacked by at least 2 possibly 3 men is going to shoot at the ground? Your point is mind boggling

Barely conscious? Once again, the barely conscious part comes in to play, if he was barely conscious how did he pull his gun and aim right at the dad's leg? I would love you to explain your gibberish to the child who lost her dad. She will have to live with the police's murderous action, as I said before, these idiots are trained to shoot first and then ask question after the person has died. Now the dad is not here to give his side of the story.

Once again, you didn't explain why he didn't shoot at the ground, instead you claim it would be idiotic to do so. Why? Did the attackers have guns?

Originally posted by TDawgRex



Bullets ricochet don't they?

Then who knows where it is going. Plenty of people have been killed or wounded by ricochets’.

They don’t always bury themselves in the ground.

Hollywood may have you believe otherwise, but I know enough that if I were to draw my firearm, I want to know where the bullet I fire is going.

I believe that the cop in question thought much the same but unfortunately the bullet hit an artery. He shot the guy in the leg, hoping to wound, not kill.

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So a barely conscious man was conscious enough to think about bullet ricochet? and I probably have more experience with guns than you do, it all depends on the angle of the gun, I have fire a gun towards the ground and air, I have been to target practice etc.. I know exactly how a bullet behaves, but you on the other hand probably have watched too many American cop shows.

And as I said before, if the cop was barely conscious than how did he pull his gun and aim right at the dad's leg? If he was that conscious, he could have aimed in countless different direction for warning shot, I bet the dad would have come to his senses after that.

Originally posted by Jake321
reply to post by insaan

 

Warning shot into the ground now? You obviously have no clue about guns at all. Besides the point that you ignore that he was probably already on the ground or at ground level. A shot into the ground depending on the angle has a good chance to ricochet. You are responsible for a bullet from the time it leaves your gun until it comes to rest. Besides you ignore that according to the source he was close to unconsciousness firing a warning shot might have been just as good as handing his gun to his assailant. A good rule to carrying a concealed gun is to never pull it unless you’re going to use it.

I'm sure I know more about guns than you do, and don't use the "probably" word when you are talking about a child's father being killed in front of her.

You're assuming that the father had the intention to kill the cop, keep making assumptions, an angry man can easily come back to his senses with a warning shot, I have seen it many times before.

reply to post by insaan


I agree with Jake, you have no business wielding a gun if you think a warning shot is appropriate in this type of situation. Either you need the gun or you don't, there is no in between. If you are holding your own and can continue the fight, and it isn't clear your life is in danger, then you don't need the gun. If it is clear your life is in danger, and you are not holding your own, and you cannot continue the fight and will likely be dead or unconscious very soon, then there is no time for a warning shot.

Warning shots are for the movies, and the Coast Guard. Life and Death situations do not allow for warning shots.

Bash cops much?

Thread title is a little misleading....

Why not just say: "Lunatic trigger happy cop intentionally runs over defenseless child and then in a moment of planned insanity guns down heart stricken father.

-or-

Injured man attacked by 2 men defends self with handgun after vehicular accident.

Love how people twist words to try and get their agenda across........

reply to post by mwood

yeah, they should have just stuck with the facts ... "Cop's decision kills one, seriously wounds child and destroys two families."

that about sums it up eh ??
one does have wonder, why the injured cop got up and attempted to attend to the child in any way, shape or form ?
he is not a first responder, not an EMT and certainly not a Dr ... he had NO business tending to her at all. Had he minded his own business, chances are everyone would still be alive.

sincerest condolences to the families of all the victims, what a senseless crime indeed.

reply to post by Honor93


How about "motorcycle accident ends in tragedy"?

reply to post by HomerinNC

sure that could work, a bit vague, but neither of us wrote it, did we ??
i too could state the obvious but equally vague.
Careless cop, kills and injures pedestrians.

then again, we could just state what is becoming more common daily news ... Cop kills.
either way, they're all correct.

ETA: personally, i'd like to know why none of the stories mentions a BAL for the officer.
no indication IF he was even tested. it was his day off or is it automatically assumed he's sober ??

perhaps he wasn't tested because firing under the influence is most definately illegal.

reply to post by Honor93


A BAL is taken whenever a accident victim is taken to the hospital. They want to make sure that there is no adverse drug reaction. Since it was not mentioned, he probably was clean.

It may not have been his day off either, maybe his shift had just ended.

This probably would have been a non-story if it was a grocer, handyman, whathave you, involved in the accident and had a CCW permit.

Given that we don't know totally what happened here. And we should be used to false news being reported all the time.

But, if the situation was indeed that he tried to avoid the child and injured himself ditching the bike and then was attacked by the father and another family member, who may not have realized he was an off duty police officer, then I have to say, what actually killed the father was his violent temper.

What man would leave his injured daughter to physically attack someone who had tried to swerve and was trying to assist her as well? I understand fear and upset/trauma/shock causing some reactions, perhaps it was reaction that prompted this, but he was joined and to me it seems that rage and temper was inside of him and the real issue at hand was this.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Honor93

 

A BAL is taken whenever a accident victim is taken to the hospital. They want to make sure that there is no adverse drug reaction. Since it was not mentioned, he probably was clean.

It may not have been his day off either, maybe his shift had just ended.

This probably would have been a non-story if it was a grocer, handyman, whathave you, involved in the accident and had a CCW permit.

off-duty or day off, what does it matter ??
plenty of cops leave the shop and go straight to a watering hole, that's nothing new.

according to the article in the OP ...

Saturday night, an off-duty police officer

so, it's been what, 5 days later, and there is no mention of a BAL being done or the results ??
if it was clean, why not publish that fact ?? why keep ppl guessing ??
i smell a cover-up.

(good luck finding any published BALs for LEOs ... regardless the situation)

also, from the original story ...

But it does make you wonder if this all could have been avoided if the father had called police rather than begun lashing out physically

no, it actually makes me wonder ... why didn't the officer CALL it in rather attempt to handle the wounded child ?

as for your last sentence, yeah, sure, right ... Zimmerman/Martin really emphasizes your point