Cop crashes bike into 4 year old girl then shoots and kills her father

Forum Sponsor
awyala said:
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.
Click to expand...

You really are reaching and don't appear to understand the way the law applies to this situation. To your points:

1. The cause of the accident is irrelevant to the assault of the rider by two people. Who started the fight has everything to do with whether one party can claim self defense. The rider pulling a gun to defend himself was fully justified from the "facts" as we currently are discussing them. Whether he was injured or not is irrelevant. Whether he was diabetic or not was irrelevant. The only question is whether he was justifiably in fear of bodily harm or death (assuming the law is the same as in Canada, which I'm sure it is not). Two guys putting the boots to him? I like his chances if he's ever in front of a jury.

2. No, he doesn't have to prove using a gun was not excessive. The prosecutor needs to prove that use of a gun was not a reasonable level of force in the circumstances or that the rider was not justified in feeling threatened. I don't think the prosecutor has a hope in hell of proving that, based on the "facts" known at this point. By the way, he didn't make a decision to kill, he made a decision that use of a gun to defend himself, including the risk of killing his assailant was justified. I believe he was correct. I know I would have done the same thing without hesitation.

3. When bad things happen to my kids, I see to my kids. I don't go trying to beat up the person that caused them injury. Should they have suffered injury from a purposeful assault I'd apprehend the assailant with whatever force necessary. I wouldn't kick him to death on the ground. And, being a rationale human being, I'm not going to assault someone for screwing up and crashing. That's demented. I know it happens; it's one of the reasons I am against gun ownership. The people that shoot some old guy because he's a bad driver and ran into their kid are psychotic, not heroes.

4. Yeah, probably. No conspiracy though. It's what the public wants to read. "Negligent black father beats up cop" reads better than "moron off duty cop that can't ride his bike crashes into four year old".

5. A rational father in your scenario would attempt to pull the rider away from their child. Not try to kick him in the head repeatedly. If he did try to pull the rider away and rider pulled gun and shot him, it would be 2nd degree murder, IMO. BUT, if the father assaults the rider, rider pulls gun and kills pop, justified self defense.

Simple eh?
 
sid_for_speed said:
every body is siding with the officer....i dunno... but what if you were the rider????

would I see a 100 of you say " I'm glad the guy on the SS got beat up! now he knows what he did to a little child!"

**Just a hypothetical question.....no bias or anything...
Click to expand...

I'm siding with the victim of an assault. Whether they were a cop, a rider or a pedophile high on crack that makes kiddy porn in his spare time I'd still side with them.

Getting the crap beat out of you for screwing up is never okay with me. Do it intentionally or recklessly than yeah, I can see someone getting ******. Still no excuse for two guys beating a guy on the ground.

Again, assuming that what's so far reported has any bearing on reality.

Edit: Hmm, "p__i_ssed" is verbotten? Really?
 
AngelEyez said:
I'm siding with the poor neglected child. She's the real victim in all of this.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Maybe she cheated on her pre-school after nap test. Maybe she stole a cookie from her younger sister. You know, her history may indicate that she is somehow morally or ethically lacking and therefore does not deserve any sympathy.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way):D
 
Griffin said:
How do you know? Maybe she cheated on her pre-school after nap test. Maybe she stole a cookie from her younger sister. You know, her history may indicate that she is somehow morally or ethically lacking and therefore does not deserve any sympathy.

(I'm being sarcastic, by the way):D
Click to expand...

Wow the consequences for cheating on your pre-school after nap test or stealing a cookie sure have changed.

When I was four: Stole your sisters cookie? you get sit in the corner time and no ice cream for you.

Now: Oh You stole a cookie ? We're calling a motorcycle cop with a gun to run u over and then shoot and kill your dad!

I bet the republicans and conservatives are behind this tougher crack down on pre school delinquencies.
 
Griffin said:
You really are reaching and don't appear to understand the way the law applies to this situation. To your points:

1. The cause of the accident is irrelevant to the assault of the rider by two people. Who started the fight has everything to do with whether one party can claim self defense. The rider pulling a gun to defend himself was fully justified from the "facts" as we currently are discussing them. Whether he was injured or not is irrelevant. Whether he was diabetic or not was irrelevant. The only question is whether he was justifiably in fear of bodily harm or death (assuming the law is the same as in Canada, which I'm sure it is not). Two guys putting the boots to him? I like his chances if he's ever in front of a jury.

2. No, he doesn't have to prove using a gun was not excessive. The prosecutor needs to prove that use of a gun was not a reasonable level of force in the circumstances or that the rider was not justified in feeling threatened. I don't think the prosecutor has a hope in hell of proving that, based on the "facts" known at this point. By the way, he didn't make a decision to kill, he made a decision that use of a gun to defend himself, including the risk of killing his assailant was justified. I believe he was correct. I know I would have done the same thing without hesitation.

