Thats a tragic story.

One thing that allways bother me in shooting cases are, why kill?

You can use a gun to pacify a person, aim for the leg, the arm or whatever, you don't need to kill everytime, i see the same with US cops, they allways shoot to kill, even if it's a person with a knife on distance they empty the magasin in the guy...

Seems difficult to justify beating an injured man when he is down.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Seems difficult to justify beating an injured man when he is down.

And when its your child?

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by roadgravel
Seems difficult to justify beating an injured man when he is down.

And when its your child?

I would be concerned with helping my child. I don't believe I have the the right to beat the injured person over this type of incident.

I would be upset with myself for my child running into the road - a 4 year old needs supervision near a street.

Upon further research into this story the incident happened at 10pm . . . Am I the only one who finds something very wrong about a 4 year old being anywhere but home in bed at 10pm, let alone playing in traffic?

Originally posted by Mianeye
Thats a tragic story.

One thing that allways bother me in shooting cases are, why kill?

You can use a gun to pacify a person, aim for the leg, the arm or whatever, you don't need to kill everytime, i see the same with US cops, they allways shoot to kill, even if it's a person with a knife on distance they empty the magasin in the guy...

This seems to come up every time there is a shooting. You are not allowed to shoot to wound. This is because there is no guarantee that a leg shot wouldn't kill someone, or that you wouldn't miss and hit them in the chest or head.

When you decide to fire your gun, you have decided that you are ending a life.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand what it would matter if the cop was driving recklessly. Either way if he felt his life was in danger, he would be justified. You don't get to beat someone to death because they made a mistake.

Sounds like the father and cousin were more worried about beating someone up than the little girl.

Alot of "well I would have".
I agree with alot of what is said so far, when I had my kids out i was always watching like a hawk.
I still watch others kids in social situations as there are a million sickos and accidents waiting to happen.
I would like to know if the cousin was responsible, but that adds a whole new angle to the story.
There is no way to know the cops situation, how he was doing medically and if he believed the guy was gonna kill him, I don't recall reading his speed or what sort of a zone he was riding in.
We don't know if the father would have stopped when his victim was unconscious.
Too many things are could of would of should of.
This is just one of those bad things that happen and you shake your head and say,"God I hope that never happens to me".
Bad for all around.

Originally posted by Mianeye
Thats a tragic story.



You can use a gun to pacify a person, aim for the leg, the arm or whatever, you don't need to kill everytime,

How easy do you think it is to aim while you're on the ground after being in a an accident while being assaulted by two people? The man was shot in the groin, he could have very well been aiming for a leg and the man moved or the officer was hit while taking the shot.

Originally posted by Domo1
I don't understand what it would matter if the cop was driving recklessly. Either way if he felt his life was in danger, he would be justified. You don't get to beat someone to death because they made a mistake.

Sounds like the father and cousin were more worried about beating someone up than the little girl.

You don't know that.

No one knows anything, but I'm tired of hearing this little BS nugget everywhere, on all articles. How do you know he didn't check on his daughter first?

By the way, not only did he hit the child, but he also hit the 18-year old cousin who was accompanying her. So I'm also tired of hearing the BS disinfo that she was left unattended, wandering in the street alone. She wasn't.

I still need to hear more before I even entertain the idea that the cop was warranted in pulling his gun, off-duty.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by roadgravel
Seems difficult to justify beating an injured man when he is down.

And when its your child?

It should also be noted that when faced with the choice of helping his injured daughter or attacking an injured man, he chose to ignore his injured daughter.

Originally posted by captainpudding
It should also be noted that when faced with the choice of helping his injured daughter or attacking an injured man, he chose to ignore his injured daughter.

Complete BS.

Nowhere does it say this, you're literally pulling this out of nowhere. You just blindly assume because the story doesn't tell you otherwise, that he ignored his daughter.

Originally posted by SyphonX
Honestly, people are starting to say that the father just "went ballistic" and attacked the cop for no reason. Call me crazy, but it takes a little more than "an accident" for someone to randomly run up to a cop and start attacking him. Not only that, but supposedly a family member jumped in as well?

You apparently haven't had children, and there's likely no way the father had any indication the guy was a cop ... just some dude that hit and injured his 4 year old daughter.

Dad went overboard, in this case, when his efforts would have been better served by attempting to help / aide his daughter ... or, Perhaps even, having had a better eye out on her in the first place - 10 o'Clock at night. (?)

Definitely more to this. I wouldn't doubt it if the cop was being completely reckless.

^^ whole lotta skirt / slip showing, there.^^

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by captainpudding
It should also be noted that when faced with the choice of helping his injured daughter or attacking an injured man, he chose to ignore his injured daughter.

Complete BS.

Nowhere does it say this, you're literally pulling this out of nowhere. You just blindly assume because the story doesn't tell you otherwise, that he ignored his daughter.

edit on 14-8-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

Well, obviously his daughter was just in an accident and his first priority was not to get his child to a hospital.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
You apparently haven't had children, and there's likely no way the father had any indication the guy was a cop ... just some dude that hit and injured his 4 year old daughter.

Dad went overboard, in this case, when his efforts would have been better served by attempting to help / aide his daughter ... or, Perhaps even, having had a better eye out on her in the first place - 10 o'Clock at night. (?)

I don't even know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but I'll say it again.

Prove to me he didn't tend to his daughter first? Prove it.

Second, she was not left alone, she was with an 18-year old cousin, WHO WAS ALSO HIT. This starts to bring up a few more questions for me, personally. I'm leaning towards the cop being reckless considering he hit not only the child, but the cousin as well.

Was the father justified in "beating an injured man", no probably not. But I don't know what transpired during this altercation. Maybe the cop had some choice words after the accident that escalated the situation? Who knows.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
^^ whole lotta skirt / slip showing, there.^^

I'm not skirting anything, you're welcome to challenge anything I say.

If you feel you have to fall back on insults about me "not having children" and other BS, then you can keep it to yourself.

Taniyah Middleton and her 18-year-old cousin were crossing First Avenue at the same time an unnamed off-duty officer was riding his motorcycle on that road. Approaching the pair, the officer allegedly did not see them until it was too late, and in an effort to avoid them, jumped off his motorcycle. The motorcycle then skidded into the little girl.

People keep trying to bring up this paradigm that the girl was alone and darting into the street unattended, in some disturbing trend to claim the dead father was a "bad father". Wrong. She was with her 18 year old cousin who was also crossing the street with her.

It also states the father came out of his home, which means they were on a residential street. This tells me the cop was going too fast if both the child and the 18 year old didn't see him in time, and that he actually had to skid/ditch his motorcyle to "avoid them". If this really was just a residential "avenue", then that's the way I see it.