Geeze wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:10 AM:Do we now need to be leary of our police officers? Of course I will withold judgment until all of the facts are in, but GEEZE!

Monica wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:27 AM:Any other person would be in custody and definitely NOT be getting paid!! What kind of society do we live in that an off duty police officer can shot and wound a mother & child and be free to possibly do it again and still have the tax payers pay for him to sit on his butt at home!!!!!!!!!!!!

esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:29 AM:Geeze...sounds like your mind is already made up....

Mike wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:43 AM:Esteban, face it the longer they take to release some details and explanation, the more people that will feel like Geeze and Monica. LEOs should be held to a higher standard not a separate one. The general population is denied the right to arm themselves and the Police can shoot people because they are upset over a traffic fracas. What happened to the land of the FREE?

no name wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:45 AM:Is this officer fit to be an officer,shooting a mother and child,,WHY.is he going to get away with this??

Lonnie wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:47 AM:This points up something that I tell my teenager. Do not engage in rage behavior behind the wheel. You don't know who you are dealing with and/or what they are capable of. It might be the last straw for someone who is the equivalent of an unstable stick of dynamite. Let it go, you are the noble one.

Peter wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:52 AM:I realize this may be an isolated incident and does not necessarily point to a systemic problem with SDPD, but if the shooter was not a police officer we would already know their name. Also, I have to wonder how the officer’s knowledge that a private citizen is unlikely to be armed factored into resorting to brandishing his weapon whether he intended to shoot or not.

Michelle wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:00 AM:Wow, you guys finally get it right NCT!

Your earlier article this morning said nothing about this guying being a cop; whereas, every other news organization reported last night that it was a SDPD cop.

Notice the code of "blue silence". OPD is not releasing the cops name until they know more about the incident. Would you or I be granted this same courtesy? Absolutely NOT! Law enforcement agencies protecting each other. Surprised? No.

Steven C. wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:12 AM:Funny how there are no facts and people are already jumping to conclussions. I would certainly fear having any of you on my jury panel.

I do agree with Lonnie about engaging in rage behavior. Not worth it.

esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:17 AM:Mikey, were you there? that's right, you weren't. So how is it possible that you can immediately find fault with the cop? YEs, it sounds bad when you tell people an off duty cop shot a mother and child during a road rage incident. But other than that, how do you know what led up to it? How do you know the mother didn't run the cop over? How do you know the mom didn't pulla gun? That's right!!! You don't know!!!!! So save the noose until it is determined the cop was at fault. The cops do not say anything because...they don't know either!!!! So what are they supposed to do until then? Speculate like you???? They have more sense then that. People like Geeze and Monica spout off their thoughts because they are ignorant and don't know the facts yet. Don't be like them.

Steven C wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:20 AM:To Michelle,

I noticed no names were releaesed period. Besides, does releasing the name change anything?

Elisa wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:27 AM:So now there are two shooting incidents involving off-duty police officers this month.. what is going on with our law enforcement??

Oceansider wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:34 AM:The misinformation is flying. And NCT is proceeding cautiously, only reporting that an off-duty officer was involved after it was fully confirmed. A small blessing (VERY small) is that this wasn't an Oceanside cop. The big problem here is that, as an off-duty cop, he may have been in street clothes, but he still carried a weapon. This has echoes of the off-duty cop who shot the Chargers player. We don't know all the circumstances, but the press had better get the truth out quickly or cops everywhere are going to get an even worse reputation than some already ascribe to them (I am not among those people, by the way).

To Esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:37 AM:Read Geeze's comment again. "I WILL WITHOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL ALL OF THE FACTS ARE IN, but GEEZE!" Did I say he was guilty? No, I was going on what the article said nothing more, nothing less. But thanks for your concern on what I said.

Dennis P wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:41 AM:Regadless of the fact or anything that may come out, there is no reason to shoot a child. This is going to get ugly..!

paul wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:53 AM:Paid administrative leave? I call that vacation!!!

Jules wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:59 AM:What a scary thing for me to find out that this shooting(especially by a person who's job is to serve and protect people)happened right around the corner from where I live and where my child and I go to shop.
The only reason why I could see the officer shooting if it was in self defense like if he was seconds away from being shot and possibly killed himself but there's no excuse for shooting a child!

James wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:19 PM:Sounds like a lot of OPD's love to blog on the NCT site. PR hum....They must need it badly.

Different wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:22 PM:How different my mind works compared to some of you on this site. The first thing I thought of was what the heck did that mother do to not only cause harm to herself but something bad enough to cause harm to come to her son. No, I don't believe EVERY police officer is perfect but I would and do put my trust in an officer's judgement/actions first.

a former resident wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:24 PM:an armed society is a polite society

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:25 PM:Yes, the facts reported, at face value; do not look good for the cop. But, like estaban said, a lot of factors could have been involved. I for one find it hard to believe that any LEO would shoot an unarmed person, especially a mother and child, without severe provocation. I may be wrong, but I'm not going to condemn all LEOs for the actions of a few.

Wait for the Facts wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:41 PM:I remember when the Costa Mesa off duty officer shooting happened a few weeks. Most posts immediately pegged the officer as a bad guy. There were NO published facts yet.

When the facts came out, everyone changed their tune (except for the few people that think the guy who died was some sort of saint).

All I am saying here is we don't know the circumstances so wait before you condemn either side involved in this yet.