3. When bad things happen to my kids, I see to my kids. I don't go trying to beat up the person that caused them injury. Should they have suffered injury from a purposeful assault I'd apprehend the assailant with whatever force necessary. I wouldn't kick him to death on the ground. And, being a rationale human being, I'm not going to assault someone for screwing up and crashing. That's demented. I know it happens; it's one of the reasons I am against gun ownership. The people that shoot some old guy because he's a bad driver and ran into their kid are psychotic, not heroes.

4. Yeah, probably. No conspiracy though. It's what the public wants to read. "Negligent black father beats up cop" reads better than "moron off duty cop that can't ride his bike crashes into four year old".

5. A rational father in your scenario would attempt to pull the rider away from their child. Not try to kick him in the head repeatedly. If he did try to pull the rider away and rider pulled gun and shot him, it would be 2nd degree murder, IMO. BUT, if the father assaults the rider, rider pulls gun and kills pop, justified self defense.

Simple eh?
Click to expand...

Not simple at all. If the cop / rider was reckless than it was the cop / rider who instigated an assualt or attack on the child. The father then has a right to defend. The beating is justified. If the father felt the cop could cause further injury to the child, the father (if he were F'ing alive) could present his case for beating on the cop / rider. Beating is a form of subduing and is justified depending on who was the attacker or instigator. The cop killed some one, point black, with lethal force. It is not a simple "self defence" case. The prosecutor can easily prove manslaughter, thus leaving the cop to have to prove it was justifiable force, not the other way around. Cops beat on people all the time, and they claim it was necessary to subdue, or submit or restrain someone they have suspected of being dangerous. The father had a right to defend his child in a manner in which he saw fit (for an untrained lay person), which includes, beating, sitting on him, choking him out, whatever. Death was not implied by a mere beating. There is a radical difference between a beat down and death. I don't buy for a second the officer though he was going to die. Passing out is not enough of a reason to open fire on someone.

The cop is the one who instigated the entire situation, and this stinks of a cover up. "laying his bike down" to save the girl. Going over to help her (but then later claiming his injuries made him unable to defend himself), but he was able to go over to the girl in the first place? Then he is able to draw a weapon while getting beat down? So he freed his holstered weapon when 8 limbs were attacking him in a manner that would cause him to black out? Thats nonsense. You're telling me he wasn't curled up in a ball protecting his head? No you see he was free enough to unholster, unsafety, and discharge to the centre of mass! He was able to walk also! He had options, but being the US, he chose to kill on what could turn out to be (when more facts are presented) extremely flimsy evidence in his support.

Fact is this retard, injured a child with recklace driving (period, there is no doubt about it, he didnt lay down his bike like a holywood hero, he crashed like a reckless retard), then went on to kill her father. The evidence is there to support a manslaughter charge, which the cop would then have to defend and prove he felt he was in mortal danger.

And when you speak of the father, should have tending to the girl first, well, do you suppose the father was itching for a pretext to kill a man? No rather he was reacting (understandably and naturally) to the situation. Call it a "crime of passion" which is reduced due to understandable emotions being involved. The trained cop on the other hand, having been trained to be rational, should not have had the same recourse! He is not only trained to fight, but trained to shoot and trained in dealing with the public. The cop F'ed up plain and simple.

I simply don't buy that he thought his life was in danger at all, and not after he endangered the life of a 4 yr old girl. He gets no pity from me or respect. This forum is rife with critics who pick you apart for downing your bike in the rain and causing no hard to anyone. They almost relish in you getting a ticket for "driving without due care" and rub it in your face. But this as4-wipe does this and all of a sudden the Souther Republican Rebels come out?!?!
 
To all the delusional people in this thread i have a solution. This weekend lets meet up, and all those that said the cop wasn't justified you lay down on the ground, i'll get on top and start whaling on your face. (im 5"11 230lbs btw), then my buddy is gonna back me up in case you start to try and get up or actually get a few shots in yourself.

I'll provide you with a cap gun that only makes noise (all you anti gun people need not be afraid)

Now the only way i will stop punching you full force is if you reach for that cap gun and squeeze a trigger. This will represent a real gun and you shooting me to stop the attack.

If you do this at any time it will indicate that in this situation i and others who support my view were right, and the cop was justified.

If you black out and don't pull that cap gun out, i along with others will admit we were wrong.

Deal? :D

So angeleyez are you volunteer number one?
 
AngelEyez said:
This thread is not about my own personal near death experiences. Please let's not detract from the tragedy of the circumstances that are the subject of this thread. If you must know.... I do carry a plastic butter knife on my person now, whenever I can - as far as I know this isn't illegal in most situations.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. How can you share your opinion on something you know nothing about? Thats like asking a cab driver what he'd do if an airplane started to lose power lol
 
Paul1000RR said:
This weekend lets meet up, and all those that said the cop wasn't justified you lay down on the ground, i'll get on top and start whaling on your face. (im 5"11 230lbs btw),

Deal? :D

So angeleyez are you volunteer number one?
Click to expand...

