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

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

You cannot be serious. Yes there was a traffic accident that injured a child. The motorcyclist tried to avoid the accident. Child and motorcyclist were injured. Motorcyclist aids child... Childs father attacks motorcyclist. Motorcyclist declares he is Law Enforcement. More join in to assualt the now known Police Officer. Officer fearing his life draws weapon and discharges a round into the mans groin.

That is the scenario without spin. The situation could have been avoided by tending to the child. The situation could have been avoided by not continuing an assualt on a man stating to be a police officer.

I'm glad people like you arent cops. As you apparently would be judge jury and executioner. An ill informed one at that

Apologies if it is sarcam... I really can't tell

edit on 15-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)

How could I not be serious. I'm astounded that anyone can think differently. The Cop was off duty, therefore he was just a normal guy with no jurisdiction and had no right to falsely identify himself as a cop or even think about drawing his gun. At this point, he's just a regular Joe. The MOST he should have said was, " I'm an off duty cop, let me call for help, or I'll make sure the best help gets here quickly." He should have understood why the father was distraught and acted accordingly. he did not. He used his god complex to pull rank and drew his gun, something that should have never entered a sane persons mind, and murdered the father - of the little girl he just hit! How cold heartless and uncaring not to mention Stupid could anyone be? This it the Tops. He gets my Darwin award.. because his stupidity will kill him one day.. mark my words.. and good riddens.

There are many people like me who are cops. There are many more people still alive too because we are.

I see the tone people have toward my earlier post and I am sick to see the amount of people who clearly cannot see how reasonable and sane my comments were. This is an indication that this whole world has gone to hell in a hand basket. I really feel for you people.. God help us all.

reply to post by swoopaloop


Let it be said the 18 year old who, at the time of the accident, was in charge of the childs safety. If i were the father of them both I would have beaten my 18 year old for crossing a street with my 4 year old.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Actually law enforcement are never truly "off duty". An off duty officer who witnesses a crime is required to intervene. Some jurisdictions even require off duty officers to carry.

Also if you believe assualting an injured man providing first aid to an injured child is acceptable it would seem you are projecting your hatred of yourself onto this situation. As you would "drag him through the streets"

Oh yeah his god complex... Pulling rank... You werent there the only thing that can be said is an accident occured and instead of focusing on the priority 2 men assualted another man who had just been in an accident. I absolutely believe that officer felt his life was in danger

reply to post by insaan


Warning shot? You make it sound like this guy had distance between him and the father. He didn't and was actively being beat.

Besides, LEO's do not fire warning shots as they have no idea where that bullet will go. What if he fired a warning shot and killed someone on their front porch three blocks down the road.

Then you be screaming for his head on a platter for wanton murder.

He did shoot to wound however the bullet hit the femoral artery and the father bled out.

There is no justice in this story for anyone involved. It's just a sad state of affairs all around.

I have a hot temper when it comes to my kids. However I would not do what this man did even in the same circumstances. I think the off duty cop is justified even if he was speeding driving recklessly.

If the cop had hit the girls intentionally, then it would be a different story but it appears that is not the case.

reply to post by WeRpeons

It's unfortunate the police officer couldn't stop in time, but I question why the officer had to use lethal force on the panic stricken father.

The officer was injured when he laid the bike down. He was attempting to help the little girl when he was blind-sided by the angry father, and by the time he used lethal force, he was being pummeled by 3 adults (the father, 18 year old cousin, and it didn't mention who the third was, but it said 3).

It also doesn't mention him firing more than once. I'm assuming from the article he only fired one shot to get the guy off of him, and it was unfortunately a fatal shot.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
I have a hot temper when it comes to my kids. However I would not do what this man did even in the same circumstances. I think the off duty cop is justified even if he was speeding driving recklessly.

If the cop had hit the girls intentionally, then it would be a different story but it appears that is not the case.

Exactly.

If the cop was driving erratically, or hit her on the sidewalk instead of in the road, and if the girl was already being treated by qualified people, and if the cop was attempting to flee the scene or hide evidence, then maybe my temper would take over and I would attack him, but anything less than that and this father's actions make no sense at all.

I am sick to see the amount of people who clearly cannot see how reasonable and sane my comments were.

What? Clearly there are many here who do not let hatred dictate their responses, instead they read the article and thought about it on a rational level rather than a emotional level. It's called using your grey matter.

How cold heartless and uncaring not to mention Stupid could anyone be? This it the Tops. He gets my Darwin award.. because his stupidity will kill him one day.. mark my words.. and good riddens.

You'ra talking about the father right? I mean if it were my little girl, I would tend to her first, but no, he let his emotions get the better of him and is now in line for the Darwin award...as you put it.

The MOST he should have said was, " I'm an off duty cop, let me call for help, or I'll make sure the best help gets here quickly."

Because that is what you would have done, right? After a accident, people are all flustered even if they are not hurt. Combine injuries and things get real discombobulated. And he LEO did identify himself as a cop, since technically, cops are on duty 24/7. That has been proven in the courts.

This is an indication that this whole world has gone to hell in a hand basket. I really feel for you people.. God help us all.

