Posted on 06/19/2013 8:32:15 AM PDT by Altariel
Cop Hits Little Girl With Motorcycle Then Shoots and Kills Angry Dad
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
From all the information we have, the cop was justified in the shooting.
Reportedly he was already seriously injured with broken bones, he was being beaten by multiple assailants, he was on the ground with Middleton on top of him pummeling him repeatedly, he was near unconsciousness.
He used the last defense available to him.
It matters what they heard, not what he said.
What I realize is that a careless person would have done nothing and not tried to stop at all. His occupation has nothing to do with the accident.
The most proximate fault is the 18 yr old who failed to prevent a 4 yr old from darting into traffic at night. They should have been holding hands in order to maintain control of the child.
The bike rider is not the only one that failed at situational awareness.
Now whether he panicked or deliberately laid it down is immaterial to the fact that he tried to aid the child while suffering far greater injuries himself.
And got beat up by urban thugs. I’d have shot the dad’s sorry ass, too. But since I’m not a cop, I’m sure I’d be safe from the phony baloney double standard on display on this thread.
The same way any driver, regardless of occupation, would be held at fault for hitting a child in a vehicular accident.Skewed and inaccurate, like most of your comments on this thread.Why? The adult, not the child, is responsible for observing the rules of the road [we taught our kids to look before entering a street- S] and *not hitting the child in the first place*.
The kid wasn't properly supervised, and the motorcyclist was apparently obeying the rules.
The kid darted out in traffic.
I once hit a kid on a bicycle (well he slammed into my car) who was zooming down the sidewalk and kept going even though I was just starting out from a stop sign.
He was coming from the sidewalk on the right, and when I checked out all places a car, pedestrian, or bicyclist could be approaching, it was all clear.
The kid wasn't hurt, and the cops gave him a lecture for breaking the law of and riding his bicycle in a dangerous and illegal manner.
I was NOT held at fault, stop making stuff up,.
LIke button.
I guess I don’t see those words as provoking.
Probably more useful would have been, don’t strike me I’m armed.
And you can’t tell the difference!
Good one. Not sure I was thinking that way, but I certainly understand.
I wonder if you would have the guts to tell the girl her daddy was beating a cop when he died?
Violence should only be used in self defense. When you continue to beat a man who is down on the ground, especially after he has identified himself as a cop, you move into attempted murder arena.
I would not relish TELLING her that, even if it is true.
Reality is what they decide it is...YOU RACIST!
(heh, only kidding)
should the cop have let the father continue to beat him? for how long?
Beating on the cop was protecting the child?
How do you figure that?
The “father” was more interested in venting his anger than looking after his daughter.
Which he caused the cop to stop doing.
Who cared about the kid more, the cop or the father?
It's amazing what people will post without knowing the facts, or in some cases here, ignoring them.
And making up their own.
Some posters seem to think that the cop “aimed” his motorcycle at the girl and hit her on purpose.
And motorcycle riders are capable of making split second decisions, such as this rider did. Which was disputed.
When my son was rounding a corner on a major highway at 65 mph (the speed limit btw) on a Harley and a bear ran out right in front of him, after he collided with the bear (wasn't time to miss it) he controlled the bike the best he could, and fishtailed to almost a complete stop.
after he collided with the bear
I really hope your son wasn’t injured because this phrase is so funny and I can’t stop laughing. :)
you are stating somethign I never said- I never mentioend that society made them that way- I said society is devolving into a pack of rabid animals- they are failing society- they are defining what society is becoming- the peopel who voted for our current leader with hteir hands out hoping he’ll give them ‘free’ stuff are definign what our society is becoming- The moral and decent peopel i n this coutnry are goign from the majorty to the minority- and htis has erverythign to do with hte destruction of society- our own ‘leader’ is actively trying to destroy society and uscceeding- so are gangs, angry people, peopel of little morals etc- they are defining hte ‘new norm’ in regards to what society is-
And wears one of the Bear's teeth around his neck...
His foot was smashed pretty bad, couldn't walk for months.
Plus some pretty ugly road rash, which doesn't bother him much as he also is a dirt bike rider.
He's all better now and continues to go on motorcycle runs in the redwoods.
Yet, you have already declared it on a public forum, apparently forgetting that when she is old enough, she may one day come across Free Republic.
That exploration may one day lead her here.
If it does, I pray she never reads what you wrote, for then, Sir, she will have “been told”.
Because, as this thread demonstrates, some posters will defend anything a government employee does, whether justified or not, because of his occupation.
It matters to them—matters so much some of them are willing to malign the victim and members of her family.
Take away the government employee aspect, and would he have as many fervent defenders? I submit not.
For one, the officer here, as far as we know, has not been charged with “failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle”.
The prosecuting attorney would surely hit that charge (among others) on any non-government employee who struck the child.
Well, that's one way of looking at it--another way would be that boneheaded comments about cops generate some push-back.
Fact of the matter is, you appear to be objecting that others don't show your bias. So let's set some ground rules, if you wish to go forward.
1. off-duty cop is involved* in an accidentIt really is mysterious that you wish to make this about "some posters [defending] anything a government employee does." Really.
2. young girl is injured
3. off-duty cop is injured
4. off-duty cop is attacked by girl's father
5. father is shot dead by off-duty cop
As an aside, I didn't pick-up on that vibe . . . but I may have missed it. Can you refer me to some specific comments? Unless you've confused the claim that the shooting was justified with a blanket assumption that doing so makes one an uncritical defender of government employees. In which case, don't bother.
_____
*I stipulated earlier that we can assume, for the purpose of argument, that the off-duty cop was negligent.
Prosecutors don’t get involved unless there is suspicion that a criminal act has occurred. “Failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle” sounds like a citation that might result in a fine and a stint in Traffic School.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.