Off duty trouble...

[03Lightningrocks]

I will say this, I ever drive into a parking lot and see a person shooting a gun at a fleeing car, I will turn the shooter into a hood ornament and not care if the guy was an off duty cop or not.

I hope you're just upset at the perceived facts of this case. This scenario will get you indicted at the very least. There are plenty of circumstances where a person (LEO or CHL) could be legitimately firing at a fleeing car.

Chas.

This situation makes for a great what if. Before reading this story my first thought would be to stop the carnage. Seeing a non uniformed person standing alone in a parking lot firing at a fleeing car would have caused me to react in a pretty lethal way. Since I can't imagine any sane person firing shots at someone fleeing in a car, yep...it could get dicey. If the person doing the firing stopped firing before I got to him, I would do more of an observation type approach. Now if the person doing the firing was a uniformed officer of the law, I would probably try to stop the fleeing car with my truck.

Now for the what if back to others. What would you do? I am genuine in my desire to know what others would do. Especially since you just mentioned I might get indicted for stopping what I perceive as an attempted murder in progress.

[The Annoyed Man]

As a police officer in one more month I can see why citizens don't trust us like they once did.



But I am sure there is more to the story.

Unfortunately, a lot of that mistrust is based on inaccurate and biased reporting. Remember that, when these things get to trial, the only report the rest of us who weren't there at the courthouse get to see is that part of it that, as the NYT is fond of calling it, "is fit to print." That means that if the editor doesn't think that exculpatory evidence is "fit to print" because it doesn't fit with his preconceived notions, then neither you nor I get to read about it, and our opinion on the matter is accordingly misinformed - which of course is the editor's intention all along... ...to make sure that you are misinformed and buy into his agenda.

Another side to the story????????????? Excuse me while I throw up!!! Shooting at an unarmed woman and her child???????? No other side to a story like this unless you are blinded by team spirit.

I worked in the newspaper business for 9 years, and left it 9 years ago. I still feel dirty by association, and I wasn't even an editor. The cop may well be guilty. Or, he may not be. Or the woman may be the instigator. Or, maybe she's not. The truth is that neither 03Lightningrocks nor any of the rest of us really know what happened. We only know what we are reading or watching online about it. Heck, most all of us are more than 1,000 miles away from Oceanside, so we aren't even getting the benefit of the word on the street. The press is often and notoriously inaccurate when it comes to reporting on crime. Consequently, it seems premature to judge either the cop or the woman until we know more.

That's all I'm saying....

[Thane]

Do we know that she didn't (use her car as a weapon)?

And if we don't know she didn't, then if follows she did?

That lil' ole California gal certainly warn't no nun:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nort ... silva.html

I would appreciate it if you would in future refrain from taking me out of context and from misquoting me, both of which you have done here.

I repeat, at this point I am defending neither cop nor woman. The only "for sure" victim so far is the child. I was offering up potential scenarios, not excuses, and at this point I neither accuse nor condone either adult involved in this situation.

I suggest we all let this topic sit on the back burner for a while, and let the investigators do their jobs without idle gossip or speculation.

Thane.

[03Lightningrocks]

As a police officer in one more month I can see why citizens don't trust us like they once did.



But I am sure there is more to the story.

Unfortunately, a lot of that mistrust is based on inaccurate and biased reporting. Remember that, when these things get to trial, the only report the rest of us who weren't there at the courthouse get to see is that part of it that, as the NYT is fond of calling it, "is fit to print." That means that if the editor doesn't think that exculpatory evidence is "fit to print" because it doesn't fit with his preconceived notions, then neither you nor I get to read about it, and our opinion on the matter is accordingly misinformed - which of course is the editor's intention all along... ...to make sure that you are misinformed and buy into his agenda.

Another side to the story????????????? Excuse me while I throw up!!! Shooting at an unarmed woman and her child???????? No other side to a story like this unless you are blinded by team spirit.

I worked in the newspaper business for 9 years, and left it 9 years ago. I still feel dirty by association, and I wasn't even an editor. The cop may well be guilty. Or, he may not be. Or the woman may be the instigator. Or, maybe she's not. The truth is that neither 03Lightningrocks nor any of the rest of us really know what happened. We only know what we are reading or watching online about it. Heck, most all of us are more than 1,000 miles away from Oceanside, so we aren't even getting the benefit of the word on the street. The press is often and notoriously inaccurate when it comes to reporting on crime. Consequently, it seems premature to judge either the cop or the woman until we know more.

That's all I'm saying....

We do know that she was unarmed. We do know that she was attempting to leave and he fired at her when she could not possibly be a threat. We do know that she had a child with her. We do know that a person who is suppose to know better chose to fire his weapon at her in a public area where innocent bystanders could have been killed because of his temper tantrum. We also know he was not in his jurisdiction. I dunno...maybe she stole a donut from him. No matter what annoyed Man or anyone else here thinks, shooting at an unarmed woman and her child is not acceptable behavior. Especially for a police officer. So yes, 03Lightningrocks throws the flag.

[Keith B]

We do know that she was unarmed. We do now, after the fact; he may not have known at the time and may have had reason to believe she was. We do know that she was attempting to leave and he fired at her when she could not possibly be a threat. She could have been a fleeing felon, and an officer has the right to stop them. We do know that she had a child with her. Supposedly the windows were extremely dark tinted, so he may not have seen the child. We do know that a person who is suppose to know better chose to fire his weapon at her in a public area where innocent bystanders could have been killed because of his temper tantrum. That is your speculation of his state of mind, not fact. We also know he was not in his jurisdiction. Maybe he has state jurisdiction from California. I dunno...maybe she stole a donut from him. Now you're being facetious. No matter what annoyed Man or anyone else here thinks, shooting at an unarmed woman and her child is not acceptable behavior. If you for sure know she is unarmed and hadn't made a threat to kill you first. Especially for a police officer. So yes, 03Lightningrocks throws the flag. Keith B wants to review the video and facts before passing judgment.

[03Lightningrocks]

We do know that she was unarmed. We do now, after the fact; he may not have known at the time and may have had reason to believe she was. Problem is, if we are using the tinted windows as a defense against knowing about the child, those same tinted windows would keep him form being able to say he saw a gunWe do know that she was attempting to leave and he fired at her when she could not possibly be a threat. She could have been a fleeing felon, and an officer has the right to stop them. He would have no way of knowing she is a fleeing felon. She was just a woman in a carWe do know that she had a child with her. Supposedly the windows were extremely dark tinted, so he may not have seen the child. I concede this. the same windows that kept him from seeing a gunWe do know that a person who is suppose to know better chose to fire his weapon at her in a public area where innocent bystanders could have been killed because of his temper tantrum. That is your speculation of his state of mind, not fact. OK...but it is fact that he opened fire in a parking lot on an unarmed fleeing vehicle. We also know he displayed his weapon as a threat(aggravated assualt)We also know he was not in his jurisdiction. Maybe he has state jurisdiction from California. Now your speculating. It isn't likely. I dunno...maybe she stole a donut from him. Now you're being facetious. absolutely No matter what annoyed Man or anyone else here thinks, shooting at an unarmed woman and her child is not acceptable behavior. If you for sure know she is unarmed and hadn't made a threat to kill you first. I was not aware that words called for deadly force. Especially for a police officer. So yes, 03Lightningrocks throws the flag. Keith B wants to review the video and facts before passing judgment.

[03Lightningrocks]

In the end, right or wrong won't matter....IMHO. I would be willing to bet some serious money will be offered and this woman will accept the money and let it go. Her profile would suggest that she can be bought.

[Xander]

Before reading this story my first thought would be to stop the carnage. Seeing a non uniformed person standing alone in a parking lot firing at a fleeing car would have caused me to react in a pretty lethal way. Since I can't imagine any sane person firing shots at someone fleeing in a car, yep...it could get dicey. If the person doing the firing stopped firing before I got to him, I would do more of an observation type approach. Now if the person doing the firing was a uniformed officer of the law, I would probably try to stop the fleeing car with my truck.

Now for the what if back to others. What would you do? I am genuine in my desire to know what others would do. Especially since you just mentioned I might get indicted for stopping what I perceive as an attempted murder in progress.

Initial disclaimer...This is my opinion only. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have a CHL to protect my life, and the lives of the ones I love. Period. That is all. The CHL does not make me Batman, citizen crime-fighter. Period. It is the job of the police to protect the lives of those who don't feel it necessary to protect their own. Period. If I wanted to stop attempted murders, or what I *perceived* to be "attempted murders" (and this is a very important distinction) I would become a police officer, not a CHL holder. Period.

