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 inferior ego....

Patrick wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:26 PM:Here is what we know: The woman in her 20's was unarmed The 8 year old was unarmed They were shot by an armed man I guess we should wait to see if space aliens or foreign terrorists were involved before we pass judgment on 28 year old off-duty cop with an itchy trigger finger, firing his gun at unarmed people in a Lowe's parking lot.

Maria wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:28 PM:What is the truth?

hmmmmm wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:31 PM:costa mesa officers shooting up restaurants and getting into fights in Temecula, SD officers shoot unarmed kid and mom in Oceanside, could be a problem here.

Dana wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:39 PM:Thank you Wait for the Facts!!

REALITY... check your grammar, the way you speak (or portray yourself) says a LOT about your argument.

patriot wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:42 PM:What if the woman was using her car to ram the police officer? What if she tried to run him over? Why do we automatically assume this officer was a rougue jerk? It will be interesting to hear all the facts.

Another Message To Karl wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:47 PM:The officer should be treated in the same manner as any other person who fires a gun in the parking lot of a large regional shopping center. The officer swore an oath to protect the public. Firing a gun in a crowded parking lot is not an act that is consistent with protecting the public. It is a reckless act for which the officer deserves to be held accountable. Nornally when a person fires a weapon in a crowded parking lot, that person will be arrested and charges will be filed. Likewise, in this instance, charges should be filed. Let the officer have his day in court. Rest assured Karl, if there is a trial, the officer will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

C'mon! wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:56 PM:Don't be too quick to judge people.

None of us know what transpired in this situation. It sure wreaks of something we've all heard before.

If you can't help but to judge, don't generalize that all police officers are bad. Sure, that field is a magnet for the power hungry but I think most join to serve with dignity.

The truth wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:00 PM:is out there.

Taxi Rob wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:02 PM:To Maria- Why do you jump to conclusions? At no point did I say I disliked the police. But I do believe that training is often inadequate, as is evidenced in many shooting incidents, off-duty or otherwise, even when officers are cleared of wrongdoing.

Officer involved shootings are higher per capita in San Diego than in Los Angeles with its higher crime rates. I don't think I need to say anything else about it. There is obviously something wrong with the culture of law enforcement in San Diego County that bears looking into.

Too many lives are being lost or irreparably damaged. How about the cop that has to live with having shot an eight year old? His life is changed too; if not then he definitely should find a new line of work.

Oh Really II wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:03 PM:I am sorry I didn't know the gang bangers had approval from the Sheriffs office to carry guns. See you learn something new everyday. Just don't walk through metal detectors.

Cimarron wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:23 PM:Quite a few people need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills ...

Crowded parking lot? Not likely since Lowe's was closed at the time this happened.

There's enough speculation based upon the limited amount of facts we have, without twisting and misstating the facts into wild conjecture.

To Karl wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:33 PM:Innocent until proven guilty?? If it were you Karl who did the shooting, you would be behind bars right now, innocently, until you are proven guilty, not getting paid and probably terminated from your job. This officer is NOT behind bars, getting paid and on vacation!! Innocent until proven guilty! Right!!

We have two laws wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:49 PM:first the American law, innocent until proven guilty for law enforcement and politicans and the rich. Then we have the Napoleonic Law, guilty until proven innocent for the rest of society.

maria wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:59 PM:Taxi Rob, Sorry..but your response puts law-enforcement at the same level as the average citizen. You don't take into account that they have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. I wonder how many people would join the police force knowing that in their off-duty time they are not allowed to carry protection. For example: You are an off duty officer. You go to the grocery store and happen to run into a parolee that you were responsible for arresting. He knows that you aren't allowed to carry protection! The bottom line is that the facts will eventually reveal who is at fault or if both played a part in this terrible event.

Von Mises wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:00 PM:why weren't my comments posted?

Chicano Christ wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:06 PM:Unless the Mother and child were shooting at him, there's no reason for him to shoot. Plus, you can not say that cops don't give each other special privileges. The world is made of such privileges. Both $$ and position are factors in everything. He should be in jail, even if he's innocent. All should be treated the same. He has right to bail too. If he acted accordingly, the system will work in his favor, unless he doesn't trust the system enough and has to ask for special privilege?
...ramdom rants...

To Cimarron wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:13 PM:Please don't forget that Lowe's is not the only store in that parking lot.

