PDA

View Full Version : Cop Hits Little Girl With Motorcycle Then Shoots and Kills Angry Dad




nbruno322
06-18-2013, 09:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUya7B7qvbI


"Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

~Edward Snowden

Origanalist
06-18-2013, 09:22 PM
What difference does it make that he was a cop????? Anybody with any sense would cut the father all the slack he needed. I would have been so devastated from hitting that child that shooting someone would be the last thing on my mind.

anaconda
06-18-2013, 09:23 PM
Do off duty cops need concealed carry permits in states that require them?

ClydeCoulter
06-18-2013, 09:28 PM
What difference does it make that he was a cop????? Anybody with any sense would cut the father all the slack he needed. I would have been so devastated from hitting that child that shooting someone would be the last thing on my mind.

Damn, I just said the same thing to my daughter on the phone. Are you a psychic?

anaconda
06-18-2013, 09:28 PM
What difference does it make that he was a cop????? Anybody with any sense would cut the father all the slack he needed. I would have been so devastated from hitting that child that shooting someone would be the last thing on my mind.

To be fair, if the kid suddenly darted out into the street, it may not have been the fault of the motorcyclist, but possibly that of an inattentive adult guardian. And, depending on how aggressive the father might have been (purely speculative, of course), the motorcyclist may have been justified in using lethal force in his defense. Hopefully some witnesses can come forward and shed some light.

ClydeCoulter
06-18-2013, 09:29 PM
To be fair, if the kid suddenly darted out into the street, it may not have been the fault of the motorcyclist, but possibly that of an inattentive adult guardian. And, depending on how aggressive the father might have been (purely speculative, of course), the motorcyclist may have been justified in using lethal force in his defense. Hopefully some witnesses can come forward and shed some light.

I'm sorry, but I think I may have let the father beat the shit out me.

Origanalist
06-18-2013, 09:30 PM
To be fair, if the kid suddenly darted out into the street, it may not have been the fault of the motorcyclist, but possibly that of an inattentive adult guardian. And, depending on how aggressive the father might have been (purely speculative, of course), the motorcyclist may have been justified in using lethal force in his defense. Hopefully some witnesses can come forward and shed some light.

I'm referring to the fact that the "cop" said he identified himself as a cop before shooting the guy as some twisted sort of defense of his action.

Origanalist
06-18-2013, 09:34 PM
Damn, I just said the same thing to my daughter on the phone. Are you a psychic?

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5049873218079456&pid=15.1

anaconda
06-18-2013, 09:38 PM
I'm sorry, but I think I may have let the father beat the shit out me.

If someone has to lay down their bike to avoid hitting an unsupervised kid, I don't see why they wouldn't be the one feeling victimized. Then attacked also? Geez. We need more facts here with respect to this case.

ClydeCoulter
06-18-2013, 09:40 PM
I'm referring to the fact that the "cop" said he identified himself as a cop before shooting the guy as some twisted sort of defense of his action.

Exactly. It's the auto defense system instead of empathy for the girl that he hit, no matter the fault.

anaconda
06-18-2013, 09:42 PM
I'm referring to the fact that the "cop" said he identified himself as a cop before shooting the guy as some twisted sort of defense of his action.

I think the courts have ruled that off duty cops retain some of their on-duty privileges. But I don't recall exactly. It's probably a stretch, but the cop might have been in a position to get help quickly, apply first aid, gather witness information properly, etc. So, the mere fact that he announced that he was a cop may not necessarily been for selfish reasons. Similar to someone announcing in a crisis that they are a doctor or an EMT perhaps.

ClydeCoulter
06-18-2013, 09:42 PM
If someone has to lay down their bike to avoid hitting an unsupervised kid, I don't see why they wouldn't be the one feeling victimized. Then attacked also? Geez. We need more facts here with respect to this case.

I've got a 750lb+ motorcycle, I tried to avoid a kid on a 10lb+ bike....collision....ummm

edit: I've been in close calls and I have seen that "slow motion ultra strength" stuff. Avoided dying or getting wounded or hurting someone else lot of times on a motorcycle, but if the "slow mo" doesn't happen...and I were to hurt someone, I wouldn't jump up and say "Hey, not my fault", I would say "wow, the gods didn't kick in" and feel bad for the one that didn't have a huge horse, like me, trampling them.

ClydeCoulter
06-18-2013, 09:51 PM
You know what, it's about Cops are supposed to be people too.

edit: or anyone that we entrust.

Origanalist
06-18-2013, 09:58 PM
You know what, it's about Cops are supposed to be people too.

edit: or anyone that we entrust.

They have privileges.

Brian4Liberty
06-18-2013, 10:07 PM
Do off duty cops need concealed carry permits in states that require them?

Not in my State. Probably not in others. It's taken for granted that cops need guns while off-duty to defend themselves if they run into someone with a grudge. Mundanes have no such rights. (Except for the pesky Second Amendment.)

heavenlyboy34
06-18-2013, 10:09 PM
They have privileges.
And don't you ever forget it, mundanes.

KEEF
06-18-2013, 10:12 PM
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5049873218079456&pid=15.1

WOW! That picture looks like the love child of Glen Beck and GW bush

ClydeCoulter
06-18-2013, 10:13 PM
Not in my State. Probably not in others. It's taken for granted that cops need guns while off-duty to defend themselves if they run into someone with a grudge. Mundanes have no such rights. (Except for the pesky Second Amendment.)

Can you be a cop and not pass the background checks for a carry permit or something?

Brian4Liberty
06-18-2013, 10:18 PM
Can you be a cop and not pass the background checks for a carry permit or something?

The badge is the permit, and the background check was the pre-employment check.

osan
06-18-2013, 10:22 PM
This murderer must be apprehended and justice must be served upon him, privately.

Nothing less will do.

Occam's Banana
06-18-2013, 10:28 PM
They have privileges.


And don't you forget it, mundanes.

Gorram it! I was gonna say that! (Though I was going to say "ever" before "forget.")

Too many psychics in this thread. It's creepin' me out ...

anaconda
06-18-2013, 10:36 PM
This murderer must be apprehended and justice must be served upon him, privately.

Nothing less will do.


