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

[suprPHREAK]

Forum Sponsor

Anyone else in the world who brought a gun to a fistfight and used it would still be charged with murder, for using excessive force.
I guess if you're a cop you can use lethal force if you want, but the rest of us are limitted to equal and neccessary force.

Under Canadian law, if you were the cop or civilian in this situation, armed with whatever (including nothing), you would have been legally justified to kill. For example, a lot of people carry pocket knives. You have the right to defend your life no matter what.

Of course, you would still be subjected to an investigation, but the reality is, if you are genuinely in fear of your life being ended at the hands of someone else, you have the full support of the law to end that danger by any reasonable means, even if that includes killing that person.

 

[El Cockblock]

I'm beginning to see a pattern of threads on this forum being converted into conversations about guns, the use of guns, and laws about guns....I wonder if we should change the name of the forum to GTA motorcycle and gun - GTAMG ? Anyone up for a concealed weapon group ride ?

Say hello to my little friend!!!

 

[Roasted]

Anyone else read this and have "Of course roasted would be checking out cafemom.com" as their first reaction?

LOL, was just looking up some recipes for cookies of course

 

[AngelEyez]

Under Canadian law, if you were the cop in this situation, armed with whatever, you would have been legally justified to kill. For example, a lot of people carry pocket knives. You have the right to defend your life no matter what.

This just isn't true. Do you have a right to self defence? Yes. By any means necessary? No. The force used to defend yourself has to be equal/proportionate to the threat and reasonably necessary in order to defend yourself.

Can you use an automatic machine gun against a guy whose coming at you with a butter knife? It's highly unlike that this would qualify as reasonable for self defence. In other words no more force can be used then what is necessary to defend yourself.

 

[Griffin]

1. Kid should not have been in the Street
2. Kid should have been supervised.
3. Rider should learn to ride a bike
a. Rubber on the pavement can stop much shorter than the metal of the bike and the time it takes to Lay-it-down could have been used to slow or stop
b. If no time to brake he could have swerved, it was a street, that means it is much wider than a person.
4. Vigilanty justice does no good, in this case it is a good thing he was armed or maybe he would be dead.

I agree.

[

Completely agree, Way to many things happened, and any one of which could have prevented this.

3. If he had enought time to "Lay it down" he had enough time to apply the brakes and or swerve. If he did not feel he could do either of those things than I contend that he needed some training, or better training on how to actually ride a bike and do those things.

Yep again.

BUTTTT the officer should have the knowledge to use reasonable force. They do have training with non lethal force.

He wasn't in a standoff with two guys and having a tazer on his belt. He was being pummelled by two attackers. He was justified in shooting both of them as far as I can see. And you don't shoot to wound, that's from the cowboy movies. You shoot to kill. I think the cop was completely justified in shooting the moron that was attacking him.

Anyone else in the world who brought a gun to a fistfight and used it would still be charged with murder, for using excessive force.
I guess if you're a cop you can use lethal force if you want, but the rest of us are limitted to equal and neccessary force.

Anyone in Canada is entitled to use the force necessary to protect themselves. Nothing about equal. And the level of threat is what is perceived by the person being attacked. You come at me with a papier mache baseball bat and I'll shoot you if I have a gun handy. I don't need to make a papier mache baseball bat and duel you "fairly".

This just isn't true. Do you have a right to self defence? Yes. By any means necessary? No. The force used to defend yourself has to be equal/proportionate to the threat and reasonably necessary in order to defend yourself.

Can you use an automatic machine gun against a guy whose coming at you with a butter knife? It's highly unlike that this would qualify as reasonable for self defence. In other words no more force can be used then what is necessary to defend yourself.

You are wrong. The force used to defend yourself doesn not have to be equal. And yes, if you come at me with a butter knife and I am in fear for my life and I have access to a machine gun I'm legally okay blasting you with it. Have you any idea how dangerous a butter knife is? I could easily kill you with it. For that matter, I could easily kill you with my bare hands. If I came at you with the intent to kill you with my bare hands and you chose to defend yourself with your bare hands when you have a gun at your hip, you're very foolish and probably dead.

And how did this get to be a discussion about how safe the US is due to everyone and their dog having a gun in their back pocket? Wow. Last I heard the US has some of the highest violent crime statistics in the developed world.

 

[Mystique]

WE NEED A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT

Agreed. People need to stop with the speculation. This happened on a 4 lane, main road, after dark in Chicago with a speed limit of 35 mph. If the girl was reported as darting out onto the street, he likely didn't have enough time to react.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-man-killed-in-maywood-20120811,0,1283215.story

Was the gun necessary? Maybe - being beaten on by two enraged men may have been the necessary evil to stop the beating.

 

[bluerider]

I agree 100% which what the cop did. The idiot parents who are not watching the kids are the ones to blame not the cop. Yes it sucks that the dad had to die.

The cop did absolutely nothing wrong. He defended himself.