Peter wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:34 PM:Though I am confident that OPD will perform a fair and thorough investigation, being forthcoming with the public would go a long way to stifle conjecture and assumptions. Already some of the things disclosed raise more questions than provide answers and feed the distrust that is out there among many in the community. For example, how did the police get access to the child, but not the mother considering the injuries keep being referred to as non-life threatening?
As for the Sheriff being the issuing authority for concealed carry permits, Chiefs of Police are also given the authority under state law, but the chiefs all passed their authority to the Sheriff under an agreement that goes back many years. It’s interesting that several comments about police being able to carry off-duty point to self-defense as a basis, but the Sheriff will not issue a concealed carry permit to a private citizen wanting one for self-defense. Also, private citizen must pass background check and complete the state mandated training.

dave from oceanside wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:38 PM:Based on this report It's impossible to tell what really happened.
Did the lady in the vehicle drive at him to run him down?
Was the officer still in uniform?
If he wasn't in uniform, and approached her vehicle did she assume the worst and tried to escape?
Was the vehicle a truck, inhibiting his view of the 8 year old?
Or will we find the officer has a history of violence?
Way too many questions and no answers yet.

As far as concealed wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:51 PM:weapons permits go, reminds me of many a time when a police officer would tell us to becareful. In his words, "You know we can't be here all of the time to protect you." No that is true, but with a permit I can be protected 24/7.

jeff wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:52 PM:Unless the mother pointed a gun or a loaded cell phone at the officer THERE IS NO EXCAUSE PERIOD!!

Crime is down! wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:56 PM:Crime in Oceanside has dropped to its lowest levels in more than 30 years.

Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy said Tuesday that the overall crime rate fell to 31.12 per thousand residents last year. Violent crimes were down to 5.15 and property crimes fell to 25.97 per thousand residents.

The city has struggled to crack down on gang activity since the December 2006 killing of a police officer during a routine traffic stop.

McCoy attributed the drop in crime to the increased efforts of neighborhood policing teams.

The department has also added 35 police officers in the past five years.

To Cimmaron wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:07 PM:Lowe's closes at 9PM on Saturday night. The indcident occurred at 9:30PM. Lowe's employees were likely to have been at or leaving work at the time of the incident. Moreover, the Ralphs supermarket was still open. Lots of people shop at Ralphs on Saturday night. Restaurants were open in the center. Many people patronize the restaurants as late as 9:30PM on Saturday night. It is highly likely that people not involved in the incident were in the parking lot at the time. Yet the officer chose to fire his weapon. This act was done with an apparently callous disregard to the safety of anyone who happened to be in the parking lot at the time . If anyone else had committed this act, you can bet the farm that the police would have arrested the perpetrator and filed charges against him or her. If anything, a sworn police officer, who is under a legal duty to protect the public, should be held to a higher standard. Let the officer give his explanation in court just like any ordinary citizen would be required to do.

To NTC blog editor wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:12 PM:To NCTimes editors.
What in the world do the comments at 2:03PM and 3:56 PM have to do with this story???? I enjoy reading the different opinions, but how does this stuff get through you people and into print?

My comments wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:17 PM:To All COPS:
Please do not let none of these comments change your tactics in the field. These people have never been in your shoes. Besides, where are these people at 3 a.m. when you are out there chasing after parolees and probationers? Are they going to help you when you are fighting a parolee who does not want to back to prison? Are they going to help you when you are in public with your wife and kid and some parolee who recognize you start harassing you? I guarantee you none of these people would attend your funeral or would even care if you get killed out there. In fact, I guarantee you someone would post a comment such as, “I wonder if the parolee killed the cop in self defense?” Bottom line is this; only you and your partner know what police work is all about, don’t let these negative comments affect your performance out in the field. Please be safe and remember the most important mission is to go home to your family.

To the citizens:
Thank you for your support and help. Keep reporting suspicious activity to your local police. A lot of crooks get arrested because of your help, keep it up.

To the critics:
It’s ok to criticize the cops when they found to be in the wrong. However, what bothers me and other cops is that when there is an officer involved shooting, you automatically go against the officer. Even when the person killed is a convicted felon or a rapist. Again it’s ok to criticize us but please wait for all the facts to come out. It blows my mind how some of you think a mother can’t cause any harm to anyone. A Marine’s wife, what does that mean? I guess Marine’s wives are not capable of hurting anyone. My other question is when an officer gets assaulted how come you guys don’t post any comments to those stories?

I agreed it sounds bad when an 8 y/o get shot and we (cops) are accountable for every shot fired. But please wait for all of the facts to come out and please don’t judge all hard working cops out there for a few incidents. It’s ok if you don’t like us but please don’t wait for the facts. Whether you like us or not we will respond to your emergency.

