Well now wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:12 PM:how interesting that the same attorney that represented Foley is now representing the woman in this case. Speculation, this attorney smelled money!!! You think?

karen wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:33 PM:Attorneys are like used car salesmen. This is starting to stink.

Randy wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:50 PM:Smart move on the part of the woman. The police officer will be well-represented. She and her wounded daughter should be equally well-represented.

You're kidding, right? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:51 PM:Well now...does this woman have money? I don't recall Foley doing anything but losing a ton of money and the rest of his career.
Think for a change, it might do you some good!!

Used car salemen couldn't get into law school and don't know enough to sell insurance. It's a long food chain.

VonMises wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:53 PM:Yes Karen and Well now, I suppose she should hire some newby with no chutzpah to represent her. Why shouldn't she get the most qualified attorney dealing with high profile cases, such as this one.

Believe it or not wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:01 PM:the best thing you can do in a situation such as this, is keep quiet and hire an attorney ASAP. I wouldn't have my client saying one word until I had the police report in my hands.

Matt wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:12 PM:This isn't odd at all. When you hire an attorney you want one who has dealt with similar cases before. What should she do, hire a copyright lawyer?

Almost 4 days wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:32 PM:Where are the surveillance tapes and the 911 tapes? Why is it when one of the Hollywood types does something we police reports, 911 call tapes, etc. are all over the place in a matter of hours, but a mother and child get shot by an off-duty officer and mum is the word? I know, we’re going to be told it’s an ongoing investigation and there are privacy issues. Come on NCT and other local media, it’s obvious this story is important to the community, get us some answers.

to you're kidding right wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:37 PM:maybe she feels she has a strong case against this off duty police officer, and feels she going to get the money back shes paying for her lawyer??????

When Foley was shot wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:38 PM:was it hushed up like this case is?

SEXI ME wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:53 PM:The only winner here are going to be the lawyers :) but I still don't get what in the heck the off-duty officer shot a woman and a child? did they had a gun too? !!I'm quitting, i won't watch or read any more news, all of them are bad and they depreess me :(

Marine Wife wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:04 PM:Smart woman for hiring a lawyer and not allowing the D.A. or police officers to push her to talk.

Funny how the officer though HAS given a statement, yet that hasn't been released. Why throw stones at this fellow marine wife when his statement is being kept behind closed doors.

Plus, I would never give a statement on anything w/out an Experienced & knowledgeable attorney present. Can't blame the woman for choosing someone who has years under his belt verses a fresh out of law school lawyer.

Waiting for the facts, but.... wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:05 PM:The cop waived his right to an attorney the night of the shooting, he was interrogated for 8 hours more than likely videtaped.

The other party rather than telling her version of the story gets a lawyer.

Just that mere fact, in my opinio, makes the table turned in favor of the cop.

There is that old saying, "if you did nothing then you have nothing to worry about."

I hope witnesses and security camera help solve this case. If the women was at fault she should face criminal charges to include child endangerment.

If the cop was at fault he should face the same above charges and maybe a harsher sentence for the mere fact that he is an officer.

Unlike others in this blog, I don't buy the Hollywood conspiracy theories, All officer involved shootings are review by the state attorney general. I don't think OPD or SDPD would be dump enough to cover up for this officer knowing this case would be review by the state AG.

Off-duty guns wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:24 PM:Of course she should hire an attorney. What would 'well now' and 'karen' recommend? That she simply let the police interrogate her? There's a real good chance that the police are already figuring out how to justify the shooting as self defense. That's what they did when off-duty Mansker followed Foley for miles and then shot him. Self defense? Try getting away with that if you're not a cop.

Neutral but... wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:35 PM:The cop waived his right to an attorney the night of the shooting, he was interrogated for 8 hours more than likely videtaped.

The other party rather than telling her version of the story gets a lawyer.

Just that mere fact, in my opinio, makes the table turned in favor of the cop.

There is that old saying, "if you did nothing then you have nothing to worry about."

I hope witnesses and security camera help solve this case. If the women was at fault she should face criminal charges to include child endangerment.

If the cop was at fault he should face the same above charges and maybe a harsher sentence for the mere fact that he is an officer.

Unlike others in this blog, I don't buy the Hollywood conspiracy theories, All officer involved shootings are review by the state attorney general. I don't think OPD or SDPD would be dump enough to cover up for this officer knowing this case would be review by the state AG.

Laura wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:50 PM:Oh she is guilty, why would you need an attorney before you say anything to the police? Smells fishy to me like she tried to kill the off duty officer. Maybe he had arrested her before and she recognized him????

Amanda wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:58 PM:Foley got the shaft on that deal I hope the women fair well. Why would she get this attorney?

Chunti wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:10 PM:If I were to shoot a woman and her child three days ago I'd already be strapped to the electric chair and this would be all over the national news. This cop's chilling poolside while still getting paid? Man, screw this country.

duh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:16 PM:Mr. Philips is a great attorney and maybe she smells money. Wait for facts..facts..facts..