Would you make the same assertion if he were not a cop, but rather an armed citizen of some other profession? I don't believe we know yet what the cop deemed as just cause to apply lethal force. How can you call him a "murderer" without more information?

heavenlyboy34
06-18-2013, 10:36 PM
Gorram it! I was gonna say that! (Though I was going to say "ever" before "forget.")

Too many psychics in this thread. It's creepin' me out ...
:D Thanks for teh +rep. I'll change it because I like your turn of phrase a bit better. :) Great minds think alike, eh? :cool:

BamaAla
06-18-2013, 11:04 PM
Do off duty cops need concealed carry permits in states that require them?

No. LEOSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

PaulConventionWV
06-18-2013, 11:04 PM
What difference does it make that he was a cop????? Anybody with any sense would cut the father all the slack he needed. I would have been so devastated from hitting that child that shooting someone would be the last thing on my mind.

That's just the kind of person that becomes a cop. We've learned this through multiple incidences similar to this in which a cop, whether he's on duty or not, is just overtaken by inexplicable rage. You have to be insane to become a cop, literally.

Origanalist
06-18-2013, 11:09 PM
Would you make the same assertion if he were not a cop, but rather an armed citizen of some other profession? I don't believe we know yet what the cop deemed as just cause to apply lethal force. How can you call him a "murderer" without more information?

Probably not, for good reason. Again, they have "privileges".

Privileges definition, a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person
beyond the advantages of most:

Origanalist
06-18-2013, 11:10 PM
That's just the kind of person that becomes a cop. We've learned this through multiple incidences similar to this in which a cop, whether he's on duty or not, is just overtaken by inexplicable rage. You have to be insane to become a cop, literally.

Well, if you're not you soon will be in this day and age.

QuickZ06
06-18-2013, 11:43 PM
Too many psychics in this thread. It's creepin' me out ...

Did you know its 5 o' clock somewhere?

Mani
06-18-2013, 11:52 PM
I've been on both sides of a similar scenario thankfully both times the child was not seriously harmed.

One time as a family we were driving during a 4th of July day, both sides of the streets had people, my dad was driving slow, 5-15 miles per hour and being cautious. But still some kid 4-6 years old ran right in front of the car, like literally ran at the worst possible time, right 2 feet in front of the car. Impossible to avoid.

We all jumped out of the car and ran to make sure the kid was all right. My brother in law is an ER doctor so he rushed to him and just checked him. The family was super pissed and didn't like some stranger touching the kid and even after he said, "I'm a doctor..." The mom or grandmother screamed, "Doctor of WHAT!?!??!" and gave him or horrible evil look.

Kid was fine and we were all shaken up and the family was pissed but we all went on our way.


The second time, my little cousin was 2-4 years old. She jumps into the road, it's a fast road, but not ever busy road (older cousin was maybe 12-14) was supposed to be watching her. The rest of us were 50-100 feet away. Guy was driving 40-50 miles per hour, slams on the breaks hits my cousin, she flies back 10 feet. Her sandals remained underneath the bumper.

My aunt and uncle more screaming at each other and rushing to the kid as to who was supposed to be watching her.

The guy was shit fucking scared. Shaking. He could barely talk. Thankfully she was fine.

The guy couldn't even get back in the car in drive. He took a while to compose himself and was fighting back tears. At least 2 times he tried to drive away but couldn't because he was so shaken up.


In BOTH cases, I've experienced, the kid was at fault. Kids at that age do stupid stuff, they aren't aware of their surroundings. And even having an older sibling/parental unit, all it takes is 2 fucking seconds for a kid to decide to jump into a street, even if you are standing right there. It does happen.

In both cases, the offending party was either too fucking scared to do anything, as they saw themselves almost kill a child or they rushed to help.

In NEITHER scenario did it ever occur to the offending party to take out a gun and defend himself and start shooting angry parents. They weren't even in the frame of mind to do so.

I remember when we were driving in hitting that kid, you are just so fearful for that kid, and it didn't matter the wrath that family was giving, you just cared about the kid.



All situations like this are different, but stuff like this happens. But how the fuck does a person hit a kid and then shake that off and shoot an angry father? If it's an officer to PROTECT and SERVE, wouldn't they be assisting with an INJURED child, calling the ambulance? Trying to calm down a family, and assist?

When we had an angry family after hitting a kid, they obviously saw we had a Dr and we were trying to help. I think the grandmother pulled the kid away from my brother in law at some point (can't remember exactly it was 20 years ago, and I do remember being in a bit of shock at the whole thing).

We don't have all the facts, but in my past experience, the person who ran over the kid is just too absorbed in the trauma of almost taking a child's life than trying to defend himself.

DamianTV
06-19-2013, 01:01 AM
What difference does it make that he was a cop????? Anybody with any sense would cut the father all the slack he needed. I would have been so devastated from hitting that child that shooting someone would be the last thing on my mind.

The Cop didnt see the man as a Father, he saw him as a WITNESS that needed to be eliminated. That is the difference between us and Corrupt Cops. We see people. Human Beings. They see only criminals, liabilities, potential lawsuits.

Halo
06-19-2013, 02:37 AM
"Qualified Immunity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) needs to be seriously curtailed.
Qualified immunity, when applicable, shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_rights).

Who the hell do they think the chains of the Constitution apply to if not "government officials".

tod evans
06-19-2013, 02:57 AM
http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/hang.gif Get a rope! :mad:

HigherVision
06-19-2013, 03:26 AM
Cops being cops.

mrsat_98
06-19-2013, 05:14 AM
[/FONT][/COLOR][/I]Who the hell do they think the chains of the Constitution apply to if not "government officials".[/QUOTE]

There are two persons here , the "officer Joe Friendly" as an offical and Joe Friendly the individual. Sue them both qualified immunity means they did the dastardly deed but they are immune officially. The individual knew or should have known that his actions would violate clearly established law.

The chains apply to the individual acting under color of law.

Todd
06-19-2013, 05:53 AM
Do off duty cops need concealed carry permits in states that require them?

No. The badge is the permit.

bolil
06-19-2013, 06:06 AM
"I am a cop." translation, "I know your little girl's face has been skinned off, but you better calm down or I am going to shoot you to death."

"I am a cop." translation, "This never happened, keep your mouth shut, or I am going to shoot you to death."

If an armed, private, citizen did something like this... well, we all know it would be another reason to ban the rest of the citizenry from owning firearms. So, perhaps, this should result in much agitation for the disarming of off duty cops?