Stacey wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:02 PM:I'm pretty good at waiting for the facts before I make up my mind one way or the other and can only hope there is a lot more to this story. However, I have to say that the police are not helping themselves in the court of public opinion so far. First of all, any one of us would have been placed under arrest with our release only to be determined by a judge. Secondly, the fact that they won't so much as release a name serves only to breed an environment of suspicion. I'm pretty confident that I would have been identified by now had I been the shooter. If they want people to stop jumping to conclusions then they need to act in the same manner as they would had a non-officer been the one with the gun.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:16 PM:Here again we have a very interesting breaking story. The big question is why did the off duty officer use his gun?

REALITY wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:26 PM:WELL HERE WE GO AGAIN, I PERSONALLY DONT GIVE A DAM ABOUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE. I BLAME THE COP AND I GUESS UNTIL THIS HAPPENS TO ONE OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS OR OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY THEN YOU WILL THINK DIFFERENTLY. COME ON TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE ON THE COPS SIDE AND WANT TO "WAIT FOR FACTS". OPEN YOUR EYES... COPS CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT CAUSE THERE COPS!!!

Peter wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:27 PM:Those of you taking others to task about jumping to conclusions and questioning why some are concerned about the name(s) not being released should take a step back and look at the perceptions being fed by the facts. Look at it without the knowledge that the shooter was an off-duty police officer. Someone fires at least a couple of shots at a vehicle resulting in an adult female and a juvenile being injured. The shooter is identified yet a day and half later they are not in custody and his name is being withheld. In a county where every officer involved shooting in recent memory has been deemed to have been justified (and I tend to concur except in one case), the perception that police agencies are holding back information feeds the distrust of those who are not necessarily as supportive of law enforcement as some of us. The agencies involved need to consider that as they continue to withhold information.

local resident wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:36 PM:Generally I side with the police but why did he not call for help since the oceanside police department is less than a mile away? No matter how ... the mom may have been, the child is an innocent bystander. Why would anyone, much less, a police officer further risk the safety of a child!!! I am outraged!

FTM wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:36 PM:If that cop pulled a gun on an unarmed woman he's gonna be in BIG trouble.

Jack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:37 PM:The only legal use of a firearm is when you fear for your life. What possible fear could this woman and an eight year old put into this cops mind? ...

arrest him wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:45 PM:Arrest this man like any other person would be arrested!!!

Mel wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:31 PM:What?? You mean it wasn't an undocumented illegal without a license causing havoc but an off duty police officer. I find it amazing how NCT was cautious in reporting that it was an off duty police officer, but when other things happen and there's only speculation that it MAY have been an undocumented immigrant, it is quickly reported on!

To NCT wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:31 PM:How come you're not posting our comments? The U-T story has around 80 comments, I find it hard to believe that this happened in Oceanside and so few comments have been submitted. I have submitted two you haven't posted.

Reality wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:51 PM:We have all been involved in road rage incidents whether we were the victim or the aggressor, that is what happens when to many people are placed in close quarters (overcrowding). It will be interesting to find out who the aggressor was in this case - you might be suprised BUT ONCE AGAIN HERE IS ANOTHER INCIDENT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:53 PM:Concerned..that is a valid question. It seems many people in these blogs somehow already have the answers. Oh and of course I read Geeze's comment. But his first thought was , "Do we need to be leary of our police officers?" That to me, sounds like a mind that is made up already.

Angie wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:12 PM:Sorry, sounds like someone lost their cool because there is no reason that an officer should be shooting so widely as to hit the passenger, a child, in the car.

A lot of info isn't coming out because "officers protect their own". If I had been involved in the incident there is no doubt my name would be plastered everywhere. No doubt!

My nephew defends police officers and let me tell you, they are human.

To NCT wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:14 PM:The last post is time stamped almost three hours ago. You guys at lunch or too many comments bringing up matters you don't want aired? I submitted at least two comments that haven't been posted and sent an earlier comment along the lines of this one that was rejected claiming I typed the wrong image verification, how convenient.

What? wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:31 PM:What possible reason could there be for shooting an 8 year old?

ME wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:44 PM:Why would a guy get a thrill out of raging with a women. I try really hard not to piss people off when I drive as I usually have my kids with me. But lately it's men picking on women. To all road raging men--- Why do you pick fights with girls??? Too many GIRLY MEN out there.

Peter wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:02 PM:Another local media outlet has identified the officer as Frank White of Oceanside.

Tracy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:05 PM:I am a police officer. The Peace Officer Bill of Rights allows for a Peace Officer and their Agency to withold the name of a peace officer involved in a shooting from the public for a certain amount of days. This allows the police officer and his/her family to deal with the stressful situation before being scrutinized by the public. It is not to cover up something, it is the law and would violate a peace officer's rights if not followed. The facts of this case, much like the Temecula shooting by Costa Mesa PD, will come to light. I do not work for OPD or SDPD. I heard through the grapevine that the woman and the child were the unfortunate passengers in a vehicle driven by a man trying to kill the off duty officer (if that is true or not still needs to be seen). People (officers and citizens) have a right to defend themselves. I have investigated numerous cases where a person was shot, stabbed, hit, punched, or hurt by someone else that was in self defense. That person was not arrested, even though the other attacker may have gotten the worse in the fight. We, like the District Attorney and the Courts, look at the bigger picture such as who the aggressor is and the circumstance leading up to the incident, not just the outcome.

open your minds wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:59 PM:yeah, if the woman went psycho and the PO was in danger, then thats whatever, but to shoot a child? theres never ever ever any reason to do that.

to those of you who hold police officers on this godly pedistal... let me tell you this, youve never been harassed by these guys for no reason. im not a bad person either, im a good student and do good to the community, but im assumed to be doing something else. woohoo. how that pertains to this situation, maybe it was an unjust decision, overexerting his power

Stephen wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:05 PM:Off duty or not, What the heck is a San Diego police officer doing in Oceanside? Like wise, why did the OPD send its canine unit (Stryker) all the way to the Coronado bridge? Certainly they could have stopped the guy before he got that far.

