Jeff wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:35 PM:If the lady is smart she will get a lawyer to be with her when she talks with the investigators, just to keep things proper.

Randy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:03 PM:The woman was shot by an off-duty officer outside of his jurisdiction in a parking lot. The police have a richly-earned reputation of covering for their own that is surpassed only by the Mafia and the U.S. military. Why in the world would any sane person trust the police to fairly investigate one of their own?

To Randy: wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:14 PM:I filed a citizens complaint back in the day against a San Marcos Sheriff. To this day, I swear I was right in doing so. When I went into the San Marcos station and asked for the paper work to file a complaint, a Sergent came out and tried talking me out of filing the complaint for a good 15 minutes. Then, when I finally got a respond a few months later regarding my complaint, who do you guess was the person investigating it....Yep, the same Sergent who tried talking me out of it. So I know for a FACT that SAN MARCOS SHERIFFS DEFINITELY LOOK OUT FOR THEIR OWN. Kind of a corrupt system all around.

to randy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:24 PM:this off duty officer was not outside his jurisdiction like you said. California Peace Officer have jurisdiction in the whole state not just the city they work, know your facts before you post. Secondly, police had investigated their own in the past and it had been fair. example, chp officer Peyer and san diego sheriff deputy Bruce. research before you post.

Suspicious wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:13 AM:This case is shamefully deceitful.

Jess wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:40 AM:Interesting how the captions vary. UT with the same story captions "Woman who was shot by off-duty cop hires attorney"
NC Times says "Police: Woman in Oceanside shooting refusing to talk"
What different meanings to exactly the same story except NC Times does not mention an attorney!

Rick wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:54 AM: Randy's statement involving jurisdiction is incorrect, but everything else sounds like he got it straight.

Randy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:32 AM:What Oceanside needs is an independent Police Review Commission like San Diego has, except for being toothless! That this police officer is not in jail or charged with any crime after discharging a firearm in a Lowe's parking lot and hitting a woman in a vehicle aptly illustrates law enforcement covering for its own!

Taxpayer wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:49 AM:Get a grip! The woman won't talk! What's up with that? Maybe SHE tried to run down the officer! Why don't all of you fair and honest citzens wait until a few facts come out before you hang anyone, the officer, the woman or every cop out there working to protect you.

Give me a break wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:42 AM:Randy and others, you watch way too much tv.

If I was her wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:38 AM:attorney she wouldn't be talking either. I wouldn't want her to mess up a suit against the police department.

Citizen wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:39 AM:I'm with you, what does she have to hide? Talk, tell the truth. Someone is telling the truth, it seems like the one who is not talking is trying to come up with a story that will get her out of trouble. At that time of day nobody else was around to see this happeninng? Come on people?

Californian wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:55 AM:Sad to think that the 8 year old was shot over "roadrage." Welcome to our violent world. Neither the officer nor the lady should have put a child through such a risk as a confrontation with a "stranger."

Peter wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:21 AM:I realize the editor picks the headlines, but I notice that the online article headline is definitely more alarmist. The print version was Details Lacking in Shooting Incident, that’s a lot different tone. So what if she doesn’t want to talk until she has a lawyer, the officer had a lawyer, his police representative, and his supervisor. Though I’d still like to know who let the police talk to the 8 year old child. Also, why did it take so long to inform us that the officer’s wife is a Carlsbad PD dispatcher? That might be relevant if she called 911 and was speaking with someone she knew. Speaking of knowing, since the officer lived in Oceanside you would think he knew how close the OPD headquarters was and had an idea of response times in that area, but more important were any of the responding officers personally known to him?

esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:30 AM:So Randy, who do you suggest investigate police officers? No matter who is going to do it, it's gonna be another law enforcement agency. Very asinine comment from you. So if this woman was not in the wrong...why the lawyer? Why the silent treatment? As some of you like to say, HHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

to to Randy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:38 AM:Please tell me when the last time in SD county an officer's firing a weapon was deamed un-justified. I don't remember a single case

I'll say again wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:41 AM:The cop isn't charged with anything because: It is not illegal for a peace officer to carry or use a firearm. Until it is deemed that he committed a crime or did not have legal sufficiency to use his firearm, he won't be charged with anything. It's not a conspiracy cover-up like so many of you dream about.

Pro-Bono wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:47 AM:Could the woman have been in fear for her and the childs life? Is managment realy there for the employees?I would stay as quiet as the police and make the police prove this type of force was a last resort.

To: I'll say again... wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:50 AM:You know what? If any citizen fired a gun in a parking lot or on a busy street corner after Rod Run, they would have been detained. "Hold & release" - even if no charges or filed or bail posted. In both cases, the shooters were allowed to go home only because they were police officers.

A lot different wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:54 AM:THis is a lot different then the Temecula shooting. If you remember, the police came out and said that the officer was hit with a chair, was being kicked in the head, and had to have several staples to close the wounds. Details that woiuld support the officer's actions. I think it is interesting that in this case we don't even know which driver followed the other...it's getting more and more fishy.

to esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:54 AM:you call names alot,was that your Dads way of communicating with you? This is not 4 guys and a chair. The cop put himself in this situation with very poor judgment.I hope his wife was impressed. Where is her account of the event? HHHHHHHHHHMMMMMM...