 

[wonderings]

You are wrong. The force used to defend yourself doesn not have to be equal. And yes, if you come at me with a butter knife and I am in fear for my life and I have access to a machine gun I'm legally okay blasting you with it. Have you any idea how dangerous a butter knife is? I could easily kill you with it. For that matter, I could easily kill you with my bare hands. If I came at you with the intent to kill you with my bare hands and you chose to defend yourself with your bare hands when you have a gun at your hip, you're very foolish and probably dead.

+1

Its not trying to make an equal fighting field. Guy comes at you with a butter knife, you can only defend with a butter knife? I will use whatever is at my finger tips to defend my life, I am not looking for a fair fight.

 

[LePhillou]

+1

Its not trying to make an equal fighting field. Guy comes at you with a butter knife, you can only defend with a butter knife? I will use whatever is at my finger tips to defend my life, I am not looking for a fair fight.

No, you shall challenge your adversary in a gentleman's dual!

Seriously though, if this guy has a bamboo stick and has had training to kill with a bamboo stick a-la-kung-fu-ninja, you're required to use a weapon that's equal?
I think you're gonna use whats on hand and defend yourself the best you can.

 

[Roasted]

+1

Its not trying to make an equal fighting field. Guy comes at you with a butter knife, you can only defend with a butter knife? I will use whatever is at my finger tips to defend my life, I am not looking for a fair fight.

Nonsense....if a guy puts on a blindfold and comes at you, you put on a blindfold as well to make sure it's an equal fight. WHen in doubt ask yourself; What would Jean Claude Van Damme do?

 

[LoneRonin]

Trained professional = someone that has actual training with a fire arm. The training on when and how to use it. And someone that should be carrying it out on the streets.

If I'm not mistaken, even people on gun clubs are only allowed to have the gun on them when going to or from the event. ( I could be wrong)... But regardless. Just knowing to shoot a gun does not make you a trained professional.

To me..... Once you've gone through field simulation with fire arm training etc.. Then you've been trained to have a gun on your hip.

Motorcycles are very dangerous, its essentially a 300+ lbs road going missile, our likelihood of dying is much greater than a cager. Only trained professionals should be allowed to ride on the street. Trained on when to brake, proper body positioning and proper shifting.

If I'm not mistaken many normal people ride motorcycles to and from work and for pleasure. But regardless, just knowing how to ride does not make you a trained professional.

To me....Once you've ridden on the ridden on the track and have acquired skills equivalent to Rossi, Stone, Lorenzo etc...Then you've been trained to ride a motorcycle on the street.

Read that once, twice, maybe even thrice, apply it to guns and then tell me how stupid your argument sounds...

 

[rafiki911]

This just isn't true. Do you have a right to self defence? Yes. By any means necessary? No. The force used to defend yourself has to be equal/proportionate to the threat and reasonably necessary in order to defend yourself.

Can you use an automatic machine gun against a guy whose coming at you with a butter knife? It's highly unlike that this would qualify as reasonable for self defence. In other words no more force can be used then what is necessary to defend yourself.

Your statement is wrong. If someone is coming at you with a butter knife that could cause grievous bodily harm or death you can retaliate with equal or greater force to stop the threat.

You are not however allowed to use excessive force. An example of excessive force is if you've stopped a threat and it is under control and you decide it's a good idea to continue beating on the person.

What the cop did was right wether or not you agree or not. He feared for his live and felt himself passing out. I really doubt he wanted to kill anyone but to stop or scare them off.

 

[Macs]

This was the story of two men in a lethal confrontation. One avenging the accidental death of his child, one having to defend his life. That one was a cop is secondary.

What the cop did right was to not pull the gun immediately as a way to control the situation, since the father would have just committed suicide-by-cop. Anyway, threats are for bullies and other cowards. The cop did the very sad but right thing, which was to kill his attacker instead of being killed.

This isn't really controversial, it's just sad.

Girl survived with bruises and minor rash on her arm.

Cop had a dislocated shoulder from the beating and a broken ankle from putting down the bike.


AND on the off chance someone bothers reading this:

Self Defence and Gun Safety 101:

2 healthy adult mean beating on one seriously injured man almost to unconsciousness is more than enough justification for deadly force, EVEN IN CANADA!

Deadly force is restricted to whether or not YOU FEEL that you will either be killed or receive SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. All the self-defence training in the world won't save you with a dislocated shoulder and broken ankle lying on the ground being beaten by 2 healthy ****** OFF adult men.

If you need to shoot you shoot to kill because:
1. Shooting into an extremity almost always causes permanent disability, or a long cruel death by bleeding out.
2. NEVER shoot in the air. What goes up must come down. People HAVE died this way.

 

[Griffin]

Your statement is wrong. If someone is coming at you with a butter knife that could cause grievous bodily harm or death you can retaliate with equal or greater force to stop the threat.

Where are people getting this "equal or greater force" and "reasonable force" from?

Here's the CC of Canada:

[TABLE="width: 780"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 580, bgcolor: #DCDADA, colspan: 2"][TABLE="width: 95%"]
[TR]
[TD]34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


= you come at me with a butter knife - I kil u!