Floyd wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:05 PM:Why do the peace officers get extra rights that aren't available to the citizenry? Sounds like a constitutional issue to me!

An Officer's Wife wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:12 PM:This is without a doubt very disturbing. Unfortunately, we don't have all the facts or know all the fact. Officers are peace officers on and off duty. "Peace being the word." I know hearing that it was a mother and child makes them seem very innocent. However, we don't have all the fact and the officer could have been/felt threatened. Excessive force with a deadly weapon is not the answer, but did the mother approach the office with some type of force? After reading what 'Tracy' wrote, this seems 100% legit and it will be interesting to see what comes from the investigation.

John wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:51 PM:It's so sensational to report a story with lots of drama and no details. Really gets the speculation going on both sides of the issue - and a mother and child shot just fuels the idea that the cop was the heavy. I'm amused that all the bloggers took the bait. I'll wait a few days and see what information comes out - and then maybe there will be a fight about what was right - or maybe not.

Nanchi wrote on Mar 17, 2008 6:34 PM:That makes sense, Tracy. I'm withholding judgement until more facts are in. As a former victim of domestic violence, I know for sure that OPD cops use a lot of restraint. There is more to this story than we realize right now.

LAINIE wrote on Mar 17, 2008 6:49 PM:I AGREE WITH ESTEBAN, WAIT FOR ALL THE FACTS. DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE CHILD WAS SITTING UP WHERE HE WOULD BE SEEN? DID "MOM" PULL THE GUN FIRST? OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO PROTECT, THEY ARE NOT PERFECT. DOES ANYONE THINK ABOUT HOW THEY PUT THEIR LIVES OUT THERE ON THE LINE, TONY Z. AND DAN B., SO WE WILL BE SAFE? EVERYONE,PD OR BYSTANDER DESERVE A CHANCE TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED. BLESS THE FACT THAT THE MOM AND CHILD ARE DOING OK. AND IF HIS NAME WAS MICKEY MOUSE OR JOE SMITH WOULD IT CHANGE WHAT HAS HAPPENED???? I DON'T THINK SO........

debbie wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:06 PM:A policeman had to have a reason to pull him gun...wait for the details.

To Tracy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:22 PM:Thanks for the update on police officers. Being an officer yourself, isn't it pretty normal if someone shoots two people they are generally arrested on the spot and let go later if the DA decides not to take things forward etc?

Policy Guy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:54 PM:Thank goodness Tracy has shed some light on this situation. There are entirely too many people giving their ignorant opinions on this matter. I witnessed this recently when I served on a jury trial: Far too many people are willing to convict someone based only on very limited information. Let the facts come out, then make a decision. If the facts support the officer, each and every one of you arm-chair police officers/prosecutors will owe him an apology. Even if it turns out that the officer was in the wrong, everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and chill out. You have no right to judge the situation yet. To answers Stephen's question, "What the heck is a San Diego police officer doing in Oceanside?" The answer: Whatever the heck he wants. Are San Diego police officers in some way prevented from living in Oceanside, or traveling to see friends, or stopping on the way back from a trip to pick up something at Lowes? Give me a break! That was clearly a question posed by someone who spends very little time considering what they say before they say it.

matt wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:54 PM:try and defend the cop in this one defend the police no matter what san diegans

to the moderators wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:30 PM:It's obvious what side you are on based on what you post and what you don't. Note that this is from 5 PM, all that has been posted is pro cop views. I've made a copy of this and will be discussing it with NCT.

To Tracy & Police Guy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:38 PM:I appreciate your insight and am really doing my best to reserve judgement. However, I need to tell you that I think the justification for not releasing the accused name is weak at best considering I bet my name would be all over the news without consideration for the stressful situation me & my family would undergo during public scrutiny. I also don't believe for even the slightest of seconds that I would not have been placed immediately in police custody having fired a weapon to the injury of another (guilty or not) party. I support the police when they are right and I don't when they are wrong. I have no solid opinion on this particular story (and won't until the missing pieces are revealed) but the lack of information is what is fueling these questions & suspicions. It is to be expected given the basic common sense knowledge of the way today's society works. If they want to avoid it then they need to forgo 'allowable policy' and just come out with it already. The more information the public has the less they will have to speculate about. The more that is kept hidden the more conspiracy theories will fly. DUH!!!!

Brian A. wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:42 PM:How refreshing it is to read up to date comments on the San Diego web site!
What a story!

To Stephen wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:46 PM:Re what is a SDPD officer doing in Oceanside----. You're kidding, right? He WORKS for SDPD, he doesn't have to live there, he can go anywhere he wants to once he is off duty. Key phrase--off duty!

in the know wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:47 PM:the officer was detained for 9 hours and questioned, it was determined that until further notice the officer would not be charged...
I know someone close to the case and know quite a bit more than the media.

to in the know wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:06 PM:It's now official. There's no way a cop can EVER shoot anyone wrongly. Thanx for the info.

Nanchi wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:07 PM:What a lynch mob!!!! The officer gave his statement, and the cops have been unable to talk with the woman in the hospital. They are taking their time and getting all sides.