Independent Investigation wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:59 AM:The State AG's office should step in NOW to conduct an independent investigation. The O'side cops are obviously keeping details of what happened secret. Something they would never do if this shooting involved a civilian. Someone should file a complaint with the AG's office, or perhaps the County Grand Jury.

To I'll say again wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:01 AM:Get real. The only reason why these "officer's" went home is because evidence allowed them to go....no other reason. The cop in Temecula, well lets just say.......he is innocent

Go esteban! wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:03 AM:Police officers police their own...of course we do.

Name any other profession where allegations of criminal conduct are investigated by its peers.

Therapists, youth coaches, attorneys, physicians, teachers, newspaper reporters, etc., etc., etc.

Imagine what it would be like to launch a criminal investigation into a co-worker.

I've had the unpleasant experience of working a few internal investigations. In my personal experience, no cases are more thoroughly scrutinized for accuracy, fairness and impartiality.

It wasn't always so. But today, police officer candidates have minimum education requirements and ongoing training which places huge emphasis on ethics and honesty.

I can assure you that if an investigation determines that a particular officer or deputy is one of the rare "bad apples"...

No one hates a dirty cop more than another cop.

And...by your rod, ye shall be measured.

To my brothers and sisters in blue...keep your heads low.

Mike wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:12 AM:I understand the arguments put forth by OPD for not giving any details. That being said I think they are having the opposite effect they are looking for. It is certainly being tried in the court of public opinion and without any details most assume the worst case. I certainly hope they found witnesses beyond the parties evolved because that won't resolve much since both sides will likely blame the other.

Personally I would like to see this resolved and the guilty party charged. What I don't want is for it to be strictly he said she said.

To I'll Say Again wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:12 AM:But it is illegal for a private citizen to carry a loaded firearm outside of their home or business unless they have a concealed carry permit issued by guess who? A law enforcement agency, in this case the SD County Sheriff. As of 2006 there were 1540 permits issued in San Diego County down from 2042 in 1987. However, once you take out the judges, prosecutor’s office staffs, and friends of the Sheriff that leaves very few. So if an officer does choose to abuse their authority when off duty they can reasonable assume any non-law enforcement officer they encounter will be unarmed.

Jack wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:15 AM:Randy I agree with you for a change, I would like to add why would anyone trust the DA when she is a party to the corruption? Yep the mafia writes their own checks too and buys out politicians with their Gambino unions.

Lady keep your lips sealed!!!

Oh, and don’t get me going on the Independent Review Commission like the one in San Diego. That CLERB is the worst! Who do you think runs the CLERB? THEIR OWN!! Read the report on their site the CLERB review President says, “we are happy to report that in every case the investigations have been ruled in favor of the officers.” Look at the numbers so please people don’t waste your time with the CLERB contact the U.S. Justice Department and report the San Diego corruption.

esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:23 AM:To "to esteban"...what name did I call the person I was commenting to? I read my post again and didn't see any name calling. Anyway, please enlighten me. What happened in this incident? Please, the police need your help since you know what happened. In fact, you may be the ONLY one who knows what really happened, and you owe it to us to tell your side....Come on, we're waiting....that's what I thought.

David wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:23 AM:The problem I have in this case and the Temecula case you have off duty officers shooting in areas full of people. IF both officers were in uniform they would have used pepper spray or something eles. They would have never fired there gun. I just dont think they should be able to carry their gun if they are off duty.

i like esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:32 AM:so this is the fourth day and she is still not talking...it takes a while to come up with a story...the officer gave his along with witnesses THAT NIGHT...
Who is hiding what?

To Taxpayer and Jack wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:34 AM:If the woman as you say "tried to run the officer down." Why not shoot the tires of the car, especially since there was a child in the car. If I am driving down the street and someone cuts me off and then follows me into a parking lot I would be so scared and intimidated. If I had my child with me you better believe that I would take any means necessary to protect myself and my child. Either this cop is a really bad shot or he intentionally aimed at the child. I think something really stinks here. I think it is the spin machine working overtime to get this to go in the favor of the officer. I agree with you completely the D.A. will NEVER bring charges on a cop! They work with each other every day. You know catching the bad guys for her to prosecute. Sadly sometimes the bad guys are the cops themselves. I also agree with you about CLERB. They are useless but it looks good for Law Enforcement to make it appear as though there is someone monitoring them. What a joke.

unarmed wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:35 AM:reasonable to assume that LAW ABIDING citizens would be unarmed...who says the civilian parties involved are always law abiding?

Either Way wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:38 AM:Whether the lady is guilty of something or is setting up a lawsuit, she's probably doing the right thing by not talking until she has a lawyer present. OPD withholding details is probably best. The public's need to know shouldn't trump OPD's ability to investigate, or the rights of either part. I kind of feel sorry for those that believe they live in a world where all cops are evil and bad. In the words of a famous rock and roller, "Paranoia will destroy ya". Give it a rest and let the process move forward a bit. This isn't an episode of CSI.

To Citizen - PLEASE!!!!!! wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:40 AM:You say in your comment "Citizen
[-] wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:39 AM:I'm with you, what does she have to hide? Talk, tell the truth. Someone is telling the truth, it seems like the one who is not talking is trying to come up with a story that will get her out of trouble." Oh come on honey, the cops are not beening very forthcoming with information either. They must have alot to hide! As you said "At that time of day nobody else was around to see this happening? Come on people?" Yeah come on. I want nothing more than the truth but I doubt if we will ever know the truth because of the protection Law enforcement officers receive from the good old boys in the department. Sickening!!!

Confused wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:42 AM:I don't get it. Was the cop in one of the two cars? Was he in a third car? Was he just in the parking lot? It's unclear from the story. We've got the shooting victim and her son in one car, a woman in another car, but how did the cop come into the action? Please explain.

Dan From Oceanside wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:49 AM:Ok the women wants to talk to her lawyer before she talks to the police. That is her right. I don't buy the argument that "If she has nothing to hide she should talk to the police." You do not see the police talking. They are public servants they should be required to talk to the public. Is it ok for the police to protect their rights and not protect the rights of the non-police. Let the facts come out and be objective or descent into anarchy. My question to the NCT is why would an armed police officer be afraid for his life by an un-armed woman? I believe that either on-duty or not the police officer must be afraid for his life, or the life of others, before he can use deadly force. NCT get us this answer.

Cali wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:51 AM:Interesting! My first thought when I saw this headline was, "she's lawyering up and the lawyer told her not to talk" my second thought is this, "if you didn't do anything wrong, why not talk?". HMMMMM??

I know quite wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:01 AM:a few folks who carry concealed weapons without a permit. Kept some of them alive.

If she was my client wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:04 AM:she wouldn't talk until I got my hands on the police report.

Marine Wife wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:06 AM:I totally agree with Jeff. I am sure that though this woman has refused to talk to the police, and with good reason, I am darn sure she or her husband have already spoken to base legal at Camp Pendleton to obtain a lawyer. She isnt a dummy, she IS a smart person who knows her rights, as she has since lost trust in law enforcement

Brian wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:13 AM:Why isn't there a statement from the Police as to what happened? Is the Police Officer cooperating? You would think he would need to provide a reason why he discharged his gun.

To Esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:29 AM:I wouldn't be interviewed by any police officer anywhere for any reason without a lawyer present. She's not being secretive ... she's being prudent.

The Child wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:31 AM:I hope this child is ok after this, can you imagine the fear he is going to substain of police officers? Kids usually always look up to Police officers to protect them, not shoot them.

Level 7 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:45 AM:This really smells. I hope both parties are equally exposed to the TRUTH, so we may see the TRUTH......Equally?

AWTOOTOOBAD wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:02 AM:Once again NC Times. This is why there is a Second Amendment to the Constitution.

tracy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:26 AM:Poorman doesn't know if White or the woman has been tested for drugs or alcohol? Why doesn't he know?

unknown wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:26 AM:good friend of woman and son, listen people she wont talk due to the fact that she needs her lawyer present, which is the smart thing to do, we all know if she gives the police a statement without a lawyer present , the statement can be manipulated by the police, they are doing what they can do to back up this officers side. think about it she didnt have a weapon on her , he wasnt in any danger.

Cimarron wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:53 AM:In response to "Either this cop is a really bad shot or he intentionally aimed at the child."

As a mom of a child just a couple months shy of 8, my knowledge and experience tells me that the 8 yo was likely sitting in a booster seat in the back seat behind the driver. That's the placement of my child's booster seat. Why? Well, if a vehicle has a front passenger air bag (the woman's Honda probably does), no one weighing less than 100 lbs should sit there because air bags can inflict serious injury or death to small people (child or adult). Unless the child is huge, the 8 yo weighs less than 100 lbs (my average sized almost 8 yo weighs approximately 55-60 lbs). Also, car seats are required for children weighing less than 60 lbs (altho I think that law may have been recently raised to 80 lbs - my child's booster seat is rated up to 100 lbs). My child's seat is directly behind me so that when we are out, we are entering and exiting the vehicle on the same side at the same time ... just in case some wacko tries to grab my kid, I'm there & not on the opposite side of the car.

So ... if you were looking directly into my vehicle from the front, you might not necessarily see my child sitting right behind me. And, if you were to fire a gun at me through my front windshield, there is a good probability my child will get hit.

Suzie wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:57 AM:Most of these officers live where they work. How safe is it for an officer when he/she runs into some banger they arrested as they are comming out of the local grocerie store if the banger knows they aren't armed? The only reason our officers can be safe in this city when they are off duty is because they are armed and the thugs know it. If that wansn't the case, these officers couldn't go to their children's ballgames without putting the whole team at risk. They have to be armed at all times.

arlene wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:06 AM:If it was anyone else,they would be in jail,right now,till they figured out what happened.
I think its a shame.
Who in their right mind is going to shoot at a woman and her child? then more that once?
Yes,We do not know her side,but come on!!
These are the officers that are protecting us? their out in the streets road raging?

Soos wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:10 AM:The woman definitely needs a lawyer. She is dealing w/ the police dept who will, at all costs, protect one of their own until the facts are so overwhelming, they will cut him loose. Until then, they keep it internal and secretive because they can.

My concern is off duty cops, not in uniform, not answering a call to a crime in progress, are drawing their weapons in situations that could easily happen to any average citizen (fight in bar, road rage) resulting in a man being killed and a woman&child injured. That is wrong and something that needs to be thoroughly investigated w/ explanations made to the public.

esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:12 AM:Mnay of your comments are still stupid folks...(Dan from Oside, To Citizen please, To taxpayer and Jack...etc.). So if the facts come out, and the cop was in the right, will all you nay sayers who have it already figured out apologize to us normal folks who are waiting for real facts? I bet not.

To Unarmed wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:14 AM:Quit trying to obfuscate. Nobody characterized civilians as law abiding, but it has been brought up that since very few can get concealed carry permits then if they are following the law an officer would generally be correct in believing them to be unarmed. On the other hand if the officer has observed behavior that gives them probable cause to contact the individual, then their caution should go up regarding whether the person is armed. However, if the officers don’t see a weapon but keep resorting to this the vehicle is a weapon defense the public’s doubt is likely to increase. OPD needs to get the facts out sooner than later, good, bad, or indifferent.

Karl wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:15 AM:Either Way @ 8:38 AM makes a lot more sense than most on this blog. It's nice to see someone with a little common sense here.

Soos wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:22 AM:The DA very rarely brings charges against an offcr, as stated above, because would bring disharmony and distrust to their working relationship. In the Temec RodRun shooting, I doubt charges will be filed because they are already claiming self defense and the victim cannot speak. In Oceanside, the woman may be facing reckless driving charges or assault w/deadly weapon(vehicle) to justify the actions of the offcr. When in doubt, the DA will always side w/the offcr because he has sworn to uphold the law. But that is exactly why he should face more severe consequences and be held accountable.

Spectator wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:39 AM:Wait for the report to be released before you draw conclusions. We have a bunch of CSI wannabes speculating... With all of the comments posted, I see why the police is not releasing information, yet. Even if OPD released the information, I'm sure most of you would interpret the results to fit your bias.

Stop People wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:48 AM:We don't know the details of this incident yet so stop the rushing to judgement. To the person who said the lady was un-armed, were you there do you know if she tried to run the officer over? Officer Terry W. Bennett from SDPD was killed June 26, 2003 guess how? He was ran over by a punk. Why didn't he shoot the tires? Because it's not Hollywood, Officer are training to shoot a person not moving vehicles. Obviously you never been in a pursuit where a suspect keep driving 60 miles or so with all flat tires.

STOP WATCHING SO MUCH TV.

If you really want to know what police work is all about, why don't you go to your local PD and do a ride along. It will open your eyes and hopefully help you not to rush to judgement like most people did in the Temecula shooting.

To Cali wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:49 AM:"Cali wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:51 AM:Interesting! My first thought when I saw this headline was, "she's lawyering up and the lawyer told her not to talk" my second thought is this, "if you didn't do anything wrong, why not talk?". HMMMMM??" Same goes for Law Enforcement! Why all the secrecy? Why not be open and honest with the public they serve? Why not be transparent if they have nothing to hide! HHUUMMMMM yeah I thought so!!!!!

Glink wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:43 PM:Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you. She has competent counsel. This is good.

Off-duty guns? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:02 PM:The woman has every right to refuse to talk to police without an attorney present. She would be stupid to give them anything they might use against her. Esteban thinks that means she has something to hide?? Ridiculous! We still don't even know the cops name who shot the guy in Temecula after all this time. By estebans shallow thinking, that means the cops are really hiding something there. AND, why were the cops talking to the 8-YO kid in this case? Was there an attorney present? Cops wonder why the general public is suspicious of law enforcement behavior. Seems to me there is good reason.

Karl wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:36 PM:Thank goodness all parties are still alive.

greg wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:53 PM:Are there any security camera's in parking lot??

pacific beach denizen wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:54 PM:Key points:

I was ecstatic to read
the woman refusing to
make a statement. Simply
because she needs seperation,
distance and time. Depending
on the severity of her wounds,
she may be under one or many
drugs and/or painkillers. That
is not the time to make a
statement in a headline making
case. Kudos to her, or to whoever
stopped her from making a statement.
This is coming from someone whose
had 4 or 5 surgeries. Lying in a
hospital bed is no place to make
a statement to a potentially biased
and hostile party.

She should not make a statement
without an attorney present, period.
And that point is non-negotiable.
ALWAYS HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT.

I understand the woman driver
may have committed a crime. Ditto
for the cop. I refuse to pass
judgement on either one. As usual,
they are both innocent until
proven guilty. Until then, everything
else is 100% speculation.

Has anyone asked to see if
Lowe's had a surveillance camera
surveilling the parking lot the
way Wal-Mart does? A video recording
of the incident would be most
beneficial. Has any reporter looked
into that possibility?

As usual, witnesses will shape
this case. Which is unfortunate
because when you have 10 different
witnesses you might get 5 or 6
totally different versions of the
incident, even if the incident took
place in the middle of the day.

Note that assistant SDPD police
chief Boyd Long said last year that
surveillance cameras "are
the wave of the future for
San Diego." The Union Tribune
reported him as stating that
eventually the entire city of
San Diego will someday be
blanketed with surveillance
cameras. He made that statement
just right after they were installed
on the Pacific Beach/Mission Beach
boardwalk.

I carry a video camera
with me whenever I leave
the house. It's the size of
a cell phone. Why? Too
many reasons to list. I
carry it For 1000
different reasons including
for things like what happened
to the Lowe's parking lot
woman driver. And because
the district attorney has
a million resources, so
why shouldn't I have just
one?

I also carry a very small
voice recorder for note taking
and for any encounters I have
with troublemakers out in the
street. In ourgeneration,
one needs to embrace
the many fine instruments of
technology available,
and embrace it I do.

Mary wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:15 PM:Well If you or I shot someone in a "apparent road rage incident" we would be in Vista County Jail.Something is not right here,good for her for seeking counsel.Thank God all parties are still alive though.

TODD wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:21 PM:Some COPS are nothing but bullies with a badge and a gun. PERIOD

Speculator wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:22 PM:Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird. It's a plane. It's Speculator!

Finding facts faster than a lawyer chasing an ambulance.
More kowledge of the situations than a firth grader.
Able to leap to conclusions all from a single article.
Yes, it's Speculator - strange visitor from another community who came to Oceanside with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal investigators. Speculator - who can change the course of what happened, bend the truth with his biased mind, and who, disguised as a Oceanside Resident Clark Can't Know, mild mannered blogger for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights the never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Susie wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:40 PM:I am not taking sides either way until all the evidence is exposed. Know one knows who followed who. Who knows, maybe the woman had a gun pointed at the officer. No evidence is submitted to make any kind of judgment. Too bad it all had to lead to this, especially with a child involved. Just makes me more able to roll things off when you are encountered with road rage. You never know who you are dealing with. Stay safe.

To Mary wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:49 PM:Why should the cop being in jail? The other party is not talking, the cop gave his statement. So why should he be in jail? Because he shot the lady, we automatically think she was just sitting in her car having an ice cream.
Let's be real! How is it that with no facts, we are already blaming the cop? You are very naive to think women, soccer mom and marine's wives don't commit crimes. One example, the Marine's wife who poisoned her husband.
Wait for the facts!

Expat Doug wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:53 PM:Now just suppose an off duty cop is involved in nothing more than road rage, pulls a gun, but the victim he pulls it on is also armed and blows the cop away in self defense.

What a dilemma for the Pro-Law Enforcement and Pro-2nd Ammendment crowd. They would be torn between claiming the 2nd Ammendment gave a criminal what he had coming (even though the criminal was a cop), and the cops should have bigger guns to outpower the bad guys.

Only in your America.

esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:01 PM:With a name like Todd, you can't be too tough either.

To Speculator wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:26 PM:Very cute... maybe you should be a spokesman for law enforcement.
Not informative but very entertaining.

Justin wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:46 PM:Obviously if she is getting a lawyer then she is guilty, no one needs a lawyer unless they screw up. Thank goodness she tried to run over an off duty cop and not someone like you are me, she probably would have killed us.

to law enforcement critics! wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:12 PM:If the woman is found at fault, some of you are going to cry cover up. However, if the officer is found at fault and convicted, you cover up theories are going to be wrong. Now, I ask if second scenerio happens, are you going to appologize to those hard working cops who you have stereotype and in my opinion offended? It takes a real man and women to admit to their mistakes. I forsee that some of you, will find something else to trash these men and women.

FYI, it had been reported that OPD Detective are meeting with the DA tomorrow about possibly filing chargers against the officer. Just rumors so far we wait and see.

Patrick wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:17 PM:A right to an attorney? Imagine that!!!

Cali wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:29 PM:The off duty police officer made a statement. There is no cover up. We the public just haven't been privy to this investigation. Pacific Beach Denizen makes a good point. Right now is not the time for her to speak. This is a public "opinion" forum. No reason to try and make anyone feel like they are doing anything wrong with expressing their "opinions"

Oceanside Resident wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:42 PM:The woman did the right thing by not talking to the police investigators. As the police spokesperson noted, police have no authority to require the woman to speak with the investigators. Indeed, if the woman is later charged with a crime, the fact she chose to remain silent cannot be used against her at trial. We don't know all the facts of this case but it seems curious that no charges have yet been filed yet. A road rage incident that culminates in gunfire is a serious matter. Let's hope that whoever is responsible for this incident is brought to justice.

Rico wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:46 PM:All of you who are defending this cop are very good sheep. Let me recap: the COP... COP shot a WOMAN....WOMAN... AND.. her EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD!!! No word yet on whether the child was armed.

Stephen wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:04 PM:Well spoken Cali. The other day a few people gave me unsolicited advice. This was wrong of them. The police would be wise to learn when not to speak. Unless they are pulling me over those yahoos should keep their mouths shut.

Cyndy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:11 PM:Sorry folks, but if my child was in the hospital because of something like this...even I'd had the bad sense to cut off and OFF duty policeman....I'd be getting a lawyer pretty darned fast, and following all advice to sit tight. We do not know what happened, and that is half the problem.

With that said, though, I think of this. Regardless of which person did what to whom....the policeman made a choice to either follow the car into the parking lot, or not to leave the parking lot and drive, how far is it? A couple of miles to OPD office. A bad choice is a bad choice. Who was being protected? He could have said hey, this isn't worth it, gone home and gone back to Lowe's in the morning. So, in fact, could the victim. But she's the one with a wounded child. I find my sympathy tends to run with her, but I am going to be watching this one closely.

Eric wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:52 PM:I live close to the location I've heard all kinds of rumors regarding this shooting. I've heard the cop shot first, but the one that I'm interested in hearing if there was any facts to. Is she was ramming the car of the off duty cop when he fired.

I'll hold judgement until I hear the real facts. There is a McDonalds close that usually has at least a few customers. There is also a gas station and that usually would have customers.

To Justin wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:59 PM:"Obviously if she is getting a lawyer then she is guilty, no one needs a lawyer unless they screw up." ... Well that's just stupid. People hire attorneys every day for a variety of reasons ... one of the most important of which would be to protect your rights during a police interview. Feel free to go it alone if you ever needed to ... but don't cry and whine when you get stepped all over in the process.

What? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:13 PM:Where did people get the impression that authorities are supposed to put out all the facts immediately after a critical incident? As has been stated numerous times, people watch way too much tv. It takes weeks if not months to conduct an appropriate, complete, and thorough investigation. What would everyone be saying if they released some information at the beginning and then it is found to be untrue? What positive effect would that have? As much as we'd all like to know everything right now, it is not the court of public opinion that matters most.

For all those saying the officer should have been arested, what crime would he be guilty of? Without conducting an investigation, it is impossible to prove all the elements of a crime. Once you are arrested, the DA has only 72 hours to arraign you. If the officer was arrested that night, do you really think the DA would have had enough information in three days time for a successful prosecution assuming the officer is guilty of a crime?

Before everyone starts complaining on the internet, you need to learn how things work. There are good reasons why things are happening the way they are, and a cover up is not the reason.

Time out for esteban wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:51 PM:A Gun - People A GUN!!!, I am over 50 and have been in a couple of hair raising road rage scrapes in my 34+ years of driving, It's easy to get drawen in to them now a days but A GUN, NO, This superhero cop could have called and reported help or back up long before the GUN came out. NO reason was good enough and if I am proven wrong I will be the first to apologise!!
and Esteban put your mouth back in your holster and take a break. Your belittling people is like road rage in print and is not helping your case at all.

David wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:00 PM:People do hire lawyers every day. But how many victims of crimes hire lawyers every day? Her silence stinks as much as the OPD's silence.

Re: To Mary wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:29 PM:"One example, the Marine's wife who poisoned her husband. " ... I'm still waiting on the actual proof (not just circumstantial) of that one too.

Hey! wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:24 PM:can I make a blog comment too? everyone else is making themselves look like uneducated, biased thugs...can I too?

To: Hey @11;24 PM wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:40 AM:You just did and in only 20 words.

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:22 AM:To David, what are you talking about the cop had a lawyer present before he gave his statement also. This cop is goin down for being the bullies they are!

Gregory wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:27 AM:Let the Oceanside police do their job.
I do not blame the woman and child for going into a silent mode. They are fighting to recover from White's attempted murder.
Iam sure White told OPD that the woman was trying to run him over. With his wife as a witness.

jose wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:19 AM:wow if approve .. im sure you wont print or add to list.. too bad..

Jack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:21 AM:Oh please Esteban the cops are always right according to the San Diego DA. Does anyone out there believe the DA? Hah, no!! Funny how all you cops have a brotherhood of silence and secrecy. I for one would line to look at myself in the mirror.

jack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:24 AM:Gregory- you are right that is a good line "she was trying to run him over."

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:38 AM:To Time out...you can't think of ONE reason why someone could use deadly force? Then do you know the facts? No you don't,so quit using absolutes. Jack, I'm not a cop. I'm 54 years old and a retired truck driver. I like how you say, "all you cops". Why the hatred towards them? Why lump them all in one group? Do they lump all you burger flippers into one group? If the cop was wrong, he'll pay for it. If the woman was wrong, she'll pay for it, again. Until you read the report, none of you know a thing!!!!!! Me included.

Uli wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:47 PM:Foley was shot because of his actions, peroid.when all the facts come out we will find out that this woman has issues and something very fishy going on,she reeks of guilt.all of you conspiracy nuts who think all cops are bad need to come to reality.as the facts have started to come out we find out that the officer did id himself and did not pull his weapon until the woman drove towards him.sounds to me like a wacko woman who felt she had an equalizer(her car)and she could strike that man because of all the frustration she has of feeling she is not equal to men physically.how could this woman pursue the other driver after the road rage(her rage/frustration)? which she did, she couldn't let it go, all the time she had her child in the car.the security cameras will show this.

goofy mom wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:41 PM:i'm really tired of hearing she is guilty for not talking right away. have any of you been shot? my husband was shot by a sniper in iraq and he was in pain meds. for a while. its not so easy to talk when your all doped up plus when you get shot its not only phys., but mentally hard to deal with it. you can get nightmares, not be able to sleep and any noise can make you freak out. can you imagine the child? even worse. here this 8 yr old child know the cops are there to help you and then he gets shot by the same people he looks up to. I have 3 kids. 18 mon, 6yrs and 7 yrs. they look up to law enforment, firefigthers and marines. so people come on and wait. have some respect and think what you would do if this was your child. mom's are like bears they feel a threat on there kids and there going to do what ever it takes to protect them.so think are you going to listen to some guy in regular clothes saying his a cop out of uniform and not in a cop car? lets all be real!