PLEASE DON’T BE PART OF THE PROBLEM, BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.

bob wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:37 PM:hi

Cimarron wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:39 PM:I am very familiar with the shopping center. The parking area for Lowes is large and Ralphs is quite a distance away also with a large parking area. The only cars in the "crowded" parking lot "at" Lowes would be the employees still counting out their registers and maybe the night shift that cleans and restocks shelves.

Again ... not a "crowded" parking lot.

People at Starbucks were interviewed right after it happened in an attempt to find witnesses, and no one there even knew anything happened.

Again ... not a " crowded" parking lot or innocent bystanders.

I'm not making any judgments pro or con as far as the police officer is concerned ... just annoyed at people "exagerating" the "facts".

It appears what wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:40 PM:we have here is a lack of communication. Not only between the police officer and the woman but also the police department and the public.

To My Comments wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:40 PM:Officers are supposed to respond to emergencies, not create them.

to COP wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:48 PM:Thank you for your comments.
The problem is off duty cops repeatedly taking the law into their own hands.

Law enforcement has justifiably raised suspicion in the minds of the public because many times they are not held accountable. Investigation results are not made public and charges are never filed. It's the secrecy that causes public distrust.

Temex Taxpayer wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:51 PM:I want to be part of the solution.. how about not arming people who have road rage problems?

To My Comments wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:53 PM:I think if you look at the overall tone of this blog and the over 400 comments on the U-T blog most are actually supportive of police, and a lot of us get that you perform a valuable service to the community and are grateful for it. Also, there are those that despise police whether acting professionally or otherwise, however, for a lot of people in the middle that perhaps have witnessed heavy-handedness by police officers, the few things we have been told, accurate or not, definitely feed the distrust. Instead of getting all defensive how about try to think how it looks to general populace that isn’t allowed in this locality to carry concealed, that must rely on officers that may be minutes away when seconds matter. Your service is appreciated but it doesn’t place police above the law.

To To My Comments 4:53 PM wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:05 PM:You have stated it exactly right. Those of us who have written critical comments today support the majority of law enforcement officers wholeheartedly. We do, however, believe that officers should be held accountable for their misdeeds. In an earlier post an officer said that this was a case of self defense. However we have not been told of any arrests in the case. We, the general public, believe that someone should be held accountable for this incident. We need to know that we can go to the Lowe's shopping center free of the fear of dodging wayward bullets (from police weapons or otherwise). Absent other facts, it appears it is the officer who must be held accountable. This should be sorted out in court.

don't get it wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:24 PM:Even if this were a case of self-defense, how the heck do you shoot a child. Any other time, someone would of been in jail right now, this is ridiculous. A road rage incident turning into a shooting of an innocent child. Where do you think i would be right now if i shot someone and their child during a road rage incident....dang right JAIL.... i don't get it...

Confused wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:35 PM:What does it matter that any agency release the names of someone involved in an incident? How does it concern any one of you? Secondly, Police Officers go on admin leave because it's not illegal for them to carry a weapon or use a weapon. It doesn't become a crime until it's determined that they did not have a lawful circumstance to use the weapon.

v5g3i wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:37 PM:This world in full of uneducated people. Shouldn't we let the police do their job? Or where you all present at the time?

Melinda wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:37 PM:I am absolutly in shock to some of these comments! "You don't know what exactly happened and what circumstances there were... blah blah" Am I in LaLa land?! What possible reason could a cop or anyone for that matter have to shoot a child? No really lets think about this I don't think there is any situation to shoot a child. All you cops or cop lovers need to re examine your selves if you really believe what you wrote.

Grump wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:52 PM:Same deal as the Coronado officer and the football player. Off duty officers should deescalate a situation, not start shooting willie nilly. Both of these officers went to far. No ones life was in danger.

Jack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:01 PM:Good!

My comments wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:39 PM:I'm not defending the officer involved in this incident since I don't know the details. I'M defending those hard working officer who are being wrongfully judge by some bloggers.
If the officer involved in this incident is found to be at fault, he should be punish to the full extent of the law. Just like you, i believe officer should be held at a higher standard, i believe their sentence should be enhanced for betraying the trust of the public. When bad police officer are caught, good police officer want them to punish to the full extent, one because they betray their trust and the trust of the public, two because of public opinion (one bad cop equal all the cops are bad).

Who followed who? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:41 PM:THings will be a lot more clear when we know who was following who, if the woman followed him into the lot, he identified himself and she proceeded to act in a life - threatening, aggressive manner, than he was justified...but if he followed her into the lot, there is a problem.

To Grump wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:53 PM:The Coronado officer who shot Foley was in the direct path of a person driving straight at him.

Disgusted wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:07 PM:As for all of you who seem to "know" the facts already let me add my two cents. I worked for a police department for many years AND I have worked at a job with "Marine wives." BOTH of them can be bad news people.

Unfortunately, our world is not perfect and the field of law enforcement frequently attracts bullies into their ranks. If they were not bullies when they went into the academy, they can be when they get out. Many have repressed anger and a fear of other human beings. They fear being shot, being followed, and having their lives (and their family's lives) wiped away by some stupid gang pervert that just wants to impress his friends. They know how to frame people and some of them would not stop until they bury someone alive. But there are still some that in spite of their machismo, only want what is just and right for our society.

But on the other side of the coin, MANY Marine wives have an unwarranted sense of entitlement because their husbands are heros and off fighting a war. Many of them are young girls from small towns, who just wanted to escape their former existance, get married, and have babies. They are equally angry at being left alone and have the tendency to party too hard and hang out with other trouble-making wives. I have run into just as many bad marine wives who think the world owes them a living because their husbands have chosen to go to war. Some of them feed off their husband's instant celebrity like parasites. They can be mean, nasty, and incredibly dishonest people.

I guess what I am trying to say, is wait for the facts to come in. Stop saying it might be one side or the other. Neither one of these groups is a saint. The cop could have been thinking he was protecting his family against a gang hit and the marine wife could have been trying to protect herself again a crazy driver. Who knows???

And about the shooting of an innocent child. No one would ever want that to happen. But sit in someone else's shoes for two seconds and tell me you could tell the difference between an eight year old sitting in a car with tinted windows and a gang member sitting low in a seat because he is a jerk who thinks he is cool.

None of us were there and it is not fair to pass judgement either way because you have some bias against either one of these types of people.

another officer's wife wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:17 PM:Almost weekly now, I wonder if my husband resign this line of work. Although he's more than half way to retirement, I ponder if what they do is worth it. People hate police officers anymore, because as a people we are resentment of authority altogether. Believe me when I tell you they don't have special rights.They don't just show up off duty at Lowe's looking for trouble. IF an officer is armed off duty it's because they arrest people from all over the county...they're called thugs, and they sometimes want revenge. It's a tragedy what has happened here, but not knowing the details, I certainly will wait before deciding my opinion. What if you went to your job and almost every month someone who had come to your place of business needing your services wanted to sue you because they don't agree with the outcome of the encounter? What if EVERYTHING you did was scrutinized by EVERYONE without knowing all the facts?Fortunately, they don't mind the scrutiny, in fact, they expect it. But everyday my husband leaves myself and his little children to go and protect people who don't love him like we do. He's wearing an armored vest and weapons. It's not a typical kind of life, but I've often heard him say he would do it without pay were it not for his family. Please give it time. Let's see what happens.

BlackSatin wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:29 PM:Man people really miss the point. First of all for the person talking about the officer who shoot foley his career is not ruined as just today he was named DUI officer of the year by his department. Second, if the officer was the victim of road rage (and as of yet we don't know if he was the aggressor or a victim) and some lady who happened to have her child in the car tried to run down the officer shots would be fired in all circumstances anywhere in the state. Second, California police officers have statewide jurisdiction period as defined by the California penal code section 832 and 830 so he could be anywhere and be a police officer 24/7. Let the investigation unfold then make a judgment. It is not the first time that a person would be capable of putting a child in danger by doing something stupid it happens all the time. So if and i stress if the lady was the one road raging and attempted to hit the officer with her car the car (not the lady and child) would indeed get shoot at. At that point if some one gets hurt they get hurt. But i don't know one police officer that would not have pulled the trigger if a car (which is a deadly weapon) was being used against them. Third if an ordinary person was in the same situation and was in possession of a firearm legally and acted in self defense and it was proven that it was self defense they would not be charged with a crime as California law allows for lethal self defense by regular people if it is warranted. So the whole key in the us vs them thing is if we could have been in legal possession of a weapon under the same circumstances and some regular people are in legal possession. Just some facts.

Temex Taxpayer wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:32 PM:TO DISGUSTED...ohmigosh. The man who was killed in Temec was maligned and now you're bashing marine wives, saying they are rotten, too? How about saying COPS have an "unwarranted sense of entitlement"?! After all, he was the one with the gun.