I'm bringing my butter knife.
 
awyala said:
Not simple at all. If the cop / rider was reckless than it was the cop / rider who instigated an assualt or attack on the child. The father then has a right to defend. The beating is justified. If the father felt the cop could cause further injury to the child, the father (if he were F'ing alive) could present his case for beating on the cop / rider. Beating is a form of subduing and is justified depending on who was the attacker or instigator. The cop killed some one, point black, with lethal force. It is not a simple "self defence" case. The prosecutor can easily prove manslaughter, thus leaving the cop to have to prove it was justifiable force, not the other way around. Cops beat on people all the time, and they claim it was necessary to subdue, or submit or restrain someone they have suspected of being dangerous. The father had a right to defend his child in a manner in which he saw fit (for an untrained lay person), which includes, beating, sitting on him, choking him out, whatever. Death was not implied by a mere beating. There is a radical difference between a beat down and death. I don't buy for a second the officer though he was going to die. Passing out is not enough of a reason to open fire on someone.

The cop is the one who instigated the entire situation, and this stinks of a cover up. "laying his bike down" to save the girl. Going over to help her (but then later claiming his injuries made him unable to defend himself), but he was able to go over to the girl in the first place? Then he is able to draw a weapon while getting beat down? So he freed his holstered weapon when 8 limbs were attacking him in a manner that would cause him to black out? Thats nonsense. You're telling me he wasn't curled up in a ball protecting his head? No you see he was free enough to unholster, unsafety, and discharge to the centre of mass! He was able to walk also! He had options, but being the US, he chose to kill on what could turn out to be (when more facts are presented) extremely flimsy evidence in his support.

Fact is this retard, injured a child with recklace driving (period, there is no doubt about it, he didnt lay down his bike like a holywood hero, he crashed like a reckless retard), then went on to kill her father. The evidence is there to support a manslaughter charge, which the cop would then have to defend and prove he felt he was in mortal danger.

And when you speak of the father, should have tending to the girl first, well, do you suppose the father was itching for a pretext to kill a man? No rather he was reacting (understandably and naturally) to the situation. Call it a "crime of passion" which is reduced due to understandable emotions being involved. The trained cop on the other hand, having been trained to be rational, should not have had the same recourse! He is not only trained to fight, but trained to shoot and trained in dealing with the public. The cop F'ed up plain and simple.

I simply don't buy that he thought his life was in danger at all, and not after he endangered the life of a 4 yr old girl. He gets no pity from me or respect. This forum is rife with critics who pick you apart for downing your bike in the rain and causing no hard to anyone. They almost relish in you getting a ticket for "driving without due care" and rub it in your face. But this as4-wipe does this and all of a sudden the Souther Republican Rebels come out?!?!
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after the first line, you really don't have a god damn clue. It was not necessary to beat the rider after the fact, the danger to the girl was already over. The assault on the other hand had no end in sight. Simple right? Who am I kidding, you probably think that stomping the rider would some how magically heal the girls wounds.
 
Cop should of had a full face helmet on then he would have no fear about losing his consciousness and having to shoot another person. No guns... no shootings he's just damm lucky that father did'nt come out of that resturant with a weapon of his own(knives bats chairs etc etc)

The more of i think of it maybe that father just wanted to beat his *** hard with no intent to kill. Be better to not kill the guy and make him go to jail for killing his child and i also throw the cop bs out the window because he's still human and just because his state issues him higher powers to carry a gun does not give him the right to kill a man let alone two people probably within 10 minutes of each other.
 
Last edited:
:thumbup: if you took the time to go through 28 pages of thread posts
 
maybe for you i guess mines a little tighter mines showing 28 but in any case thats a tonne of posts still to go through
 
Paul1000RR said:
Sure it is. How can you share your opinion on something you know nothing about? Thats like asking a cab driver what he'd do if an airplane started to lose power lol
Click to expand...

I've never been shot..but it's my opinion that being shot is not good for you health. That may also be fact.
 
hahaha ^^^^ this is a fact so then tell me why plaxico burness thought it was good for his health :D
 
wild2crazy said:
Cop should of had a full face helmet on then he would have no fear about losing his consciousness and having to shoot another person. No guns... no shootings he's just damm lucky that father did'nt come out of that resturant with a weapon of his own(knives bats chairs etc etc)

The more of i think of it maybe that father just wanted to beat his *** hard with no intent to kill. Be better to not kill the guy and make him go to jail for killing his child and i also throw the cop bs out the window because he's still human and just because his state issues him higher powers to carry a gun does not give him the right to kill a man let alone two people probably within 10 minutes of each other.
Click to expand...

Yes because we all know wearing a full face helmet protects you from beatings..... Your logic is flawless.

Incase you didn't realise, that was sarcasm. Part of me hopes that your post was as well, but I think I may be giving you too much credit.
 
You are a beating going to keep you down and unless it some serious internal bleeding your not going to pass out. Crap load of pain but no death
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom