TexasCHLforum.com

Jim,

This is really strange. I logged on to this site tonight, clicked on recent posts and there your follow-up was. This is strange because I haven't been on here more than a half-dozen times in the last six months or more. Yesterday I checked in here after a month's lapse and then tonight I decided to look in again.

I have been really involved with a lot of other things in the last year and truth be known I also had been spending way too much time on the web. But, bottom-line, thanks for the "rest of the story." It's about what I expected. I don't think I will spend near as much time on here as I was before but I do plan to check in more regularly.

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification. I also am disgusted with endless suppositions and baseless conclusions presented as "news." The answer of course is for the media to act responsibly, gather actual facts themselves and if necessary demand (after a reasonable period of time) that authorities conclude investigations take appropriate actions and act responsibly as well. Since the media's primary goal is to make money though, that may not happen. Since the District Attorney's office is political, they may or may not proceed in the best interests of the public. The local PDs are sometimes caught between politics and media frenzy.

seamusTX wrote:They are all allegations, and everything we know about them comes from a story on a TV station web site.

Does anyone remember Richard Jewell? He was accused of the bombing of a park during the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996. "Everyone" was "sure" he was guilty. He was exonerated and walked away with several million dollars in a libel lawsuit. Another man was later convicted of the bombing.

We are rightfully disgusted when the media describe someone who defends himself as "a vigilante who took the law into his own hands," or someone having "an arsenal of high-powered assault weapons."

I think we should be equally skeptical of charges of criminal wrongdoing when they are based only on allegations.

P.S.: Here is a more recent story and a long list of previous stories:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/16370240/detail.html

- Jim

I hope that nothing I am going to say comes across as personal as that is certainly not my intent.

What I intended to say when I started a new thread on this topic was that:

1. To me, this could not possibly be just "an unfortunate series of events."

2. It has been over two months and no charges have been filed related to this incident. (If you file charges of DUI or public intoxication, criminal acts occuring during such impairment should also be charged.) If the officer's actions were legal, within departmental guidlines and appropriate, then he should be publicly exonerated and returned to full duty.

3. A review implies that you have all of the facts and information available. You have concluded your investigation. Two months plus is sufficient time to establish whether or not sufficient cause exists to proceed with a prosecution by whatever standards are in place in the State of California (hearing, information, grand jury).

4. Deputy District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis appears to be frozen on this one. Why. Has the San Diego PD completed their internal review of the shooting? Isn't two months enough time?

As to your remarks above:

The link containing the quotation above is actually not a "more recent story," but references a story posted 14 hours later than the link that I provided.

You said: "They are all allegations, and everything we know about them comes from a story on a TV station web site."
You are partially correct. There are several TV stations covering this and also newspapers as well. My point is that by now we should have facts from the investigating authorities.

You said: 'We are rightfully disgusted when the media describe someone who defends himself as "a vigilante who took the law into his own hands," or someone having "an arsenal of high-powered assault weapons." '

I'm not sure I remember seeing that exact quote in the news stories. Did someone say that about Officer White? The point, I think, is that there has been too much heat and not enough light. This is a highly emotional issue. If after two months a case cannot be put together to charge Ms Silva in this incident a statement to that effect should be issued. If investigations into Officer Whites conduct have been completed, he should be publicly exonerated or if guilty of criminal offenses charged or if guilty of violating departmental policy disciplined. People need to know what happened to cause injury to a child and they need to have confidence in the people who risk their own safety to enforce the laws and also those charged with prosecuting those who break them.

May 22, 2008 (FOX News)
Father of 8-Year-Old Shot in Leg by Officer Sues City of San Diego

Last Update: 6:09 am
The father of an 8-year-old boy shot in the leg during an apparent road rage exchange between his intoxicated mother and an off-duty patrolman has filed a lawsuit against the city of San Diego, it was reported Thursday.

Acting on behalf of Johnny Silva, Luis Silva filed the lawsuit in federal court Wednesday afternoon, The North County Times reported. Defendants named in the suit are the city, patrolman Frank White, and the San Diego Police Department and its chief, William Lansdowne.

The suit raises a number of claims, including accusations of assault and battery, negligence, emotional distress and the city's alleged failure to properly screen and train White. It also raises federal claims related to alleged constitutional civil rights violations, including rights to be free from official infliction of physical abuse and other harm, according to the Times.

Silva, a Camp Pendleton Marine who is divorced from his son's mother and was in Iraq at the time of the shooting, is seeking unspecified damages, including "an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of" the defendants.

The boy was shot on March 15 while a passenger in his mother's car. Rachel Silva and White both pulled into a home improvement store parking lot on Old Grove Road in Oceanside after one allegedly cut off the other.

Yelling ensued and White fired a handgun at the mother's car, allegedly in self-defense because she was ramming his car with hers. She was struck twice in the right arm and her son was struck once in his left leg. Both were hospitalized for several days but are expected to recover.

Neither White nor his wife, who was also present, was hurt.

No one has been arrested and the case is currently under review by the San Diego District Attorney's Office.

White was placed on paid administrative leave for several weeks while Oceanside police investigated the incident. He has since returned to work, San Diego police spokeswoman Monica Munoz told the Times.

Rachel Silva has spent time in jail since the incident for an unrelated drunken driving violation. She was driving without a valid license because of past DUI offenses at the time of her exchange with White. Oceanside police say she tested positive for alcohol and marijuana immediately following the shooting.




http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.as ... 232a370ee7





This happened back on March 15th. This incident should have been investigated thoroughly and proper dispensation made by now. Someone here made some bad decisions that resulted in injuries. Both parties made calls to 911 and those tapes are still sealed. More than one security video recorded the events and they have not been released.

If the officer's actions were justified, then he should be cleared of suspicion. If the mother's actions were the cause of the deadly force incident then she probably should be charged. The case is currently "under review?" Does that mean that the investigation has been concluded? What's going on here?