Chris wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:02 PM:Lets be realistic, if anyone was watching the news footage of this incident you would notice that there were orange tire outlines of the vehicles. My best guess would be that the two sets of paint marks are about 15 to 20 feet from each other. How fast can a car go in 15 to 20 feet from a dead stop. You mean to tell me the cop can't jump from in front of the car. Or lets say that the car was speeding through the parking lot and was coming at the cop. Even if that was the case how did the cop have enough time to get out of his car and put two rounds in a windsheild to hit a woman and child (unless he already had his gun in his hand). No matter how I look at it, it dosen't make any since either way the reaction time needed to move out of the way of the car is faster than the ability to pull out his weapon and put two well placed rounds in the victims car, and guess what? he still didn't get hit by the victims car. Yes it is all speculation but are we really going to get the truth? We have all seen cover ups from politicians, law enforcement, attorneys and even kids lie. For what? self protection.

anotherview wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:09 PM:Thank goodness the journalist Colleen Mensching provided straight reporting on this story. Such reporting has a snappy quality to it, probably from no bias smoothing between the facts. Thus, it informs without enflaming in connection with a serious incident. Conscientious readers prefer factual material over news media sentiment. Let us hope her editor keeps her on this story as more information regarding it emerges.

Victims of Road Rage wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:21 PM:Should drive straight to the police departments parking lot, unfortunately in this episode the victim drove right past the Oceanside Police Department. One or the other should have obtained the license plate number and turned he or she into the police.

BlackSatin wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:35 PM:To Chris

Ok, i feel you but cops don't get trained or paid to run, jump or hide. And it's easy to say i would have done this or they could have done that.

The fact is that most people have no clue and have never even been in a situation that would even give them a perspective on what happens to you when your a police officer and some incident occurs that may warrant deadly force.

All that i would have or he could have stuff is just as much speculation as most comments in this blog. You actually cannot say what you would have done unless you have been in similar circumstances as a law enforcement officer and have already put in your book of tactics the ability to run, jump, hide or shoot.

Please, it's like watching a drama action flick on TV thats shooting and blowing up things and you think it's cool and fun till your really in a situation where it's real bullets or weapons being use then things change.

Point is it's easy to look at a video and say I would have or he could have done this. You don't know what you really would have done unless it happened to you then you would have proven reference to what you can and cannot do in potential real life threatening situations.

Keep in mind that we don't know what happened, I'm just stating the facts (as it pertains to the what if). I have been shot at and assaulted so i know what i would do any time my life or some one else's is in danger either by firearm or vehicle or any deadly weapon. It's a different frame of reference when it's real and your the victim not like watching a movie trust me.

Oh and a car can go fast enough to kill you in 15 to 20 feet and that is a fact (some people have died just be run over by their own car in their own drive way less then 15 feet at idle speeds in accidents across this country over the years). So just that one observation by you proves my point you have no real frame of reference.

sandiegopete wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:11 PM:Earth to defenders of cop shooting 8 year old:

you don't get into a situation where you might need to fire a gun when a 8 year old is around. You back off. Police get paid to back off.
The don't get paid to shoot 8 year olds. There is no conceivable situation where the shooting if this 8 year old is justified. If you think otherwise, you need to seek psychological counseling.

Stephen wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:16 PM:What I meant was this. Why is it neccesary for someone who lives in Oceanside to be working for the San Diego Police department? After all, there is one in the city where he resides.

I LOVE COPS wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:29 PM:"The Hero in the Night"

Next time a cop stops you because you are driving too fast,
Remember he saved you from that day being your last.

When you think he’s picking on someone,
Why not think of what they could have done?

Next time you call him a name,
Would he have called you the same?

How would you feel to see a child beaten black and blue?
And knowing there is not much you can really do.

You can arrest them and hope they stay in jail,
But, too many times it doesn’t work that well.

To see the face of someone right before they die,
When he can’t but all he wants to do is cry.

To break up a fight, knowing later it will be worse,
And from his help, all that came was him being cursed.

To know that people don’t respect what he chose to do,
But day after day, he’s out there to protect people like you.

To see drugs sold to a child younger than his own,
Makes his heart ache and long for his home.

The job has no glamour, doesn’t even pay well,
He does it because he cares for more than himself.

He cares for you and he cares for me,
He’s out there hoping we will all see.

He took a path not many would take,
And he chose it for our sake.

He’s a remarkable soul, a Hero in the Night,
When all is well, he’s not in sight.

But, if you ever need him, he’ll be right there,
Not just because he’s a cop but because he cares.

SkinnyMan wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:42 PM:To Stephen:

Let's see, bigger police department = bigger pay.

to chris wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:47 PM:it's funny how traffic investigators get over a year of training to be able to reconstruct a scene and you figure it out in a day.

to Cimmaron wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:49 PM:Just because Lowes closed 30 minutes earlier, the lot wasn't deserted, how about employees leaving, last minute shoppers. You leave out that Ralphs is open till 1:00am and a number of fast food places. Whatever else happened, remember that this was a PUBLIC and OCCUPIED parking lot, that being said what a ludicrious place to end a road rage altercation.

Oh please to I love cops wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:49 PM:That poem is pathetic!

CarlsbadRes wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:51 PM:Wow, this is crazy I hope there was a valid reason for the officer to shoot a mom and kid. Some Officers out there over abuse their power. Yes as a fellow law enforcement officer we can carry a concealed weapon but WHY do we need to.Outside of work I dont even like to look at guns or anything related to my job.When you carry you look for reasons to use it.

to Sandiegopete wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:54 PM:if you think the cop intentionally shot the 8 y/o then you need phychological help.

CarlsbadRes wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:54 PM:Stephen, Just to let you know as a cop you shouldnt live where you work(bad for buiness) thats why we all reqiure confidental plates.

DO NOT JUDGE wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:19 PM:"Do Not Judge"

Please do not judge them until you have walked a mile in their shoes.
These men and women you are so quick to abuse.

For behind the badge is a Father a Mother that has a family of their own,
they plan to return to when their duty is done.

They miss birthdays and holidays and the list goes on. Just to protect your wife your son.
The pay is bad the days are long and still they put the uniform on.

So think about it if you would, for just a moment if you could,
the horrors they face every day are the ones we pray never come our way.

They hold a child as he dies and comfort the mother as she cries.
And yet you complain about a speeding ticket you obtained.

Many have paid the ultimate price, giving up their life,
to Serve and Protect you and I.

So please get a clue and do not judge them until you have walked a mile in their shoes!

Osider92 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:29 PM:There is no reason he should've fired on that woman and child in the car. If he was being followed, he should've drove a mile and a half down Mission AVE to the OPD Station while calling in for assistance. Especially since his wife is a CPD Dispatcher. Hopefully, the Marine is far away, and no one has told him yet. That's something, unfortunately, "Frank", should probably find out. It was just uncalled for and could have been avoided by any "Real" officer. Well, there goes more tax payer dollars in a law suit.

Job Description wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:34 PM:I am sure the the job description of a police officer states that you must be detail oriented, with that being said, didnt the cop see the occupants in the car ??? Did he really shoot them anyways, despite seeing a woman and 8yr old. I am curious to know how close to eachother they came!

Disgusted wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:59 PM:Dear Texmex taxpayer

I am not bashing marine wives. Read what I wrote AGAIN. I only stated the truth. I did not chose one group over the other (police vs marine wife). They are human beings and should not be put on a pedestal just because their HUSBANDS have made a heroic choice to protect our nation. I am only stating what I have observed about alot of these women. You are so quick to "bash" the cop and you refuse to think a woman in her car with her 8-year old is not equally stupid???

Come on, be realistic.....I am only saying I have seen bad people on both sides. NEITHER ONE are saints. You are talking about young women, who have way too much responsibility, and sometimes overreact and do stupid things. They are not immune to idiotic behavior, nor are the cops. I am merely saying quit being so biased and WAIT for the facts to come out. Its only fair. Don't blame either side until you know the TRUTH!

jimmy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:41 AM:after reading 190 postings, and noting the " don't be too quick to judge" people,,"let's get the facts" people,,, well there is no amount of judgement or facts needed here to say that the use of a gun was necessary. There is nothing you can say to warrent the use. Threat to his life, please,, what about the other 99.9% of the public that this happens to that DON'T have guns. There were other alternatives and you didn't need the split second thought process to initiate them with a person that is suppose to be trained to think in that manner. And for every excuse that you can drmmel up, it only validates my point.

Band Wagons wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:20 AM:Wow... The fact of the matter is that you are not a cop and you have no idea what is going through a cops head. When the average Joe thinks about road rage they think about two people flipping one another off on the freeway after getting cut off. When the LEOs think about road rage they remember the guy that got out off his car and got shot, stabbed or ran over. Don’t jump on the band wagon. Being a cop is not a job it’s a life style. San Diego is not Mayberry, Cops are not liked everywhere never through they are just doing there job. And as for the 8 year kid, It was dark I think the cop didn’t see the kid in the back seat of the car. bullets do go through people you know. Have you ever been standing in front of a car at night with its head lights on? You can’t see a thing.

Everyone just needs to chill; SDPD has always done what is right. LEO’s protect you day after day. But when LEO’s are off duty they protect their families first. What if the Officer had his kids in the car and the other car was trying to run him off the road. Facts are important.