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 06:29 AM
I've been on both sides of a similar scenario thankfully both times the child was not seriously harmed.

One time as a family we were driving during a 4th of July day, both sides of the streets had people, my dad was driving slow, 5-15 miles per hour and being cautious. But still some kid 4-6 years old ran right in front of the car, like literally ran at the worst possible time, right 2 feet in front of the car. Impossible to avoid.

We all jumped out of the car and ran to make sure the kid was all right. My brother in law is an ER doctor so he rushed to him and just checked him. The family was super pissed and didn't like some stranger touching the kid and even after he said, "I'm a doctor..." The mom or grandmother screamed, "Doctor of WHAT!?!??!" and gave him or horrible evil look.

Kid was fine and we were all shaken up and the family was pissed but we all went on our way.


The second time, my little cousin was 2-4 years old. She jumps into the road, it's a fast road, but not ever busy road (older cousin was maybe 12-14) was supposed to be watching her. The rest of us were 50-100 feet away. Guy was driving 40-50 miles per hour, slams on the breaks hits my cousin, she flies back 10 feet. Her sandals remained underneath the bumper.

My aunt and uncle more screaming at each other and rushing to the kid as to who was supposed to be watching her.

The guy was shit fucking scared. Shaking. He could barely talk. Thankfully she was fine.

The guy couldn't even get back in the car in drive. He took a while to compose himself and was fighting back tears. At least 2 times he tried to drive away but couldn't because he was so shaken up.


In BOTH cases, I've experienced, the kid was at fault. Kids at that age do stupid stuff, they aren't aware of their surroundings. And even having an older sibling/parental unit, all it takes is 2 fucking seconds for a kid to decide to jump into a street, even if you are standing right there. It does happen.

In both cases, the offending party was either too fucking scared to do anything, as they saw themselves almost kill a child or they rushed to help.

In NEITHER scenario did it ever occur to the offending party to take out a gun and defend himself and start shooting angry parents. They weren't even in the frame of mind to do so.

I remember when we were driving in hitting that kid, you are just so fearful for that kid, and it didn't matter the wrath that family was giving, you just cared about the kid.



All situations like this are different, but stuff like this happens. But how the fuck does a person hit a kid and then shake that off and shoot an angry father? If it's an officer to PROTECT and SERVE, wouldn't they be assisting with an INJURED child, calling the ambulance? Trying to calm down a family, and assist?

When we had an angry family after hitting a kid, they obviously saw we had a Dr and we were trying to help. I think the grandmother pulled the kid away from my brother in law at some point (can't remember exactly it was 20 years ago, and I do remember being in a bit of shock at the whole thing).

We don't have all the facts, but in my past experience, the person who ran over the kid is just too absorbed in the trauma of almost taking a child's life than trying to defend himself.



No Hesitation Targets

http://www.mrconservative.com/files/2013/02/DHS_4.jpg

Nate SY
06-19-2013, 06:44 AM
I don't understand the reflexive condemnations based off the fact that he's a cop. The video says he was attacked two grown men. The witnesses don't dispute that, just if he identified himself or not. I get it, there was an accident, his daughter got hurt, that doesn't justify attacking another person. End point is if I was attacked in the same situation I'd shoot him too. Probably let him beat me a good bit before it, but when I felt like my life was threatened I'd kill him and feel justified doing it. Who cares if he's a cop, or identified himself as such or not. When we have a lot more details ill decide who I support, but their occupation will have nothing to do with it.

newbitech
06-19-2013, 06:59 AM
I think what you are all missing here is that the little girl and more importantly the police officer are expected to survive.

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 07:11 AM
I don't understand the reflexive condemnations based off the fact that he's a cop. The video says he was attacked two grown men. The witnesses don't dispute that, just if he identified himself or not. I get it, there was an accident, his daughter got hurt, that doesn't justify attacking another person. End point is if I was attacked in the same situation I'd shoot him too. Probably let him beat me a good bit before it, but when I felt like my life was threatened I'd kill him and feel justified doing it. Who cares if he's a cop, or identified himself as such or not. When we have a lot more details ill decide who I support, but their occupation will have nothing to do with it.

You're right, it has become a reflex. It shouldn't be, but there is a reason for it being one. I shouldn't jump so fast on this, I wasn't there.

osan
06-19-2013, 07:52 AM
"Qualified Immunity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) needs to be seriously eliminatedcurtailed.
Qualified immunity, when applicable, shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_rights).

Who the hell do they think the chains of the Constitution apply to if not "government officials".

FTFY.

ZENemy
06-19-2013, 08:03 AM
And don't you ever forget it, mundanes.

One has the rights one is willing to assert.

RonPaulMall
06-19-2013, 08:07 AM
All situations like this are different, but stuff like this happens. But how the fuck does a person hit a kid and then shake that off and shoot an angry father? If it's an officer to PROTECT and SERVE, wouldn't they be assisting with an INJURED child, calling the ambulance? Trying to calm down a family, and assist?

When we had an angry family after hitting a kid, they obviously saw we had a Dr and we were trying to help. I think the grandmother pulled the kid away from my brother in law at some point (can't remember exactly it was 20 years ago, and I do remember being in a bit of shock at the whole thing).

We don't have all the facts, but in my past experience, the person who ran over the kid is just too absorbed in the trauma of almost taking a child's life than trying to defend himself.

From the looks of it, this seems like a really shady area. The report that the two men attacked the motorcycle rider seems to go uncontested by the witnesses. The fact the witnesses put so much stock in to whether this guy said he was a cop or not (as if it would have been ok to attack the guy if he didn't identify himself as a cop) doesn't really speak well about the type of attitudes that might be prevalent in this community. Your point about being shaken up is all well and good, but none of the people in your examples had any reason to fear for their lives or safety after the accident. If anything is going to shake you out of a trauma, it is going to be the flight or fight response triggered by a physical attack.

Also, for the people indicting this guy for mentioning that he was a cop, isn't it possible he said that in an attempt to prevent an escalation? Bottom line here is no conclusions can be drawn until more facts are known. Cops often do bad things, but not every cop in every situation is in the wrong.

seraphson
06-19-2013, 09:04 AM
To be fair, if the kid suddenly darted out into the street, it may not have been the fault of the motorcyclist, but possibly that of an inattentive adult guardian. And, depending on how aggressive the father might have been (purely speculative, of course), the motorcyclist may have been justified in using lethal force in his defense. Hopefully some witnesses can come forward and shed some light.