The rest of you should too.

to in the know wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:11 PM:Please do tell, as has been pointed out the lack of information just leads to wild speculations.

Strange wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:27 PM:I need to know the facts. I don't think a cop would just target a Mom and her kid. What is the real story. The media must keep the public informed.

Reality Checker wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:30 PM:I cannot wait to hear the rationale the officer gave for shooting an 8 year old!

To the moderator wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:37 PM:The last post by 'in the know' is pretty typical of what you are posting.
It's kind of reckless, actually.
So you are really verifying that this anonymous source 'knows' something.
You have been totally unprofessional since this story broke.

NOTSURPRISED wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:42 PM:SOUNDS LIKE THE TIME WHEN THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS WERE OUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AT DOUGLAS & MISSION. INSTEAD OF BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AND DIRECTING TRAFFIC... GUESS WHAT? THE OPD WERE HIDING BEHIND COCOS AND TICKETING MOTORISTS. PRIORITIES???? $$$$$ OF COURSE. THANKS OPD

to not surprised wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:50 PM:you upset because u got caught violating the law? Sounds like you need a tissue to me.

As for this off duty officer, this disgusts me. To all off-duty officers, call the ones who are on-duty if you get into something off duty. Even IF this shooting is deemed lawfully justified, it doesn't change the fact that you hit a kid!!! Use your brain instead of your ego next time!

BTW, I am currently employed as a police officer in north county, please don't judge us all by the actions of a few.

Bill wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:44 PM:It sounds like all of you have made up your minds before the facts are on the table. Yes, it could be that the officer was in the wrong, but it could also be the case the woman was driving after the officer, and tried to run him down with her car. If the latter was the case, I would have fired my weapon as well. Never underestimate someone's stupidity, even when a child is involved (in either case).

SD13 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:26 AM:and you wonder why people rebel against police and shoot them and assault them, some cops are alright they respect you and treat you like everyother person but some are hot headed and have childhood issues so they snap easily

Arturo wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:02 AM:I will reserve full judgment against the officer and the lady shot, although it's very difficult to be reserved.

If this was any other person, even if in the end self-defense is concluded, they would have been arrested.

I also find the lack of information released by the OPD disturbing, but not surprising.

Hopefully the truth is found.

rich wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:32 AM:yo Tracy,
Bull, to your entire commit.

Why the police officer is not arrested on the spot? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:19 AM:
So if a Cop kills an armed terrorist and the terrorist tell investigators he was unarmed, should the cop be arrested?
Should a Cop be arrested every time he shoots someone? Can you imagine, every time someone is trying to hurt or kill you and you ended up shooting him or her, you get arrested until the facts come out? People let’s think about that, I don’t think the police is trying to cover for anybody. Police officers all over the country and here in San Diego County get fired and arrested if they are found guilty. Let’s not be so fast to call a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy like you guys are saying, then Deputy Bruce and officer Peyer should be free men.

Why the officer did not get arrested? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:56 AM:
So if a Cop kills an armed terrorist and the terrorist tell investigators he was unarmed, should the cop be arrested?
Should a Cop be arrested every time he shoots someone? Can you imagine, every time someone is trying to hurt or kill you and you ended up shooting him or her, you get arrested until the facts come out? People let’s think about that, I don’t think the police is trying to cover for anybody. Police officers all over the country and here in San Diego County get fired and arrested if they are found guilty. Let’s not be so fast to call a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy like you guys are saying, then Deputy Bruce and officer Peyer should be free men.

Local wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:51 AM:Is there anyone out there who hasn't experienced 'road rage' in some form? It is a solid clue that you need to get a life when transportation issues rule your life. Go home, stay there for a while and chill. The 99 cent store will still be there and parking spaces will still define who we are. Please take the time to defend bigger issues.

Here we go again wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:19 AM:Another off-duty cop shoots someone.
This time a Marine wife & kid.
Last time a football player.
Can you say Sagon Penn time.

Ivan wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:53 AM:I tell you in a few years we are gonna have a police force totally out of control

former CA resident wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:16 AM:Calif. is going down the tubes, and I am glad that I got "out" in time! And they still bring on the commercials to "come visit California"! What a joke

AWTOOTOOBAD wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:21 AM:Now you know what the Second Amendment to the Constitution is about.

Roberto1 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:33 AM:It will be interesting to see them put a positive face on this shooting....I'm sure if had been a male and particularly a minority or worst an undocumented worker, the blog would look much different.

To A former resident wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:48 AM:"an armed society is a polite society"


I agree.

@ Stephen wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:54 AM:Are you serious?? Can't people live in Oceanside???

Gun Control? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:14 AM:The 8-year-old should have been better armed and this would never have happened.

The Laws wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:31 AM:To let a lot of you know why you would be in jail and not the police officer, if you were to shoot someone like this officer did you would be arrested for concelled weapons violation not the shooting. You would be arrested for the shooting after an investigation showed that you were inviolation of a shooting crime. A police officer has a right to carry a concelled weapon and therefore was not arrested for that violation. If it is found out after investigation that he was in violation for the shooting he will be arrested.

Hoping wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:44 AM:That the Supreme Court allows law abiding citizens to carry arms. It shouldn't, in CA, just be for the politically powerful, for judges, cops, and off duty cops.

Jim wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:48 AM:This is to Tracy. If the off duty cop felt his life was in danger he should have called 911 then ID'd himself as an officer with badge and gun showing. If he did not have time for that due to life threatening actions; then he should have turned and ran until police arrived (OPD is pretty damn good about getting on the scene quickly).
He should not have discharged his weapon at a car with other people in it.
For whatever reason this whole stupid mess played out the way it did, if my child were shot, there would be hell to pay and it would not involve anything legal.

Skittles???? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:02 AM:This could be self defense exactly what was the kid doing to cause bodily harm to the officer; was he throwing Skittles at him?

Cimarron wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:04 AM:"So if a Cop kills an armed terrorist and the terrorist tell investigators he was unarmed, should the cop be arrested?"

ROFLMAO ... didn't know the dead can speak! Not to mention grammatical errors ... this makes absolutely no sense!

Dave wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:07 AM:Here's a thought, maybe what you see on TV and in the newspaper isn't the whole story. I know that's extremely hard to believe, but guess what, most of the time law enforcement doesn't release details of incidents until long after the investigation so they don't compromise the investigation. Some of you state that he shot because he was angered over a road rage incident, yet you have no idea whether or not that is true. Did you ever think maybe he shot because the lady was trying to hurt and or kill him with her vehicle, which is a much larger and deadly weapon than a gun in many cases. How bout you save judgement and give the officer the benefit of the doubt before you label him as guilty. Some of you make it sound like this happens all the time. There are thousands of off-duty cops in San Diego every day and this is an extremely isolated incident. I bet some of you woudln't mind if an armed off-duty cop took used his gun to save your life from some psycho bent on killing innocent people. Either way, what it comes down to is there are many people that love using forums like these to bash cops any way they can. Well guess what, most law-abiding citizens are quite fond of the police and willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The folks that hate cops usually hate cops because cops don't let them get away from victimizing society.

Give me a break wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:23 AM:Hello, I doubt the officer was intentionally trying to shoot an 8 year old child. People miss especially in stressful situations, this is real life, not Lethal Weapon, learn about firearms and markmanship. Stephen, your ignorance shows when you asked why is an SDPD Officer in Oceanside, I won't even try and answer that one for you. I also liked when you asked why the OPD K-9 unit went to Coronado and why they didn't stop the guy earlier. It's obvious you know nothing about pursuit or police tactics. Stick to the movies where you think you actually know what goes on. Try not to talk about subjects that you have no idea about. When you go to the dentist to you tell him how to pull your teeth? I didn't think so. Thanks for the laughs.

Reporter, do your job! wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:32 AM:It appears this reporter has regurgitated the story the police spokesman is feeding her. "(SDPD) declided to say which car (the cop) was drivng." Why not do your job and interview some witnesses or maybe, gasp!, the victims! As a reporter, YOU are the voice of us citizens and we want objective questions and factual responses. Not the "self defense" line taken from OIS* 101, Chapter 1 "How to make Excuses for shooting an unarmed woman and child..."
*Officer involved shooting.

Peter wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:34 AM:Living in Oceanside, I am thankful for the job our police perform and I believe they do it well. However, some of the comments here do point to an attitude at least on the part of a few officers of deserving special laws. If a self-defense shooting is so stressful why don’t all citizens receive a shielding of their privacy at least for a certain timeframe? The point that most private citizens involved in a shooting would be arrested based on a concealed weapon violation is pretty weak. Regardless of who initiated the incident, they were in the parking lot of a closed business, and even if she was the aggressor, with the assistance of his passenger he should have been able to get a license plate number that would have aided on-duty police to make contact with her. As an off-duty officer in another jurisdiction he should have tried to minimize contact consistent with public safety.

Temex Taxpayer wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:37 AM:TO OCEANSIDER: I agree w/you. When the cop shot the Charger player (ruining his career, by the way), the brotherhood circled the wagons and he got off. Again, cries of "self defense" are already being reported.
You are right... the paper better get the truth out there quick, and not just the spin from a Cop Spokesman, because people are LOSING TRUST IN THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT!

Randy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:43 AM:If off-duty police officers outside of their jurisdictions can shoot women and children and not be arrested, we have become a nation ruled by men, not by laws!

Concerned wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:54 AM:Wow! To think I was at that shopping center earlier in the day this past Saturday. Though some don't like to hear the truth, but in all honesty we have good and bad officers out there. Some that follow rules and others that take advantage of the badge. As a marine wife and someone who is about to take the test battery for Deputy Sheriff is discourages me and I may need to rethink my career change. If the officer is found guilty for crossing the line then he should face the same punishment as any other person. The parking area of the shopping center does have camera's so the truth will come out. Hopefully before the tape was released & handed over to the police department that a back-up copy was kept from them in case anything is altered or removed from the recorded tape. Police Departments do have a reputation for cover-up's and making things disappear. This whole situation is a total shame and black eye to the officers. No cocnern for the child, the unarmed fellow marine wife and patrons shopping at the center that day. Where is the respect?

Steve wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:12 AM:These facts seem to be missing from just about everyone. First, what is the officer doing engaging in possible road rage. Second, you would think he would call an officer if the woman was a nut. Third, I would sure like to know if he got out and identified himself as a cop. Before we cast judgement their are a lot of questions to be answered. These are just a few.

TO: COLLEEN MENSCHING wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:17 AM:I'll let everyone else hash out what they think did or didn't happen. I have a comment for the author of the article. Why does the media always say "paid administrative leave?" Administrative leave is always paid if not, your fired. Lead the charge with your writer buddies and just call it what it is...administrative leave.