Maria wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:53 AM:
To Jimmy and all the other people that can't imagine when or why a weapon would need to be used in a situation...A vehicle used as a deadly weapon is reason. What if his wife was in the car behind him and if he jumped out of the way his wife would be in harms way? What if he couldn't tell anyone else was in the vehicle? Why would a woman try to run anyone over? Why would she follow him into a parking lot? Maybe she is crazy? Drugs? Women are capable of road rage also. What if the officer was in handcuffs for a long while during the initial investigation?I feel horrible for this woman and child but refuse to hang an officer without knowing the facts!

whitey wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:03 PM:"CarlsbadRes wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:51 PM:Wow, this is crazy I hope there was a valid reason for the officer to shoot a mom and kid. When you carry you look for reasons to use it."

This is BS. A VALID reason for shooting a mother and her child?? Short of both the mother and child initiating the use of violence against the officer there is NO valid reason. What do you think the odds are that those two BOTH initiated the use of force?? You you generalizing ALL people when you claim that carrying a weapon means you LOOK for reasons to use it. Most people have arms for personal protection. Only sociopaths are trigger happy. I'm an alumni of Virginia Tech and I would like to carry concealed at all times but I can't because the men in blue say I'm not allowed to with out their permission. Screw you bureaucrats! I have every God given right to carry concealed to protect ME and other innocents. Wearing a badge does not mean you are the only ones with sane and careful use of arms. If I get killed in a classroom because I'm not armed to protect myself and my fellow sheeple it's because of the sociopaths running government who want us all to be disarmed peasants. Go read the "Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and you'll understand why each of us has the DUTY to be armed. It is worth the risk that a few nut balls are armed.

I agree with everyone wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:35 PM:armed, violence would decrease. No one is going to try to hold up a bank with 20 armed civilians in line. Nobody is going to start shooting students when everyone is armed. And as the police say, they can't protect you 24/7.

jimmy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:22 PM:well there you go, more stupid reasoning dealing with a person getting out of their car with road rage, you have got to be kidding me. Again, the more you throw these stupid examples up the dummer you all look. Let's see a show hands of people that would get out of their car with something like this going down??? Yeah you with the GUN!,,, you would! The last thing I would be thinking is getting out. It was an off duty situation so don't throw the situation B.S. out there. Still waiting to see that show of hands. And the fact is that to compare this to a std police incident is just as stupid, did he have the police radio to call for support,,,, no,, did he have any other devices to handle this like a true situation,,,, NO, so don't even think about comparing the position to the REAL thing. He was an idiot and the only one that caused it to escalate to this level was him. He will go down for this

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:40 AM:Jimmy, sounds like you have the facts. Let's hear em.

Chill wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:00 AM:Chill out people! Since when is the Police Department obligated to release all the details of a shooting. Releasing all the details of an incident like this would be inappropriate because all of us readers are subject to being on a jury at some point. OPD is actimg prudent. How many times have Police agencies and the news media released incorrect or worse, sensitive information for the sake of getting the information out first. Our society has become one of entitlement. The facts and information will come out when it is appropriate. Chill out and let Law Enforcement do their job.

Lisa wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:59 PM:Lesson to be learned here, when you happen to get into a road rage, let it go, get out of the persons way, save yourself the possibility of getting cornered in a public parking lot, because you never know it might just be a gun toting off-duty cop who thinks he needs to issue tickets while he's not in uniform. Like we're gonna know he's a cop by him saying so. I would never stop for anyone claiming to be a police officer who is not in uniform.

Too Many Questions wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:26 AM:The only facts that are known is that a woman and her son were shot by an off-duty cop. Everything else is pure speculation and, even if it comes out the woman drove towards the officer, it doesn't end there. Did she feel threatened by a guy with a gun claiming to be a cop? Was she truly an agressor against a guy who was dumb enough to get out of his car not knowing what was he would face? I heard there's supposed to be some kind of a press conference this morning ... maybe that will help shed some light on everything if that's accurate.

none wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:57 PM:WOW

robert wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:06 AM:well well well should it be a surprise that the officer is not in jail?? of course not they take care of there own im so sick of police officers doing what ever they want to do just because they are the law you know i think im going to start taping officers actions on the road and put them on u tube you would be surprise the way some of these officers drive they cut people off they pass on double yellow lines the run red lights and on and on and dont tell me they are doing this for a reason they are doing it because they know they can get away with it this makes me sick to my sto mach that he is not in jail shame on you blue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

esteban wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:22 AM:Robert, quit your crying. Your point is dead wrong.