Time out for esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:15 PM:Can you not comprehend what you are reading? Let me slow this down a little for you and review, I did not say "I could not think of ONE reason", I said "NO reason was good enough in this case", Get over your pompous self and find something else to occupy your retirement time with besides trashing people you don't even know in print, Try writing a book.

Harley wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:59 PM:1. That cop lived in O'Side & not being a matter of life or death could have called for them to investigate.
2. His training should have been enough to prevent his make a minor event into a 'life or death' situation.
3. No matter who caused the incident was wrong but not life or death wrong..the oficer, being kind, is trained to handle situations without using a weapon. Why did he not?
4. This is known gang area, what does woman expect in spite of being near the city police station?

Both were Dumb, Dumb and Dumber.

Too many trigger happy cops with inadequate training. Better training, we will be safer.

To Esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:13 PM:All you burger flippers? LOL Truck driver, burger flipper, what's the diff?

jimmy wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:19 PM:to : Time out for esteban,,
exactly. I posted the same comments on the other story and mr. truck driver was pushing the same B.S.

confused wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:43 PM:In one article it says that the women and her 8 year old daughter were shot, and the other article says her 8 year old son. Which one is it?

Silence wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:51 PM:The stench of cover-up is really starting to waft through the air. By now OPD investigators have surely viewed the video, had time to talk to the officer’s wife, and probably even had time to review his personnel records or at least have SDPD look and tell them if there is anything relevant to the case. Yet almost five days later their still playing the it’s an ongoing investigation card. What, so they can slip it to the media on the weekend while the media is doing human interest stories on Easter egg hunts and Spring weather. I saw NCT’s editorial encouraging more openness from OPD, but it has obviously been ignored. I think it is time for the AG’s office or federal law enforcement to step in and take over the case.

Bravo wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:07 PM:Ok...even if they were trying to cover it up.....it's been almost a WEEK!!!! The evidence must be inconclusive or theere needs to be an investigation into a possible cover up.
I'm betting that the EVIDENCE is inconclusive and since it was at night there are few witnesses.
Those witnesses probably have conflicting stories so it seems like it is probably a case of his word against hers.

Which would explain the attorneys and the unwillingness to come forward with their story.....BAM!!!!!
DO YOU FEEL THAT???!!!!

Grump wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:20 PM:This whole thing stinks..this is the kind of crap that is going on in Iraq. God bless that little boy, I hope his wounds are not serious. We need the facts people!

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:47 PM:To time out...ok, so you said "No reason was good enough in this case". That implies you know the facts. But you don't. So therefore, your opinion is moot and your argument is invalid...again.

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:49 PM:The difference between truckers and burger flippers is that I don't flip burgers.

an off-duty officer wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:51 PM:i love these blogs...

With that said, The investigating police department does not speak with the DA about filiing charges against the shooter. We simply document all the facts and evidence and present that information to the DA. They (the DA) then make the decision whether or not to file criminal charges against either party.

Some people here seem to think we are a bunch of Yahoos riding off into the sunset with guns a blazin!!! If that was the case, there would be a lot more than two off duty shootings in the county in the past few years. believe or not, thousands and thousands of us live our lives as armed citizens the other 114 hours a week without incident. Everytime a dentists gets arrested for some sexually abusing a patient, do we all start slamming the dental proffession as a whole...of course not...so why the double standard???

Yes, we have a dangerous job, officers are killed just because we of our profession sometimes, RIP Tony and Dan! BUT...yes, we are suppossed to be highly trained professionals who SHOULD be held to a much higher standard when it comes to violations of the law!

As far as a "coverup" goes, certain things cannot be corrupted. Any damage to the vehicles will be vital to this investigation, as will the impact location of the rounds, any 911 tapes, any video evidence from surrounding stores...The only portion of the scenario that is controlled by human influence are the statements of both parties and any witnesses.

While I find difficult myself not to monday morning quarterback White's decision making process that evening, we should all be patient and allow the process to take place. If all the information was released and White was not charged with a crime, everyone would cry foul and wonder why "we" were so quick to close the investigstion, yet on the other hand, if "we" take a thorough approach and document all the facts, it will be assumed by many that we are covering something up. It's a lose / lose situation for all parties.

In the meantime, remember that 99.9% of your law enforcement professionals are doing the best we can everyday out there.

To David wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:12 PM:You ask "But how many victims of crimes hire lawyers every day?" ... Answer ... Every single one who is interviewed by police (if they're smart) ... especially when the potenial perp is an office themselves! DUH!!!!

To An Off duty wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:20 PM:Very well said, and I for one would like to thank you for all you and all the other law enforcement officer's do out there. It is very easy for people to judge you all, yet non of them are willing to do your job.......go figure and stay safe.

Time out for esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:33 PM:Breaker,Breaker - You still don't get it do you esteban, The mother could be 100% at fault but it implies nothing other than real bad judgment by the off duty cop by allowing the events to build up and is only invalid in the way you perceive reality. Now little buckaroo I'm going to do what the off duty smokie should have done, I'm going to move over let you pass and go on my way, I'd rather spend the evening with my wife than continuing to go back and forth with you over this. 10-4 good buddy.