My thoughts exactly. There is very little you can do if a child decides to dart out into the road except brake/maneuver and pray. To be honest it depends on how aggressive the now dead guy got. If anything he should be at least a little upset with himself for 1) not teaching his child to cross roads 2) letting the child dart out. Of course kids will be kids and you can't help every given scenario of the hundreds if not thousands that could play out.

Cissy
06-19-2013, 10:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUya7B7qvbI


"Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

~Edward Snowden

This happened in August of last year,

..............................

As he was driving home, the officer says he saw a child unexpectedly run into the street. In order not to strike the girl directly, the cop jumped off his motorcycle, pulling it down on its side on the pavement. However, the motorcycle skidded and flipped, hitting the 4-year-old girl and her 18-year-old cousin, John Passley.

As the officer attempted to provide aide to the girl, her father, identified as Christopher Middleton, 26, came running out of a nearby restaurant and aggressively approached the officer and began shouting, officials said. The cop argues that he identified himself as a police officer but Middleton still hit him in the face and knocked him to the ground before striking him repeatedly.

According to the Daily Herald, the officer said, “Take it easy, I’m the Police.” But Middleton replied, “I don’t give a f*ck who you are,” and punched him in the face.

Passley reportedly began kicking the officer, joining Middleton in the assault. Shortly after, the officer drew his weapon and fired once, fatally wounding Middleton. He was pronounced dead at around 10:14 p.m. Saturday at Loyola Medical Center.

“At that point he’s defending his life — he’s on the ground, he’s about to lose consciousness from the people who are beating him and draws his weapon in defense of his life,” Camden said. “The officer responded accordingly.”

[URL="This happened in August of last year, .............................. As he was driving home, the officer says he saw a child unexpectedly run into the street. In order not to strike the girl directly, the cop jumped off his motorcycle, pulling it down on its side on the pavement. However, the motorcycle skidded and flipped, hitting the 4-year-old girl and her 18-year-old cousin, John Passley. As the officer attempted to provide aide to the girl, her father, identified as Christopher Middleton, 26, came running out of a nearby restaurant and aggressively approached the officer and began shouting, officials said. The cop argues that he identified himself as a police officer but Middleton still hit him in the face and knocked him to the ground before striking him repeatedly. According to the Daily Herald, the officer said, “Take it easy, I’m the Police.” But Middleton replied, “I don’t give a f*ck who you are,” and punched him in the face. Passley reportedly began kicking the officer, joining Middleton in the assault. Shortly after, the officer drew his weapon and fired once, fatally wounding Middleton. He was pronounced dead at around 10:14 p.m. Saturday at Loyola Medical Center. “At that point he’s defending his life — he’s on the ground, he’s about to lose consciousness from the people who are beating him and draws his weapon in defense of his life, Camden said. “The officer responded accordingly.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/14/off-duty-cop-hits-4-year-old-girl-with-motorcycle-then-shoots-and-kills-angry-dad/

Cissy
06-19-2013, 10:33 AM
If someone has to lay down their bike to avoid hitting an unsupervised kid, I don't see why they wouldn't be the one feeling victimized. Then attacked also? Geez. We need more facts here with respect to this case.

The officer was clearly traveling at an unsafe speed if his only options were to lay down the bike or directly run over the child.

pcosmar
06-19-2013, 11:34 AM
The officer was clearly traveling at an unsafe speed if his only options were to lay down the bike or directly run over the child.

Failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle,, would be the charge for anyone but a Cop.

Czolgosz
06-19-2013, 11:46 AM
Odds are the government pig is a complete asshole.

BUT, if a raged father and another adult were over aggressive I can see a need for self defense.


i.e., there's not enough info.

LibertyEagle
06-19-2013, 12:17 PM
http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/hang.gif Get a rope! :mad:


This murderer must be apprehended and justice must be served upon him, privately.

Nothing less will do.

Are you people frickin' serious??? I thought we were all about the rule of law; not acting like a lynch mob, which are examples of "democracy" in action. Mob rule.

So what is it? You don't care about getting the facts before you, the "deciders", try, convict and sentence another human being all by your little lonesome?

This was never what this movement was about. Disgusting!

Pericles
06-19-2013, 12:24 PM
Failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle,, would be the charge for anyone but a Cop.

Thread winner.

fisharmor
06-19-2013, 12:34 PM
Are you people frickin' serious??? I thought we were all about the rule of law; not acting like a lynch mob, which are examples of "democracy" in action. Mob rule.

So what is it? You don't care about getting the facts before you, the "deciders", try, convict and sentence another human being all by your little lonesome?


I subscribe to Hayek's definition: the Rule of Law is simply that the same set of standards that apply to us also apply to agents of the state.
They have chosen how "justice" is to be administered in this country.
I'm sorry if it disgusts you, but the only way to achieve the rule of law in this country, short of trashing the entire system and starting over, is to do exactly this: administer justice to agents of the state in exactly the same manner they do so to us.

tod evans
06-19-2013, 12:45 PM
Are you people frickin' serious??? I thought we were all about the rule of law; not acting like a lynch mob, which are examples of "democracy" in action. Mob rule.

So what is it? You don't care about getting the facts before you, the "deciders", try, convict and sentence another human being all by your little lonesome?

This was never what this movement was about. Disgusting!

"We" aren't about squat!

"I" automatically assume if a cop kills a citizen that the cop is in the wrong.

"I" haven't read anything yet that has convinced "me" that this cop was justified murdering a citizen.

"I" will always expect an armed public servant to use lethal force as the last option regardless of public sentiment.

"I" don't accept a police review boards judgement as impartial or even fair.

But I agree that "we" would like to see the rule of law applied evenly and fairly.

"I" think if it was you or I who shot the bereaved father the prosecuting attorney would have filed charges against us the very next business day.

Now, do "you" still believe "I" was wrong in my initial assessment given the article presented?

"I" don't do "we", I'm an individual who thinks and acts all by myself and "I" hold a man living off the public coffers, who is sworn to uphold the rule of law, to the simple standard of abiding by the laws he's sworn to uphold.

From what I read he did not abide by the laws he was sworn to uphold and due entirely to his own negligence was put in circumstances where he felt justified taking another mans life, "I" call for the same punishment you or I would be facing in the same circumstances.

