We don't know what caused the accident, but he stopped and tried to HELP the children. He wasn't running away. If he was at fault for the accident we have courts for that.
The father lost control and started beating on the guy. His cousin came in and helped as well. If there is ever a case for self defence this is one. You're outnumbered by 2 people, on the ground getting your *** kicked and you're about to pass out.
Its a tragic situation but you have to seperate the emotion from the facts, this im afraid a lot of people cannot do. And why i'd never want to be judged by my "peers"
1) We need to determine what caused the accident. If it is determined that the cop was speeding, acted recklessly, endanged the public, this would inform the FATHER's legitimacy to react. The FATHER may have believed his daughter's life to be in danger. Barring that, some consideration should be given to the FATHER's state of mind. Sure he may have flipped out, but his emoitional state given the circumstances must be established. If it was some unreasonable bath-salts-like freak out, then perhaps the cop had legitimate reason to fear for his life for a mere smack down. Overblowing a thumping into a potential killing is absurd. By that stretch, anyone, for whatever reason in a first fight who starts to lose has grounds to pull a gun and open fire on the other. That's truly absurd to believe cop who says he was about to pass out...so what diabetics get to unload a clip too! If anything, more often then not, beatings end when someone passes out, or when the victim takes their lumps and submits! A beating is not enough to fear death! The COP has now to defend why this particular beating led him to REASONABLY believe he feared for his life...not that "stampede" logic of the Yanks!
2) When the cop pulled the gun, with his "centre of mass" training, he made a desicion to kill at that point. He must prove this was not excessive. In self defense of a punch up the "go to" response is not deciding to kill! If he had decides to use a bat to gain an advantage and the result was death, that is different...he had no intention to kill, just defend and or dominate...but the result, in order to do so was death. That is unintentional manslaughter, or perhaps legitimate self defense. When the cops tazed the Pole in BC, they didn't intend to kill him, but it happened as a result. Noone thought killing him was the only answer to subduing him or nuetralising the threat. But this COP in this case went straight to killing, intentionally as some of you point out due to his training. It is very much like a trained martial artist in a fight, if they use their training, which potentially kills, then they face more severe charges, weapons charges, for they have a responsibility to act MORE prudently than Joe Blow public.
3) The result of this case is an injured kid, a dead father, and a cop with a dislocated shoulder and broken ankle which was self inflicted. Some of you sound like psychos when you spout off that you would do the same as the cop...fact is, most of you would act like the FATHER! If you some tool slide their bike into your kid, how in the hell would you keep it together? Sure the kid broke away from supersivision, this HAPPENS! That's why at school zones it is factored into LAW! KIDS break away aaaaaaaaaall the time. We are constantly told in road safety training to be ware of balls and kids darting out in residential areas! This is what kids do!
4) I am shocked at the lack of information on the cops driving and conditions. To me this seems like a cover up. If this were an average biker story in the press, they would already be blaming the rider for reckless driving or saying "speed was a factor". There is 100% no reason the cop should have "laid the bike down". And presenting it this way is an attemp to make a hero out of this tool.
5) Let me put another scenario forward...
a biker (Joe Public) is driving above the speed limit, above the ability to respond to the road conditions at 10pm on a summer night along lakeshore. A child runs onto the road. The rider (given all the lanes of traffic) loses control of the vehicle and strikes the child. The biker then hobbles over to the child (having inflicted injuries upon himself). The father comes over after witnessing the reckless endangerment of his child, and after seeing the biker attempt to possible move his child (which could add further injury, could aggrivate any injury caused to the child, could paralize the child) proceeds to beat the biker. Another person at the scene joins in to beat the biker, the extent of which is not determined, whether it be light, mild, or extremely severe, none of which is known. Biker is also in safety gear, and a full grown man, with minor injuries to perifieral body parts. Biker has also displayed a level of fitness and acuity in being clearly able to walk over to the child previously. Said biker, then draws a lethal weapon (who it turns out is trained to use said weapon) and fires centre of mass into the FATHER, killing the father instantly. Now.....defend that scenario.