Speculators wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:48 PM:i bet that the cop cut her off...she followed him to the parking lot, then an alien cam down from outerspace and beamed a a gang member infront of him, then Adolf hitler cam back to life and tried to attack another female standing near by. The woman tried to run over Hitler due to her knowledge of his evil, and then the cop shot at her. Hitler the dissappeared with the aliens and now were left with a bunch of speculation. STOP SPECULATING!!,,,,ITS DRIVING ME CRAZY. Shut up and wait for the facts...otherwise youre "alien chasing, holocaust deniying" SPECULATORS!

an off-duty officer wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:49 PM:realized i hit the wrong numbers, i meant the other 128 hours a week.

whitey wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:04 PM:I'd like to be able to see the IP addresses of all the posters here. I'm curious as to whether or not some of the posters are posting from locations within the SDPD offices. I wouldn't be surprised one bit either. Do Senator Church's hearings ring a bell for any one here?

All hail to the almighty STATE!

To and off duty officer wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:31 PM:You are so right, and I thank you for your dedication to protect and to serve. I have worked with law enforcement as a records clerk so I understand what it takes once you write that report. So many times the perp walks and it's like a revolving door through the system. So make sure you cross all your t's and dot the i's when you write your reports. Stay safe and bless you.

to whitey wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:27 PM:public perception and opinion is definetly a part of a police officers ability to better serve. Without knowing the public perception, an officer may not know the best way to handle a given situation. Like they say with teaching....teach to your audience, dont just lecture your subject knowledge...

Even if these are read and responded to by SDPD officers, does it really matter? Really?

Harley wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:25 AM:To Off Duty Officer

This have is the 2nd incident of this nature in about a month with 1 in Temecula, which may have been justified. Now this one in Oceanside plus the event with Foley.

The concern is that off-duty officers are carrying an attitude they are still on duty, when they are not. Essentially in their mind, never off the clock. Not good when they are not in uniform to be easily recognized.

esteban wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:09 PM:To Time out...apparantly YOu still don't get it. You still say the cop used bad judgement. Once again...how do you know? What facts do you have that one or the other used bad judgement. Once again, you failed in your argument, but succeeded in showing your ignorance and (un) intelligence.

to harley from off duty wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:58 PM:I agree with most of your post. In my post, I was only referring to the county we live in, I understand the r proximity of the two incidents can raise some eyebrows.

Your statement is very general..."the concern is that off-duty officers are carrying the attitude they are still on duty"

I, for one, consider myself to be a police officer 100% of the time. Whether I am at the store, eating at a restaraunt, walking my dog, whatever it may be, I am still a police officer. If I see a crime in progress, a suspicious person, etc, I call the on-duty police officer to check on it. I have a certain amount of training and experience based on my job that allows me to recognize certain things that others may not readily see.

You are absolutely correct in the FACT that when not in uniform, a police officer is not as easily recognizable as one who may be in full uniform. This could lead to a very, very unfortunate set of circumstances. case in point, the reason for this article. That fact alone killed an off-duty policeman in white plains new york just a few months ago, he was shot by four on duty uniformed officers when he didnt listen to verbal commands. These reasons are why myself, and the THOUSANDS of other non-uniformed, off duty officers can live like everyone else in the community.

The only reason i am taking the time to post on this forum is to hopefully allow someone who is feeling "anti-cop" right now to step back and really think about why they are upset. They are upset for the same reason I am upset, this particular act shocks the conscious because there was a child hit! Whether White is found justified in this shooting or not is not for any of us to decide, let the investigation run it's course and the facts of the case will come out in the end.

Time out..... wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:45 AM:Hey esteban, Regarding your 7:09PM post. Is that like (un)cola? Guess I'm (un)ignorant and just (un)don't get it. Anyway, Look at the facts that you do know, (1)Road rage involving off duty cop,(2) guns-a-blazing and (3)a car all shot up, those are the facts that come from one bad judgment call to another! Road rage does not happen in a split second, it is a series of events that this professional law enforcement officer could and should have put a stop to before the first shot was fired, I failed at nothing, You did not need to be there to know that, Just like you don't need to witness someone getting struck by a truck to know not to walk in front of one coming your way. Or is that just to complicated for you to grasp as well? So go on and put your head back in the sand and wait for the tv news to form your thoughts and give you the all clear. Post what you will from this point on, As for me I'm board with you and going on to other news.I hope the lady her child and the cops wife will all come out of this OK.

esteban wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:02 PM:Time Out...I had a response to your still ignorant post but it sems the NCT wants you to have the last word.

This Esteban... wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:15 PM:Sure acts childish.

john wrote on Apr 3, 2008 1:13 PM:I can already tell you what is going to happen. This off-duty officer was not charged with nothing, so he has plenty of time to get together with his attorney and union representatives. he will make a carefully crafted statement. he is a peace officer. She was driving on a suspended license and had a DUI. She will get money outside of court a settlement. He will go back to work. it will be a justified shooting. He will claim he feared for his life. Any other citizen would be charged with attempted murder and hooked up on the spot.