LibertyEagle
06-19-2013, 12:52 PM
I subscribe to Hayek's definition: the Rule of Law is simply that the same set of standards that apply to us also apply to agents of the state.
They have chosen how "justice" is to be administered in this country.
I'm sorry if it disgusts you, but the only way to achieve the rule of law in this country, short of trashing the entire system and starting over, is to do exactly this: administer justice to agents of the state in exactly the same manner they do so to us.

So, based upon one news report you believe you have all the information you need to go string him up, eh?

LibertyEagle
06-19-2013, 12:53 PM
"We" aren't about squat!

"I" automatically assume if a cop kills a citizen that the cop is in the wrong.

"I" haven't read anything yet that has convinced "me" that this cop was justified murdering a citizen.

"I" will always expect an armed public servant to use lethal force as the last option regardless of public sentiment.

"I" don't accept a police review boards judgement as impartial or even fair.

But I agree that "we" would like to see the rule of law applied evenly and fairly.

"I" think if it was you or I who shot the bereaved father the prosecuting attorney would have filed charges against us the very next business day.

Now, do "you" still believe "I" was wrong in my initial assessment given the article presented?

"I" don't do "we", I'm an individual who thinks and acts all by myself and "I" hold a man living off the public coffers, who is sworn to uphold the rule of law, to the simple standard of abiding by the laws he's sworn to uphold.

From what I read he did not abide by the laws he was sworn to uphold and due entirely to his own negligence was put in circumstances where he felt justified taking another mans life, "I" call for the same punishment you or I would be facing in the same circumstances.

YOU appear to operate from the premise of guilty until proven innocent. Interesting, but it doesn't exactly match up with what Ron Paul has spent his whole life advocating.

tod evans
06-19-2013, 12:58 PM
No, I assume every cop who shoots a citizen had another choice.

I will never accept cops killing citizens unless it's a verifiable case of having to shoot back in self defense.

This officer safety crap is just so much hooey and I don't buy it.

fisharmor
06-19-2013, 01:09 PM
So, based upon one news report you believe you have all the information you need to go string him up, eh?

I'm not sure how you gleaned that from what I wrote.
I stated that if we were to apply "justice" equally, then it would be perfectly acceptable for this cop to have been beaten to death with nightsticks on the spot, because that is how "justice" gets applied to non-cops.
That would uphold the rule of law.

The only other option is to make it unacceptable for either cops or non-cops to beat people to death with nightsticks on the spot.
I'm not holding my breath.

tod evans
06-19-2013, 01:18 PM
Murder to escape a well deserved ass-whuppin'....

Something only a cop would contemplate, let alone get away with..

anaconda
06-19-2013, 01:58 PM
I don't understand the reflexive condemnations based off the fact that he's a cop. The video says he was attacked two grown men. The witnesses don't dispute that, just if he identified himself or not. I get it, there was an accident, his daughter got hurt, that doesn't justify attacking another person. End point is if I was attacked in the same situation I'd shoot him too. Probably let him beat me a good bit before it, but when I felt like my life was threatened I'd kill him and feel justified doing it. Who cares if he's a cop, or identified himself as such or not. When we have a lot more details ill decide who I support, but their occupation will have nothing to do with it.

Well there is at least one grown up posting in this thread (Nate SY). As much as I mistrust and despise cops, the lynch mob mentality in this thread is shameful.

anaconda
06-19-2013, 02:01 PM
The officer was clearly traveling at an unsafe speed if his only options were to lay down the bike or directly run over the child.

Clearly how? Unsafe speed? Sorry, I must have missed something. How do we know this?

Cissy
06-19-2013, 04:01 PM
Clearly how? Unsafe speed? Sorry, I must have missed something. How do we know this?

The officer's justification: by the claims of the government employee, he had only those two options, ergo, if, say running off road and striking a bush or tree was not a viable option in an attempt to avoid a child crossing the street, then the officer was going too fast for the conditions present (pedestrians crossing the street)

One of the relevant charges, for a non-government employee would be "Failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle".

anaconda
06-19-2013, 07:03 PM
The officer's justification: by the claims of the government employee, he had only those two options, ergo, if, say running off road and striking a bush or tree was not a viable option in an attempt to avoid a child crossing the street, then the officer was going too fast for the conditions present (pedestrians crossing the street)

One of the relevant charges, for a non-government employee would be "Failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle".

Who is "the government employee" you are referring to? And where did this individual claim that there existed two, and only two, "options" in this scenario?

HigherVision
06-19-2013, 07:08 PM
I don't understand the reflexive condemnations based off the fact that he's a cop. The video says he was attacked two grown men. The witnesses don't dispute that, just if he identified himself or not. I get it, there was an accident, his daughter got hurt, that doesn't justify attacking another person. End point is if I was attacked in the same situation I'd shoot him too. Probably let him beat me a good bit before it, but when I felt like my life was threatened I'd kill him and feel justified doing it. Who cares if he's a cop, or identified himself as such or not. When we have a lot more details ill decide who I support, but their occupation will have nothing to do with it.

It comes from experience dealing with cops.

TheTexan
06-19-2013, 07:25 PM
No video, didn't happen

jclay2
06-19-2013, 07:29 PM
I'm sorry, but I think I may have let the father beat the shit out me.

If it were me, I would have probably balled my eyes out as I feebly attempted to protect my face. To me that is a normal reaction though. What this cop does is pure insanity.

TheTexan
06-19-2013, 07:33 PM
If it were me, I would have probably balled my eyes out as I feebly attempted to protect my face. To me that is a normal reaction though. What this cop does is pure insanity.

Cops hurt innocent people on a regular basis, and during the course of their duty, their behavior can't be questioned. Question the uniform, and get body slammed and cuffed.

That kind of psychology invariably carries over to "off-duty", which is almost certainly what provoked this incident

James Madison
06-19-2013, 07:43 PM
What difference does it make that he was a cop????? Anybody with any sense would cut the father all the slack he needed. I would have been so devastated from hitting that child that shooting someone would be the last thing on my mind.

If my daughter were hit by a car, my first thought would be to make sure she was ok and then call an ambulance, not beat the shit out of some random stranger.

Why was she outside and he not with her? It was a restaurant. Was he drinking? Was he drunk?