Bill wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:18 AM:
Wow so much speculation. No body knows what happened yet give it time. The off duty officer is entitled to a fair trial. For all we know this woman was in a car with tinted windows that couldn't be seen. We don't know if the cop was chasing her or if she was chasing the cop and his wife. We don't have facts.

If I was the cop with my wife and someone was following me. I would take aggressive action. I wouldn't know if the person following was a convict I had arrested or just some nut.

On the other hand if the cop was the aggressor with his wife in the car and wasn't on the phone calling for some form of back up or giving a play by play...

we don't know what happened yet.

Karl wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:21 AM:Everyone here jumping to conclusions are full of hate on both sides. Let the facts come out.

LOL wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:44 AM:Esteban a.k.a. Ponch, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but.... there are some cops out there that can do wrong. They are human too and are prone to make mistakes. Sorry Ponch! I know this is just as devastating as you finding out last year that there is no such thing as Santa Clause.

On a serious tip, let's hope that there IS evidence that will justify the shooting. If the victim did not provoke the officer to shoot, then the SDPD has ALOT of explaining to do!

To Bill that will never happen...... wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:51 AM:"The off duty officer is entitled to a fair trial" Not that the officer is entitled to a fair trial what will never happen is a trial. Law enforcement officers are protected by their own. Nothing will happen to a Law Enforcement officer for ANYTHING he does. We must be careful when dealing with Law Enforcement when they are on duty and now apparently when they are off duty.

Bill wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:55 AM:I hope the cop & woman were given drug/alcohol tests. why no picture yet of the cop?

O'Side Resident wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:57 AM:It was reckless for the officer to shoot in a crowded Lowe's parking lot. The officer's actions betray a total disregard for the safety of the public. That center is busy at all hours. There is a Ralphs supermarket there in addition to the Lowe's. In fact, my wife was shopping in that center just a few hours earlier. I am thankful she wasn't there at the time of the incident. The officer should have known better than to fire his service revolver in a crowded parking lot. If a member of the public had done the same, you can bet that there would be charges filed.

Track Record wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:57 AM:Why would people be jumping to conclusions about an [allegedly] out-of-control cop? Could it have to do with this region's track record? Could it have to do with what people have seen over and over again?

These attitudes aren't born spontaneously. Police bring a lot of this on themselves.

Figures wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:59 AM:Oh my God! Esteban - are you serious? I highly doubt a mother with her 8yr old son would try to run somebody over - but just for kicks lets assume she did because that would probably be the ONLY valid reason for this cop to start shooting ~ can't he fricken AIM? Shoot the TIRES or the driver if need be not the 8yr old kid in the passenger seat!! This is just crazy. And they keep reiterating that the wounds are not life threating, well THANK GOD but that doesn't make it any LESS ludicrous! ... To top it off he's on PAID leave! Sounds like a PERK or a BONUS to me. This is BS.

No matter what.. wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:15 AM:The woman & child shouldn't have been shot at and the cop should've been a wise cop about the situation and not even be involved in a road rage...cops are supposed to be out there setting good examples..and 8 year old?? C'mon!! We got a woman here who has a husband fighting for our country and she gets shot at...along w/ her son? Our soldiers don't deserve that...nobody does.

JohnL wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:22 AM:It is always tragic that a mother and her child are victims of a shooting. That kind of news will invoke strong emotions in all of us. We all want to be able to protect those around us that we perceive as unable to protect themselves.

Every citizen in this country has the right to a fair trial. That includes the process of fact-gathering, interviewing witnesses, etc. Until then, let's all use the 2/1 rule (we have two eyes, two ears and only one mouth. We should spend 2X the time reading & listening before opening our mouth). I don't care if the shooter is a cop, drug trafficker, school teacher or hair dresser. Everyone deserves the proper process. It's called "pro"secution, people - not "per"secution. This off-duty cop also has a family that, right or not, one his name is published, will have to deal with the "court of public opinion". Once we have all the facts, only then can we make our own conclusion.

Let's also remember that anyone can anonymously add their comments to this blog. That includes so-called "in the know" people that we don't even know their real ID. We need to be careful in what we accept as fact by not taking everying at face value before asking ourself "Does this make sense? How much of this can I believe?"

Granny wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:23 AM:I suppose this is a dumb question but why couldn't the cop just shoot out the tires instead of shooting the woman and child? The child is going to need a lot of therapy from all this & he will most likely be afraid of the police.

OSIDE RESIDENT wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:25 AM:THE FACT THAT THE OFFICER IS GETTING PAID IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!......HE SHOULD NOT BE ON PAID LEAVE UNTIL THEY FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT AND SEE WHO IS AT FAULT... REGARDLESS ....WHAT HARM CAN AN 8 YEAR OLD BOY DO TO A GROWN MAN FOR HIM TO FIRE SEVERAL SHOTS.... COME ON PEOPLE THATS JUST CRAZY...I HAPPENED TO BE AT THE INCIDENT AT THE TIME...UNFORTUNATELY I DROVE UP WHEN THE FIRST POLICE OFFICER ARRIVED....I WISH A HAD BEEN THERE MINUTES BEFORE....I HOPE THAT WITNESSES COME FORWARD AND TELL THE TRUE SIDE OF THE STORY...SOCIETY NEEDS TO STOP ASSUMING THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS IN THE POLICE FORCE THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFIED.....

crazy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:28 AM:This whole mess is in our back yard, and I believe that the ODO had no right to shoot without going through other possible procedures. i.e calling an OPD or taking down a license plate and then following up with the OPD. At no time did a gun need to be fired in a neighborhood!