[Glock 23]

Before reading this story my first thought would be to stop the carnage. Seeing a non uniformed person standing alone in a parking lot firing at a fleeing car would have caused me to react in a pretty lethal way. Since I can't imagine any sane person firing shots at someone fleeing in a car, yep...it could get dicey. If the person doing the firing stopped firing before I got to him, I would do more of an observation type approach. Now if the person doing the firing was a uniformed officer of the law, I would probably try to stop the fleeing car with my truck.

Now for the what if back to others. What would you do? I am genuine in my desire to know what others would do. Especially since you just mentioned I might get indicted for stopping what I perceive as an attempted murder in progress.

Initial disclaimer...This is my opinion only. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have a CHL to protect my life, and the lives of the ones I love. Period. That is all. The CHL does not make me Batman, citizen crime-fighter. Period. It is the job of the police to protect the lives of those who don't feel it necessary to protect their own. Period. If I wanted to stop attempted murders, or what I *perceived* to be "attempted murders" (and this is a very important distinction) I would become a police officer, not a CHL holder. Period.

alot of people are in the same boat as you are...and rightfully so. You only need risk yourself for what you feel is truly important.

But wouldn't you want a complete stranger to assist you if you were really in need and that was all the hope you had? What if a CHL holder was the difference between you living and you dying? What about your family (you cant always be around)?

[03Lightningrocks]

Before reading this story my first thought would be to stop the carnage. Seeing a non uniformed person standing alone in a parking lot firing at a fleeing car would have caused me to react in a pretty lethal way. Since I can't imagine any sane person firing shots at someone fleeing in a car, yep...it could get dicey. If the person doing the firing stopped firing before I got to him, I would do more of an observation type approach. Now if the person doing the firing was a uniformed officer of the law, I would probably try to stop the fleeing car with my truck.

Now for the what if back to others. What would you do? I am genuine in my desire to know what others would do. Especially since you just mentioned I might get indicted for stopping what I perceive as an attempted murder in progress.

Initial disclaimer...This is my opinion only. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have a CHL to protect my life, and the lives of the ones I love. Period. That is all. The CHL does not make me Batman, citizen crime-fighter. Period. It is the job of the police to protect the lives of those who don't feel it necessary to protect their own. Period. If I wanted to stop attempted murders, or what I *perceived* to be "attempted murders" (and this is a very important distinction) I would become a police officer, not a CHL holder. Period.

alot of people are in the same boat as you are...and rightfully so. You only need risk yourself for what you feel is truly important.

But wouldn't you want a complete stranger to assist you if you were really in need and that was all the hope you had? What if a CHL holder was the difference between you living and you dying? What about your family (you cant always be around)?

Unfortunately, the new way of thinking is "Every dog for himself". The post about not acting like batman is the perfect example of how one justifies being unwilling to come to the aid of his fellow man in the time of need. Sad...but not an uncommon way of thinking these days.

[anygunanywhere]

Stating publicly what one would do in a given scenario merely amounts to testosterone induced chest thumping and does not add anything to the intelligence or skills contribution of this board.

I have been guilty in the past, so if you think I deserve a flame lashing, go ahead. I stopped contributing to scenario threads a long time ago and this one is an exception since it has evolved into a bashing session based on conjecture and not facts.

I am not one, for certain, who would jump into a fray where an individual already has a handgun out firing at a vehicle, and I do not understand how that can be considered in any way not contributing to the welfare of my fellow human beings. It is, in fact, self preservation.

There are more examples of CHL holders being killed during these episodes than examples of successful interventions. Having a CHL does not make you bullet proof or an expert shooter.

Anygunanywhere

[03Lightningrocks]

Up until your post anygunanywhere, there didn't appear to be any negativity. Just folks with differing opinions.

[anygunanywhere]

Up until your post anygunanywhere, there didn't appear to be any negativity. Just folks with differing opinions.

Beg your pardon. I will have to read them all again and maybe reform my opinion. I never realized having a different opinion from the posts in a thread equated to negativity. My opinion was different from yours and will be opposing in nature. If you only desire posts affirming your opinion please say so and I will do my best to not respond if in doing so I oppose your view.

Anygunanywhere

[Keith B]

OK folks, let's keep the discussions business-like and not get personal.

Thanks!