This board needs to chill the fuck out. I'm one of the biggest cop bashers on this board and even I can see most of you have this seething hatred of cops -- wait for it -- because they have this seething hatred of all non-cops. So at best, you're guilty of the exact same behavior you use to justify a hatred of cops.

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 07:52 PM
If my daughter were hit by a car, my first thought would be to make sure she was ok and then call an ambulance, not beat the shit out of some random stranger.

Why was she outside and he not with her? It was a restaurant. Was he drinking? Was he drunk?

This board needs to chill the fuck out. I'm one of the biggest cop bashers on this board and even I can see most of you have this seething hatred of cops -- wait for it -- because they have this seething hatred of all non-cops. So at best, you're guilty of the exact same behavior you use to justify a hatred of cops.

Ya, and we beat em up, throw em in jail and shoot them on a regular basis. Keep your lectures to yourself.

TheTexan
06-19-2013, 07:55 PM
This board needs to chill the fuck out. I'm one of the biggest cop bashers on this board and even I can see most of you have this seething hatred of cops -- wait for it -- because they have this seething hatred of all non-cops. So at best, you're guilty of the exact same behavior you use to justify a hatred of cops.

You're right. We should probably wait until the trial to begin passing judgement.

Oh wait

tod evans
06-19-2013, 07:57 PM
[snip to relevant statement] "I" call for the same punishment you or I would be facing in the same circumstances.


YOU appear to operate from the premise of guilty until proven innocent. Interesting, but it doesn't exactly match up with what Ron Paul has spent his whole life advocating.

Actually I posted a hanging smiley captioned with "Get a rope" which in reality is exactly what a prosecutor would do to you or I in the same circumstances..A murder indictment is akin to "Get a rope".

Quid-pro-quo, equal justice, goose-gander...

Seems I recall Ron Paul advocating equal and uniform justice, not one set of rules for cops and another for citizens.

The premise I operate from is very simple, what with all his training and years of experience, knowing he was guilty of injuring a child this particular cop did what you or I are not permitted to do, that being, shoot someone who confronts us.

The clip has one witness use the word confrontation,1:15 in the vid, I didn't hear mention of the cop who hit a child being beaten. According to the newz lady "Other cops said he was attacked" a statement I give no credibility whatsoever.

James Madison
06-19-2013, 08:02 PM
Ya, and we beat em up, throw em in jail and shoot them on a regular basis.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?


Keep your lectures to yourself.

Ah, it's good to see the forum fascists expose themselves for who they really are.


You're right. We should probably wait until the trial to begin passing judgement.

Oh wait

Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. It seems most on this board don't really care about Due Process if the accused is a member of a group they hate. Kinda reminds me of someone else...

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 08:13 PM
Truth hurts, doesn't it?



Ah, it's good to see the forum fascists expose themselves for who they really are.



Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. It seems most on this board don't really care about Due Process if the accused is a member of a group they hate. Kinda reminds me of someone else...

Forum fascist? Pot meet kettle, what a self-righteous ass.

James Madison
06-19-2013, 08:18 PM
Forum fascist? Pot meet kettle, what a self-righteous ass.

Yes, it's totally fascism when you want to get all the facts before convicting the guy. I would also note that name-calling is internet for 'I don't have an effective rebuttal, so I'll resort to ad hominems, instead.'

jclay2
06-19-2013, 08:21 PM
Anyone have some good stats on off duty deaths involving police? I think that would be really interesting as it is clear (no uniform or not), police meet any amount of confrontation with the most absolute force possible.

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 08:22 PM
Yes, it's totally fascism when you want to get all the facts before convicting the guy. I would also note that name-calling is internet for 'I don't have an effective rebuttal, so I'll resort to ad hominems, instead.'

Are you really that dense? You started the ad hominems with the forum fascist remark. And if you would have read further into the thread you would have seen that I admitted that I had a knee jerk reaction.

Have a good night.

tod evans
06-19-2013, 08:23 PM
Won't help the child with roadrash and a dead father..:o

James Madison
06-19-2013, 08:27 PM
Are you really that dense? You started the ad hominems with the forum fascist remark. And if you would have read further into the thread you would have seen that I admitted that I had a knee jerk reaction.

Have a good night.

You told me to keep my opinions to myself...on a public message board.

Edit: As for this case, I don't see how it's all that different from the Traevon Martin shooting last year. Guy does something stupid, the offended overreacts and procedes to beat the first guy, who then shoots the second guy in self-defense. I though everyone here was defending Zimmerman? Oh, but this is different because he's a cop?

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 08:31 PM
You told me to keep my opinions to myself...on a public message board.


snip

This board needs to chill the fuck out. snip

Sounds like a lecture to me, not an opinion.

James Madison
06-19-2013, 08:36 PM
Sounds like a lecture to me, not an opinion.

Sounds like an opinion to me, not a lecture.

See, I can play semantic word-games, too!

Origanalist
06-19-2013, 08:38 PM
Sounds like an opinion to me, not a lecture.

See, I can play semantic word-games, too!

You're right, you win the interwebs.

James Madison
06-19-2013, 08:40 PM
You're right, you win the interwebs.

Come on! Tell me how this is different than Travon Martin? I really wanna hear it!

jclay2
06-19-2013, 08:43 PM
Interesting find on my question posed earlier:


Off-duty Chicago police officers were involved in 11 of 45 shootings of civilians in 2006, the last year for which complete statistics are available. In 2005, 11 of 39 shootings involved off-duty officers, according to figures provided by the Police Department and its civilian arm, the Office of Professional Standards, or OPS.

Not sure how they define shooting of civilians, but to me it seems like 25% of these "justified" civilian murders happen from off duty police which are an extremely tiny percent of the population making them orders of magnitude more likely to murder people off duty. But of course these murders are always justified.

James Madison
06-19-2013, 08:46 PM
Interesting find on my question posed earlier:



Not sure how they define shooting of civilians, but to me it seems like 25% of these "justified" civilian murders happen from off duty police which are an extremely tiny percent of the population making them orders of magnitude more likely to murder people off duty. But of course these murders are always justified.

More likely that because guns are extremely hard to come by in Chicago and cops usually carry guns, they are more likely to be involved in shootings. They're also more likely to be in bad neighborhoods that other Chicagoans avoid.