Reality wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:29 AM:I do not harbor any ill will towards police officers and I understand why they have to carry a weapon off duty because of the people they have to deal with. They are human and do not forget that also do not forget that there are bad apples in any job , Military - civilian a lot of people are casting the first stone and believing they have no sin. Lets keep in mind what America would be like without police officers. We would be a third world country with military check points everywhere and when the military gets involved there goes your personel freedoms - remmeber after the fires and the complaints about the military check point. The police have a rotten job to do and they do a very good job.

From Colleen Mensching, staff writer wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:36 AM:An attempt was made Monday to contact the female shooting victim at Sharp Memorial Hospital. Hospital officials said it was against their policy to approach patients about the possibility of media interviews. She cannot be contacted directly because her name has not been released.

Likewise, the San Diego Police Department was contacted Monday about the possibility of interviewing the officer involved. The department spokeswoman said the officer will not be giving interviews.

While it may be routine for police officers to receive pay while they are not working and under investigation, that is not necessarily true for the rest of the United States work force. That is why reporters often specify whether an employee is on paid leave when he or she has been relieved of employment duties.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

Temex Taxypayer wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:42 AM:Yet another offcr involved shooting. Rebuttals on both sides. Claims of self-defense. One Truth - Police Offcrs act as if they are above the law. They are not held as a suspect. They remain anonymous. They go home and cash their paycheck. They get free counsel. Even when they do something while off duty. We citizens do not receive the same rights, protection or presumptions. How fair is that?
How do we, an citizens, demand accountability from our law enforcement????

Karl wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:43 AM:Anybody here heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? I will certainly admit that it doesn't look good for the officer but some of the posts here are down right scary. It's a good thing that we live in todays era, 100 years ago the officer would be hanging from a tree by now with the attitudes displayed on this blog. Back off and take a breath folks. Let's presume for a second that the shooting was justified, how would all of you calling for his scalp feel? I think you would probably all crawl back into your holes and wait for the next time you can prejudge a situation and hang someone else before you know all the facts.

Eme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:47 AM:No one knows the real deal here.. the difference between anyone here and that office is that he has a reason to carry a gun.. and a good one. I don't think anyone else would! right? so NO, in this case you would not be sitting on home on Admin. pay and no it is not a vacation there is a reason why it is called ADMIN same as an ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION! Very different.

Now.. Shooting at the wheels or car??? 1. If your at the point when you think your life is in DANGER, ARE YOU GOING TO LOOOK AT THE DRIVER? are you going to care what he or she looks like.. probably NOT!

2. Office training.. Does not Say shoot at the tires..No, because again, you're not going to stop and look to see if the person has a gun or not.


I don't see a problem with our law enforcement, I see a problem with "CITIZENS" who fail to make comments withOUT enough evidence to back it up OR make it a true statement.

Peter wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:08 AM:That one party to this was an off-duty officer, carrying a firearm, and if he thought the other party was not an officer, he could therefore reasonably assume, this being San Diego County, that the other party was unarmed may have been a factor is the escalation of events. Most officers are reasonable and conduct themselves professionally in and out of uniform, but for the few prone to excess, the knowledge that only a handful of private citizens are licensed to carry concealed may be a factor worth examining.

Soos wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:14 AM:Extra pressure is being put on our society to hold law enforcement accountable because these two recent shootings happened in PUBLIC places. Armed off duty cops drew their weapons and fired on a busy street corner and in a public parking lot, putting the citizens they are supposed to "protect" in danger. Whatever the reason. If ANYONE drew their gun in a public place, they should be held accountable for endangering innocents. Offcrs who carry weapons 24/7 should be held to a HIGHER accountability. With privileges come responsibility.
NO ONE CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.

I don't have to worry wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:16 AM:I have a CCWP, Citizens Concealed Weapons Permit, saves your life faster than waiting for a Sheriff's CWP.

Lucky wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:33 AM:Very sad that after 3 days our system

has not uncovered the truth.

Shame on all.

Common Sense wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:39 AM:To Tracy and Esteban.... Esteban - get off of it, Tracy, good point, BUT, if I had shot a woman and child, I would be sitting in a jail cell right now (still). It seems that whatever the circumstances, from our Police shooting Ball payer experience, the officer should not be shooting people. I do not want the lack of a man holding a gun near my wife and daughter. Hold the officer to the same standards as you and I would be held to - unpaid, in jail and as a Police Officer - Fired!

SDguy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:39 AM:I carry my off duty weapon everywhere I go. However, in my 15 years in law enforcement, I never needed to use it or take it out. I don't try to be superman off duty. I only carry my weapon to protect myself and/or my family if threatened. If i see a crime being committed, I'll call 911 as any citizen would do. My gun is to protect me, my family, only if threatened, thats all.

Bill F. wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:43 AM:All these incidents that appear sketchy, like the shootings in Vista a while back, contribute to the mistrust that many have for the cops. This is why these other incidents that get swept under the rug hurt police credibility. They justify what would be criminal to you and me.

When I see people that rush to judgment, I think to my self that the chickens have come home to roost. I think its reasonable to suspect a cover up considering the past.

Can we think of one example where a cop was found to have not used his weapon appropriately?

Maybe if we had just one example of a cop being held accountable?

Just one!

Either cops are never wrong or theres a reason to suspect funny stuff.

This type of lynch mob mentality is what the cops have brought on themselves.

Too bad it I rush to judgmemt.

Tough!