 

[rafiki911]

Where are people getting this "equal or greater force" and "reasonable force" from?

Here's the CC of Canada:

[TABLE="width: 780"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 580, bgcolor: #dcdada, colspan: 2"][TABLE="width: 95%"]
[TR]
[TD]34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


= you come at me with a butter knife - I kil u!

It's called saying it my own words and trying to explain it so everyone can understand rather than quoting the criminal code. What I said is exactly whats in the criminal code just in my own words. I've been living and breathing that for 12 years now btw.

Excessive force is covered in section 26 of the C.C. by the way.

 

[stevex]

pretty sure its standard for police to be trained to aim for the largest center of mass when using a firearm.... I don't think the guy could realistically be expected to draw his gun and pick his shot in a non-lethal location when he was in the midst of being beaten half to death by 2 men

 

[Red_Liner740]

i just love people having opinions on the matter when they have neither any knowledge or hands on experience with handling a weapon. And AngelEyez, why the "bias" against CCW carrying people....do you know them? have you met one? In fact you're prejudicing against an entire population due to your ignorant views on a subject that you know nothing about other than what you're being fed by the mass media....

FYI, a citizen who owns a handgun probably shoots 10x the ammunition that a regular non-enthusiast LEO does. LEO's are required to pass a yearly evaluation and thats it. They arent even required to acquire a RPAL and a lot of them have no interest in a handgun, hence it stays in the holster at all times.

i also LOL at the keyboard quarterbacks here who says that while the cops being beaten to death he should only shoot to injure...."scuse me, could you move a bit to the side so that i can shoot your leg, i dont want to hit your chest....."

REALLY!? give your head a shake.

 

[Griffin]

It's called saying it my own words and trying to explain it so everyone can understand rather than quoting the criminal code. What I said is exactly whats in the criminal code just in my own words. I've been living and breathing that for 12 years now btw.

Excessive force is covered in section 26 of the C.C. by the way.

That's the problem with "interpreting" or using your own words. You stand a good chance of getting it wrong. Like you did. And the issue is use of force in defense of self. But I await your written decision on your next Supreme Court ruling.

I find when people start spouting about what the law says it's sometimes a good idea to quote the actual law. Sorry you don't agree.

 

[OMGSelenaGomez]

If the girl is still alive, I foresee daddy issues in the future

 

[awyala]

That makes me wonder. Let's say you hit someone with a bike head on with the bike upright or low side the bike and hit that person in the legs with sliding bike. What would do the least damage to the person you're hitting and you? I'm guessing the sliding as their legs would take the whole impact and probably break instead of hitting them square in the pelvis/chest. YOu would also only hit the ground instead of potentially flying over the handlebars and later, possibly being hit by your own bike. Wat are your thoughts?

If the cop was going at the proper speed, lets say 50kph, he could have easily scrubbed off 20kph with basic braking. Hitting anyone on a motorcycle at 30kph (upright) presents far less of a impact zone than a LAID DOWN HUNK OF STEEL (the bottom of the bike - the engine!) At least upright you have some aerodynamic crumply plastic than can deflect a person to the side!

I had two people jump out in traffic at me at 50 kph. 1 was an old lady! I managed to drop down to about 15 kph, and I hit her. She bounced off, fell on her bum, got up, cussed at me and I cussed at her and she ran off (continued her jaywalk)!!!

The other time, a cyclist ran a red light in the "cold november rain" literally. I managed to drop from 60kph down to 30kph-ish, and T-boned him. We both went down and we both got up within seconds, where by I cussed him out and made him pay my damages!

Something sounds fishy when the cop said he had to "lay it down". That's BS!

Whenever a biker dies, 75% of the time, cops release a statement to the press..."speed was a factor". Funny that wasn't the case here!

I don't buy the nicey nicey cop line their peddling.

PS, I didn't realize getting hit by bare hands warrents killing with a hand gun in "self defence". The cop is trained in subduing people, that's his damn job. Not only is he weaponized but he has lethal and non-lethal training. This sounds to me like a cover up.

I wonder if next time someone is in a fight they can bust out the line "I was almost about to pass out", then unload a clip!

A buddy of mine plowed into a little girl on Blue Mountain once...we were both recklessly blasting down a blue run, possibly upwards of 30kph. My buddy just blasted into this little girl, catching her and taking her down the hill about 40m or so. The girl was crying and screaming, then out of no where he father comes and lays a beating on my friend. My friend tried to fight back, but got smacked around pretty bad. Afterwards he was ****** I didn't help him. I told him "you (we) deserved it, you did after all mash up his little girl cause we were being reckless. You weren't in any serious danger, just take your lumps."

We were both banned from Blue Mountain that day. And there is no way in hell my buddy would have been right to pull a gun!!!!! Block? sure. Punch back? ok sure. Shoot and kill the father??!?!?!?!

Forum Sponsor