Oddly enough...I feel the same way, but just the opposite stance.

The ChicagoTribune article states the 18 yo cousin ran into the street after her. I doesn't sound like they were crossing the street but if they were going to cross that might explain why the little girl ran out. There doesn't seem to be any statement from the cousin at that time.

reply to post by TDawgRex

Warning shot? You make it sound like this guy had distance between him and the father. He didn't and was actively being beat.

And you make it sound like they were hugging on the ground when the cop pulled out his gun. Why shoot his leg? Why not shoot the ground?

Originally posted by lonewolf10
www.cafemom.com... ent=0

UNBELIEVABLE!
why are cops so quick to start blasting away at everyone?

he must have been driving too fast or recklessly to piss the father off like that.
now he's dead, probably killed right in front of his children.

Bull$h*t.

Did the OP even read this? The girl darted onto the road at 10pm at night. Wtf? Good parenting skills! The officer, in a desperate attempt to not hit her ditched the bike, injuring himself in the process. Still, he went to help the poor girl. The father, in a fit of rage attacks the officer with the help of a cousin, beating him almost into unconciousness before he opened fire to save his own life.

My biggest worry in this situation is the poor girl had to witness the death of her father. But the blame here lies 100% upon her father.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

A real man would have backed off and not escalated the fight, even if it meant taking a few blows from an enraged father.

Cops are taught to escalate to the point that they are justified in using a hammer.

If you use words they'll use tasers. If you step forward they'll use guns. If you use a gun they'll send in a paramilitary squad to murder your family.

As long as that brave officer gets home safe. God bless him.

That point makes absolutely no sense.

So, its a policemans officer to escalate any confrontation as quick as possible to make it as dangerous as possible, with the ultimate goal of getting the officer home safe and sound? Huh?

Do you not think it is more safe for an officer to simply ticket a speeder and then move on, rather than to provoke said speeder to argue, then fight, then attempt to kill the officer? Preposterous.

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

Originally posted by insaan
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Warning shot? You make it sound like this guy had distance between him and the father. He didn't and was actively being beat.

And you make it sound like they were hugging on the ground when the cop pulled out his gun. Why shoot his leg? Why not shoot the ground?

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.

reply to post by iforget

when cops start beating on someone if that someone shot them that person would go away for murder.even if he was getting his ass kicked they shouldnt be aloud to kill someone.if we cant do it they should br able to do it

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.

reply to post by bad2bone


Actually you can. If you reasonably believe your life is in danger you have the right to defend yourself with force, including lethal force. Yes you probably will be detained and there probably will be a trial. But this officer now has to explain to a panel of IA guys (note they are not a jury of his peers). Why a round left his gun and why a man is dead because of it. An officer not only can lose his career but also can be sent to prison if his first meeting with IA doesn't go well

Originally posted by bad2bone
reply to post by iforget

 

when cops start beating on someone if that someone shot them that person would go away for murder.even if he was getting his ass kicked they shouldnt be aloud to kill someone.if we cant do it they should br able to do it

Stop thinking emotionally and start thinking rationally or as some call it, critically.

Let's say it was the father who accidently hit the cops little girl and he started giving aid while injured, and then the cop runs out and starts beating him along with two to three others. He pulls his legally aquired firearm and shoots the cop in the leg, unfortunately killing him.

If the roles were reversed, would you spring to the fathers defense?

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

The mere fact that he tried to avoid hitting the girl, only to have to ditch the bike in the process, would seem to demonstrate that he did everything in his power to avoid striking her in the first place. (?)

Sometimes an Accident is just that - An Accident.

I'm an HGV driver. Also been riding bikes for 40 years. Never hit anything yet. Its all about speed and stopping distance.
If something runs infront of me can I slow down in time? No? then I'm going too fast!!

If you're out riding and doing the speed limit of say, 25 mph, and someone walks out right in front of you from a blind spot you are not going to be able to just stop on a dime. I couldn't do that on a bicycle. If they happen to be 3 feet in front of me.

Originally posted by insaan
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Why shoot his leg? Why not shoot the ground?

Every one of your posts leads me to believe that the only gun you've ever seen has been on tv/movie. Bullets don't just magically disappear once they're fired as warning shots. You fire a bullet into the air, gravity takes over and it comes back down, does it land harmlessly in a shrub or through someone's head? Shot at the ground with at least 3 people near you (probably more, accidents tend to attract crowds), one of whom is a child? Unless you're on a dirt road there's a very high chance of a ricochet or fragmentation. Hell, for all we know he did fire into the ground and it ricocheted into the man's leg/groin? You keep mentioning how he sould have easily been able to fire a warning shot, tell me how easily do you think in a situation where you've just been in an accident and were on the ground being beaten by two people would someone be able to fire a warning shot?

Originally posted by insaan
How can a little girl dart out of nowhere in front of a motorbike? If it was a big SUV then I would understand, but a bike?

This comment just hurts my brain. What kind of logic are you using where a kid can run in front of an suv but not a motorcycle? Is there some kind of forcefield around motorcycles that a kid would bounce off of? This makes so little sense I don't think anyone but you understands it.