45 and 39 seem awfully low for an entire calendar year in Chicago. Sounds more like a bad weekend.

RickyJ
06-19-2013, 08:52 PM
If someone has to lay down their bike to avoid hitting an unsupervised kid, I don't see why they wouldn't be the one feeling victimized. Then attacked also? Geez. We need more facts here with respect to this case.

I agree, it's not like the guy was trying to hit her, he was trying to avoid her at injury to himself. However as a cop he also knew that he didn't have to shoot to kill to stop someone from attacking him, he could have just injured him instead in the leg or arm.

DamianTV
06-20-2013, 03:30 AM
YOU appear to operate from the premise of guilty until proven innocent. Interesting, but it doesn't exactly match up with what Ron Paul has spent his whole life advocating.

I cant say Im not guilty of that too. I guess it comes as a Bad Habit from daily expectations where we are all treated as Guilty. We've stopped thinking like free citizens. The most important part of being free is thinking like one, which includes also being responsible. And I admit to being just as jump the gun guilty as the rest.

fisharmor
06-20-2013, 06:50 AM
I agree, it's not like the guy was trying to hit her, he was trying to avoid her at injury to himself. However as a cop he also knew that he didn't have to shoot to kill to stop someone from attacking him, he could have just injured him instead in the leg or arm.

No.... no, no, this isn't how it works.
Even non-LEO oriented CCW classes teach that you never shoot to wound.
If you've gotten to the point where you're going to shoot someone - and non-LEOs are supposed to know when it is and is not appropriate - then you really are past the point where you can be expected to make a conscious decision to wound someone. The assumption (for non-LEOs) is that your life truly is in danger, and that if you don't shoot that other person you stand a very good chance of dying or suffering gross bodily harm.

The primary objection to shooting to wound is that it might not work. There are plenty of documented cases of particularly big guys getting an entire 6-round cylinder of 38 special unloaded into them and still living long enough to finish doing what they wanted. If you chose a more anemic round like 32ACP or 22LR then the odds are even better that a "wound" won't work. That's if you even hit - they also teach in CCW classes not to bother with head shots. You go for the center of mass because you have a much better chance of connecting.

The objective is to shoot to stop. If you happen to get one in the leg, and the guy sits down and starts crying that he needs an ambulance, then he has stopped, and you don't shoot any more. If you shoot and kill someone who is now sitting down not trying to kill you, then you're going to get tried for murder. But the point is, you don't aim for the leg. A hit to the leg comes with a low probability of stopping your attacker.

On the other hand, if you put two in his chest and he keeps coming, then you keep shooting until he stops. Hope you practiced your Mozambique drills.

But there's a secondary effect to shooting to stop by aiming for CoM: dead men tell no tales. Non-LEOs know this just as well as cops do.
Let's suppose you successfully wound the man (against all odds).
After the cops show up and take your firearm and probably all your other firearms and whatever else they want, and toss your house, and rifle through your cars, and check your bank accounts, and follow you to work a couple times, and insinuate in uniform to everyone you know that you are a murderer, and make you empty out your 401K to afford a good defense lawyer, what the hell sense is there in having wounded a man who was intent on killing you, only to have him sit in the dock and tell everyone that you stalked him down like an animal and made him plead for his life before you maliciously wounded him?
If he was trying to kill you, what incentive does he have to tell the truth?
What incentive does he have to lie through his teeth?

It's a fine line that CHP holders dance. If you don't shoot, your life is ended, and if you do shoot, your life might be ruined. You'll be broke, and you could even go to prison.

Now as far as holding the police to that standard... lest we forget, the simplest solution to that problem - and every other single problem involving the police - is to simply abolish the constabulary and make all of this a completely moot point.

osan
06-20-2013, 09:10 AM
One has the rights one is willing to assert.

In positive terms, you are correct. Normatively speaking, no. In principle your rights are always present even if you fail to assert them or they are being actively violated or otherwise disparaged by another party. Though it may seem irrelevant, it is a fundamental truth that is important to the understanding proper human relations. All people should be taught this, yet nearly nobody is. The public schools of <name your nation-state> certainly fail to teach this, for reasons speculation will tend to lead toward either veiled malice or a truly demented sense of "the greater good". No doubt Hobbes would be proud.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-20-2013, 09:16 AM
I agree, it's not like the guy was trying to hit her, he was trying to avoid her at injury to himself. However as a cop he also knew that he didn't have to shoot to kill to stop someone from attacking him, he could have just injured him instead in the leg or arm.


Please don't tell people that. Do you have any idea how hard it is to shoot an arm? That's not how people are trained to use firearms, and for good reason.

ok, I see fisharmor covered this in much more detail. +rep

osan
06-20-2013, 10:02 AM
No.... no, no, this isn't how it works.
Even non-LEO oriented CCW classes teach that you never shoot to wound.

That is correct. If I deem myself to be under sufficient threat to produce a weapon and make use of it, I am not going to kiss you and hope you love me back. My intention shall be to halt your action without the least sense of equivocation. If I feel I am only justified in wounding, putting a weapon into action is inappropriate. This is not the same as the bushido concept of "merciful tanto", though it might seem that way.


If you've gotten to the point where you're going to shoot someone - and non-LEOs are supposed to know when it is and is not appropriate - then you really are past the point where you can be expected to make a conscious decision to wound someone.

Agreed. Bringing a weapon to bear is one thing - it is reasonable when one is attempting to convince a party that it is unwise to proceed with their hostilities. This is how firearms are used in 99+% of all cases. If we take the low estimate of 1 million defensive uses of firearms in the USA/year (likely low) and the number of firearm homicides at 10K (definitely well high of the actual), we see that the actual rate of killing is well south of 1%.


The primary objection to shooting to wound is that it might not work. There are plenty of documented cases of particularly big guys getting an entire 6-round cylinder of 38 special unloaded into them and still living long enough to finish doing what they wanted. If you chose a more anemic round like 32ACP or 22LR then the odds are even better that a "wound" won't work. That's if you even hit - they also teach in CCW classes not to bother with head shots. You go for the center of mass because you have a much better chance of connecting.

I've related this story before, but I will repeat it here because I like hearing myself type.