to robert wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:50 PM:I hear your comment constantly. I'm a cop. I work 12 hours a day. I pack my lunch, so during that course of 12 hours I am on patrol, nothing else. I'm not hurrying to go to lunch or trying to make it to an important meeting. Patrol means I am looking for crime, it comes in all size. And I also answer radio calls. Radio calls are in the form of people calling 911 for emergencies or to make a report. The emergencies also come in different forms, domestic disputes, robbery, beatings, you name it. Well I drive fast and run light in order to get to those emergencies. And no, it it not always with my emergency lights on. You see Robert what you call my "just because I can get away with it" driving is because my job is not like the TV or movie version of being a cop. I don't want the crooks to know I'm coming or from what direction. I don't want that car that is two blocks in front of me that much of a head start to know I am going to pull them over. I don't want him to think he can get away and thereby start a pursuit. But Robert the rest of the time, where do I have such a hurry to go to? I don't, that is when you see me drive normal. I hope that enlightens you a little bit but if you are still in doubt come on a ride-along, I would love to show you what I do on a nightly basis.

To NCT wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:13 AM:Still no article with the additional information now known about the woman involved. Unless it's hidden somewhere in this still in progress website. It seems you're now about 2 1/2 days late and are going out of your way to send people to other newspapers.

What wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:37 AM:This year so far 28 police officers have died, three of which were due to vehicular assult. The women was ramming the car the officer and his wife were in (yes that's a weapon and yes that's assult), he got out of the car identified himself as an off duty officer and when the women tried to run him over he defended himself and fired his gun at her. The women was stuck in the sholder and that bullet struck her kid in the back seat. The women was driving on a suspended license because of two DUI's. She was probrably drunk again.

You try putting your life on the line everyday for ungrateful people and then when someone tries to kill you, come back here and tell us how rightous you were and did not try to protect yourself or your family.

P.S. His wife did call the police, but unfortunaly they can take several minutes to arrive and it only take a few secons for your life to be taken.

Where are we on this? wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:40 PM:So.....where is this case??


The new NCT website format is horrible.

Maria wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:34 PM:So many judgements and yet we still don't have the facts. Well, I know 2 facts. 1. Cops are allowed to defend themsemves. 2. Responsibility for law and order that's their job. It's also been my experience that people who hate cops , usualy have something to hide. even so, who's the first person you call if you have a real problem?

maria wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:38 PM:I agree with the 12:40 post. This is the worst format when did this happen?

haha wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:46 PM:greatest quote ever.

sandiegopete

[-] wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:11 PM:
Earth to defenders of cop shooting 8 year old:

you don't get into a situation where you might need to fire a gun when a 8 year old is around. You back off. Police get paid to back off.
The don't get paid to shoot 8 year olds. There is no conceivable situation where the shooting if this 8 year old is justified. If you think otherwise, you need to seek psychological counseling.

wayne wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:57 PM:Looks like we have gone back in time to 1939 Germany,God save the Queen!

Elmo wrote on Apr 2, 2008 8:32 PM:"Well, I know 2 facts. 1. Cops are allowed to defend themsemves. 2. Responsibility for law and order that's their job. It's also been my experience that people who hate cops , usualy have something to hide. even so, who's the first person you call if you have a real problem?"

Its to bad citizens are not allowed the same privilege.

Kermit wrote on Apr 3, 2008 3:21 PM: An incident like this is not a surprise.Recently in this area, a cop threw a seventy nine year old man to the ground with out good reason. In case no one has noticed, one of the things a cop receives besides a badge and a gun is a load of arrogance,for the rest of the world.

To: To Robert wrote on Apr 11, 2008 11:08 AM:Well said sir.

People don't realize what the job is all about until they go on a ride-a-long. Then they always understand. Anyone can go on a ride-a-long.... as long as you're not a crook (backgrounds are completed first).

To Robert - if you were alone contacting three robbery suspects four blocks away, I would absolutely run lights to get to you. Anybody who does the job would do the same.

Fairness wrote on Sep 16, 2008 5:48 PM:In all seriousness, please ask yourself what you would do, placed in a position of harm and uncertainty. If you were not there, you do not understand the emotional toll one went threw.

If I read this correctly, this incident happened at night, in an area, which has some not so friendly people at times. People make it seem that this Officer tried to murder a child in cold blood. I tend to doubt that. I also believe the child was not seen. What I mean by this is, when you drive down the road next time at 9:30pm, in low light conditions.... Tell me who is in the darkened vehicle next to you or behind you. Tell me their age, ethnicity and the color of one article of clothing... If you can do all that, then maybe he made a mistake.. Oh yes, do this why someone is chasing you and your adrenaline is up.. Did I add your wife is in the car? This adds a twist. Your family in imminent danger? This might change the way you look at a situation.

All I ask is to please put yourself in the mind set. Think of the situation and ask yourself what you would do or do differently. People are people. With this said, Have a great evening and be safe!