This is the court of public opinion and not a court of law.

Dan From Oceanside wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:44 AM:Soos -- Comment is correct! Law enforcement should be held to the higher standard because they have the ability to affect society due to their privilege. If Law enforcement chooses not to want that responsibility they are free to quit and change careers. I am not condemning all law enforcement for the action of one. It seems to me that the system does not treat all people equal. If a non-law-enforcement citizen was involved in a one-way gun incident the one with the gun is in jail until he/she is arraigned.

Taxi Rob wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:45 AM:... Fact is that whatever the other facts are, he had a gun on his person while off duty. Did he think he was gonna get mugged inside the Lowes? If these guys weren't packing ALL THE TIME, this wouldn't happen.

Also, how many fake badges have you seen in your life? I've seen more than a few. Serial rapists have used fake badges in the past, as well as other criminals, and personally, I would be leery of someone with a badge and gun alone. I'd be unlikely to respond to someone out of uniform and in another jurisdiction to boot, especially if I were a woman. I'd be scared, and if I were in my car, I might run [him] over and call it self defense, which it would be in that narrow circumstance.

I'm not saying this was the case, but since this article is all I know of it... My basic idea here is that a police officer carrying a gun at ALL TIMES is an accident waiting to happen. Anti-gun people (including police!) cite these type of shootings all the time to further their agendas.

Why shouldn't cops have to deal with the public like the rest of us do and take their lumps? When on duty, it's another story, you'd be an idiot to attack one, but the rest of the time, why should the UNTRAINED public be expected to be able to differentiate?

Karl wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:45 AM:Lucky, if you where involved would you like a rush to judgement? How about being tried in the press before all the facts are out? didn't think so.

DOD wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:03 PM:Bottom line, every body here is monday morning quarterbacking it, there are reasons why police agencies do not release other police officer names, there are reasons why they are put on administrative leave etc. It is also amusing to me that everyone is so quick to jump to blame and single out small cases that represent the entire law enforcement community. I think being in LE is one of those few jobs where one dumb person makes up for 100% of the media and the perspective of society. When we hear of Abu Gharib (sp) did we think every Marine was [bad], is every postal worker a postal killer? There are dumb people in every job, we cant catch them all, and besides how do we even know what happened, until again not to sound like we are beating a dead horse but , the facts arent out? How do we know who was the aggressor, does it say the cop got out and attacked her ? No, it doesnt, How do we know the woman didnt get out and charge after the cop? We dont know, but when you see that we all jump to the conclusion that the guy with the gun started it, he may have he may not have, leave your judgement to when its necessary instead of hanging him before he even walks into the court room!

You know what wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:13 PM:cops are sort of like you and me, there is good ones and there is bad ones. Remember Craig Alan Peyer, now there was a bad cop.

lucky wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:17 PM:Karl, thats the way system works.

NO exceptions.

Shame on all.

Come On People wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:22 PM:Only 4 people know what happened, how can we jump the COP without knowing the facts? WHo knows maybe the woman aimed her car at the off duty officer, she alone may be responsible for the childs injurys and not the officer, he may have shot at her but she may have used her car in an act of ROAD-RAGE, let us let the police do their job, when you all go through training as they do then you can to carry a gun legally, and it said both people called the police and yet you still jump the officer without all the facts!

Oh really wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:23 PM:To I don't have to worry. You say you have a Citizens Concealed Weapons Permit instead of Sheriff issued CWP? What is that other than you thinking it's your right to carry? Me thinks you would be arrested here in California if caught carrying your weapon this way as the only "legal" CWP in California is the one issued by your county Sheriff. And to get it, you must have a very good reason for the Sheriff to approve it. Fearing for your safety alone does not fly. Certainly not in San Deigo County maybe in Kern County or some other rural area but not here.

Maria wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:23 PM:In response to Taxi rob... Police officers should carry weapons off duty due to their job. If you were a police officer and you made numerous arrest, placing people in jail you wouldn't want to subject your family to a "run-in" with one of these guys without the ability to protect yourself. Why do you dislike the police so much?

Bill wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:34 PM:Several thoughts come to mind regarding this incident and the incident in Temecula last week.
1) Police are human and subject to the same fears and concern for their safety just like an unsworn citizen.
2) People who say "Shoot the tires" need to go back to fantasy land.
3) This is not the movies! This complete incident may have happened in seconds. No time to call for backup or police.
4) There are only two people that really know what happened and so far they have not said anything.
5) If the worthless government hacks would allow more citizens to carry concealed weapons we would see a decrease in crime and less of an attitude to shoot someone.

mj wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:41 PM:You'll never see the facts. The truth is not what our police officers are about.

To Karl wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:56 PM:I've heard of the concept ... to bad it hasn't existed in our system for quite some time now.

hOLY cOW wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:12 PM:Let us pray for a speedy recovery of both the mother and child, and the anger that provoked the incident to make everyone THINK what's IMPORTANT.

rb wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:17 PM:Thank you SDguy for 15 years of service. I hope the majority of your fellow officers think like you do. If 911 was called at the start of this incident chances are on duty police would have diffused the situation befor it escalated out of control.

marcus wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:20 PM:Mission Statement of the Police Department....

Is here to ensure the safety and security of all people in the City of Oceanside by providing responsive and professional police service with compassion and concern. Our purpose is to work with the community to build trust and provide quality service that actively prevents crime, reduces the fear of crime and promotes safety.

Apparently many government servants do not care to accept the fact that they are public servants, and believe that their role in employment does damage to an already