My father had a shooting buddy who owned a liquor store in Bay Ridge (Brooklyn, NYC). One evening a LARGE man came in, produced a weapon and demanded money from the doorway, which was all the way at the other end of the store from the register. Yes, stoopid criminal tricks. Owner produced his Browning HiPower and demanded the thief desist. Thief began walking toward register, slowly as I recall it having been told. Owner keeps shouting commands to stop, rocket surgeon thief keeps coming. Owner finally lets loose, center of mass, thief keeps coming. Owner emptied TWO 15-round magazines into the robber. The 31st round went to the head and that dropped him in his tracks. He told me he was shitting iron bars when he realized he needed the second magazine - had always thought it silly to keep it because he would probably never need it. Lesson learned. Get a .45, 38 Super, .357 Mag, 10mm Mag., 44 Mag., or some other heavy hitter and forget that 9mm anemia - and always have plenty of ammo on hand. It won't likely go bad just sitting there.

Yes, it is rare, but that will make no difference whatsoever if YOU happen to find yourself facing such a person. Encounter a person drunk enough, drugged enough, or simply just mad enough and you will be facing very real, very mortal, and very present danger. This is just one sufficient reason why magazine bans violate fundamental human rights. This reason alone is sufficient to put Andrew Cuomo behind bars at hard labor for the rest of his miserable existence.


The objective is to shoot to stop. If you happen to get one in the leg, and the guy sits down and starts crying that he needs an ambulance, then he has stopped, and you don't shoot any more.

Dangerously incorrect. Appearances can be deceiving and criminals can be fantastic actors. You shoot until your attacker is INCAPABLE of moving in any volitional meaning. THAT is when the attack has ended because YOU ended it. An attacker should NEVER be viewed as having ended an attack, short of his turning tail and sprinting away from you for all his worthless legs will carry him. Short of that, the ONLY person who gets to decide when the attack is over is the person defending life and limb. If you deem it over as he sits, whimpering, then fine, but be aware that you leave him that intact at your risk.

Let us not lose sight of the fundamentals at work here. Another human being has behaved in such as was as to give you cause to believe he is intent on taking your life from you or bringing bodily injury to your front door. This a circumstance not to be taken lightly in any way or for any reason. If you are justified in bringing a weapon into action, you are justified in pressing your defense until YOU feel the threat is abated and that should never be the case until your attacker, who you must assume is intent on killing or maiming you so long as he is bodily capable of so doing. Given that, I return to the notion of pressing your defense until such time as you are convinced your assailant is materially INCAPABLE of further prosecuting his attack.

Note the difference between the ideas of an attacker being CAPABLE and that of being WILLING. When you remove his capacity to further attack, you are as safe at that moment and under that circumstance as is possible to be. When all that has happened is that you have convinced him to stop wanting to attack you further, you leave him in a state where he is able to attack you at a future time, the only thing required is his change of mind. Remember "alcohol", "drugs", and plain old fashioned "crazy". Any of theses could drive your assailant light years from rationality. What if he'd just taken a great load of meth and as he attacked he wasn't even really that high, but after "incapacitating" him he started rushing like the devil? That could readily bring him to a new assessment of his situation and when you least expect it you find yourself on the ground, your life oozing from your body in red at the hands of a man who is now 10x as raving mad as he was just two minutes before.

Do NOT make the mistake of accepting surrender at face value. Incapacity to proceed is the only reasonable assurance you have, and even then you have to proceed with great caution because someone who was just trying to kill or maim you may be faking.

Now, lest I be remiss, I must also mention that this must all be done within the minefield of legalities. The best thing there is to STFU and say NOTHING to "authorities" until your lawyer shows up. And when I say shut up, I mean it. Utter no word because a single carelessly loosed syllable can see you in prison for the rest of your life, regardless of how righteous your actions may have been. Prosecutors LOVE to put people into prison. It is, after all, their bread and butter. Never trust "authority", especially cops and prosecutors. Ignore this at your peril.


If you shoot and kill someone who is now sitting down not trying to kill you, then you're going to get tried for murder. But the point is, you don't aim for the leg. A hit to the leg comes with a low probability of stopping your attacker.


There is an even worse risk here that most never discover. If you shoot to wound and you come out of it OK, then explain what you did to authorities, I can almost guarantee you will face felony charges, especially in urban jurisdictions. Why? Because the argument can be effectively made that because you shot to wound it is a clear indication that you were not in fear for your life. Yes yes yes, this is demented, but legality it demented well beyond most people's ability to comprehend. This is a risk you do not want to take.


But there's a secondary effect to shooting to stop by aiming for CoM: dead men tell no tales.

Agreed. More than once those who have been shot by righteous people have turned around and charged THEM with assault and have filed suit, claiming they were not there to rob, but had gone to the wrong house or whatever rot they make up.

Anti Federalist
10-17-2016, 07:33 PM
Wonder how this turned out...?

Suzanimal
10-17-2016, 08:45 PM
Wonder how this turned out...?

One of the men who allegedly kicked his ass was charged and the shooting is being "looked into".


Man charged for attacking off-duty cop who hit girl with motorcycle, then shot and killed her angry dad

A man has been charged in connection with a fight that ended with an off-duty police officer shooting and killing the father of a little girl who was hit by his motorcycle.

John Passley of Bellwood, Ill., faces charges of aggravated assault on a police officer, WLS-TV reported.

The Chicago cop intentionally ditched his motorcycle Saturday night in Maywood when he saw 4-year-old Taniyah Middleton suddenly run into his path.

The bike skidded and slammed into Taniyah and Passley, her 18-year-old cousin. The little girl was not seriously hurt.

RELATED: OFF-DUTY COP KILLS ANGRY DAD AFTER HURTING THE MAN'S DAUGHTER WITH HIS MOTORCYCLE

Taniyah’s father, Christopher Middleton, came out of a restaurant and reportedly punched the officer in the face, then continued to pummel him. Passley allegedly joined in by kicking the downed cop.

The 43-year-old officer drew his gun and fired once at Middleton, killing him.

The Independent Police Review Authority is looking into the shooting.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-charged-attacking-off-duty-hit-girl-motorcycle-shot-killed-angry-dad-article-1.1137620

Danke
10-18-2016, 03:59 AM
Am I reading this right? Father has 4 year old out in a street with traffic at 10 pm on a Saturday night. Man has to ditch his motorcycle to avoid hitting her. Her dad and some other dudes attack him, he finally pulls out gun to protect himself, and we are blaming him because he is a cop?