Cynthia wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:47 PM:While at this point, we can only speculate on what happened, this is deeply disturbing. Twice now, SDPD officers, while off duty did not do what would have been my first thought. Pick up the phone, dial 911, and do not confront the other person. And, since it does appear that road rage was a major factor, it is even more frightening. It's been mentioned before, and bears mentioning over and over and over....Mark Peyer used his position to murder Kara Knott. Now we have two law enforcement officers who, while off duty, have been involved in shootings. I feel we, as citizens, hold our law enforcement officials to an even higher standard than we hold ourselves. Road rage? Happens. Me? I let the person go by me, and go on my way. Nothing....NOTHING that happens on the road like that is worth another person's life. Otherwise, the policeman is no better that the ignorant person indulging in a driveby.
Think about it....and do not drop this story. I've been emailing it to friends around the country, this story is being watched.

Duh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:53 PM:I'm sure she went out of her way to find the same Attorney that Foley used. Typical money hungry lawyer.

Think about it wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:13 PM:this young woman is a Marine wife. Marines don't make a lot of money, so venture to say this attorney is taking the case pro bono??? I think not. He will take the case on contingency and get most of any money she wins-----------if she wins. He child will be in high school before this goes anywhere. Regardless of who is right, this is going to be a big mess for all concerned.

Pancake wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:15 PM:Matthew Crowe's family didn't think he needed an attorney at first either. Don't EVER surrender your rights to counsel and don't EVER think that anyone in a position of power is taking care of your best interests, especially when ranks are about to be closed! Oceanside PD should have turned this over to the CHP, at a minimum, due to a GROSS conflict of interest. This woman did the absolute right thing because I can guarantee you that the Oceanside PD WILL close ranks around this guy, whether it is his fault or not. There is an agenda here and it is not in this woman's favor! Seriously, if you ever find yourself in a situation even remotely similiar, do not say a word and demand your right to legal counsel! And for those of you that think only the guilty get represented, you are wrong. The smart get represented. She will present herself for questioning, but she will be aided by her representative. It is her legal right and use of it can not be held against her.

to Chunti wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:16 PM:Chunti research citizen shootings in California and you will find out that citizen who shoot in self defense don't get arrested on the spot like you are claiming. Education my brother, education.

Google rosedale man who shot intruder or bakersfield homeowner who killed an intruder. Mr Stewart didn't spend a minute in jail and guess what? he is not a cop.

Mike wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:16 PM:"Woman allegedly shot..."? Why is the article titled such when within it states that she was in fact shot by the cop?

Former footballer wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:32 PM:I`m speculating the woman cut White off & White followed the woman to the parking lot then the woman fearing for the safety of herself & her child drove towards the exit which was blocked by a nonuniformed Mr. White she figured he would move out of the way but instead he pulled out his big gun not realizing there was an 8year old child in the car, yelling out "I`m a police officer" then fired off a few road rage rounds at the approaching vehicle. The offduty cop may have seen the woman reach into her waste band for what the cop may have thought was a gun. This is just speculation we don`t have or may never have all the facts.

Reality wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:33 PM:To 'off duty guns" the case against Foley had some interesting facts like "Mansker contacted SDPD dispatch to assist and they said they had nobody close" Mansker is a cop whether off duty or on duty - he witnessed what he believed was a drunk driver so he followed them. If I remeber correctly Foley approach the ODPO in a threatning manner and Foley's girlfriend admitted to driving the vehicle at the ODPO. Sounds like a justified shoot to me

Jeff wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:40 PM:I would like to remind all who are critical of this lady saying she should talk to police if she has nothing to hide what happened to Michael Crowe a few years ago. A false coerced confession brought on by a relentless harsh police interrogation

Common Sense wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:48 PM:To Neutral and Laura: If you were to be shot by a cop in an incident of road rage would you really trust other officers to be looking out for your best interests? It is a FACT that most cops do not turn in other cops--period! This woman was very smart to contact a lawyer ASAP.

Stacey wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:55 PM:Why wouldn't she (or anyone else) get an attorney before being interviewed or interrogated by police?! Anyone who says it's a sign of guilt needs to get out of their house every once in awhile. It's not a sign of guilt (although it is always a possiblity until the facts come out) it's just plain good old fashioned common sense. And to point out that the officer waived calling an attorney. Of course he did ... he doesn't need one. At least not out of his own pocket. He's a cop who's covered by a union that will get one for him. I know, if it were me, lawyering up would have been my second priority ... after making sure my child and myself were going to be alright. Guilty or not, she's about to play hard ball with the police and she's going to need a heavy bat!

A expertly trained officer against an unarmed women protecting her child! wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:05 PM:Most likely the officer used his expert driving skills and pinned the women in her car. When she tried to get away (when she saw the person in road rage with a loaded gun not knowing he was a police officer) he opened fire on her and her 8 year old child. There are a million things the officer could have done like calling the police rather than unloading his gun.

What wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:10 PM:Retaining an attorney doesn't indicate guilt. Nor does it preclude guilt. It is a sign of wisdom. If she did nothing wrong he could say soething that could reduce or eliminate a settlement. If she is at fault she could say something that could increase fines and or any sentence that she might face. My question is if the officer is in the wrong is he liable or is the City Of San Diego liable?

The women deserves a lot of money wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:12 PM:She and her eight year old child could be maimed and in pain the rest of their lives while the officer that shot them point blank with a high powered gun collects his wages and pension for the rest of his life.

Bob wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:09 PM:You have to get both sides of the story to make a decision. If he says she turned her car and drove towards him and she's not talking, I'd tend to believe the one that's given a statement. If you don't have anything to hide, tell your story. That way the D.A. can review the case and do what they have to. You people watch too much television in regards to cover-ups. Why would Oceanside investigators put their jobs on the line for someone(if he broke the law)who did something stupid?!

Just the facts maam wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:52 PM:"She and her eight year old child could be maimed and in pain the rest of their lives while the officer that shot them point blank with a high powered gun collects his wages and pension for the rest of his life."

Wow, sounds like you were there. What type of gun, and how close again? What let up to the point where a trained officer would pull a gun and fire on a woman and child? Hey, I have no idea what transpired, so I have no judgment either way. But please do illuminate us with facts, maam.

DeeDee wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:08 PM:To Pancake -- The OPD does NOT need to turn the case over to the CHP because if you had read correctly, it is a SAN DIEGO police officer! It is not one of their own so you have no evidence they will "cover up for one of their own". And the best comment so far has been from "Waiting for the facts, but...." a.k.a. "Neutral, but...." Everything he/she said is pretty much how things are!

Question wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:16 PM:My understanding is cops have attorneys available through their unions just for times like this. Is there any reason to believe he did not have an attorney with him within the first hours after firing his gun? A cop would never give a statement in this without an attorney!

To Bob wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:28 PM:Not making any assessments of the parties involved ... I have to say that some of the biggest liars I've ever known had the biggest mouths. Silence sometimes really is golden!

To common Sense..yeah right wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:02 PM:So tell me so call common sense, who turned in CHP officer Peyer and Deputy Bruce and others? explain yourself! stop watching so much TV cop do not put their career in the line for other cops only in tv.

tlp wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:16 PM:Maybe if the people that were doing the interviewing were other Marine wives, and she were out of the hospital(!), she would have said something already.

Tax dollars wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:45 PM:Oside investigators are not putting their jobs on the line whether the cop is guilty or not. The woman was probably advised right away by about a hundred attorneys to speak when advised to . If this cop indeed was in the wrong the woman & her child deserve compensation BUT there should be a cap of no more than a hundred thousand per victim plus hospital & attorney fees the days of the tax payers paying multimillion dollar awards MUST come to an end because it takes away tax dollars that could be used for schools,women`s shelters & better police departments

John wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:51 PM:Been waiting for the whole story as factoids slowly dribble out. Transparency in government - along with accurate reporting would lay a lot of speculation to rest. We citizens that pay the cop's salary deserve to have the answers. He may have been off-duty - but we bought his gun, we paid for the roads the incident began on and we are paying the police dept and DA to investigate. So what is happening? Poor reporting or government stonewalling - or both?

ummmm...Neutral? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:04 PM:As reported elsewhere: "The officer was interviewed Saturday night with his attorney, a peer support officer, and supervisory officers." If he had nothing to hide, why did the officer need a lawyer, peers, and his supervisors present at his 'interview'? Seems to me he 'lawyered up' a lot quicker than the victim.

VonMises wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:11 PM:As for the cop waving his right to an attorney. That's just nuts. The union should have been duck taping his mouth shut. Regardless of guilt this guy doesn't need to talk to anyone about what happened until his union appointed lawyer can properly decide what he should do.

the truth wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:32 PM:DO YOU WORK FOR A LIVING "Duh"? IF SO, I ASSUME YOU MAKE MONEY FOR THE SERVICE OR PRODUCT YOU PROVIDE FOR SOCIETY. DOES THAT MAKE YOU "money hungry"? YOU PROBABLY MAKE THE SAME TIRED, STEREOTYPICAL REMARKS ABOUT PLUMBERS AND AUTO MECHANICS. THINK OF SOMETHING ORIGINAL AND ACCURATE TO SAY.

To Chunty wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:02 AM:"man screw this country?" Leave it then...we dont need you or your "kind" here, Mr Bad Attitude non-American

to: Seems to me he 'lawyered up' a lot quicker than the victim. wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:55 AM:At least, he didn't take his time to fabricate a story like the so call victim did. At least, he didnt go lawyer shopping like she did. He got a Union lawyer not some high profile money hungry i'm going to twist the story to fill my pocket lawyer.

If the cop would have waited days to give his statement, you would probably crucify him, but the woman could do the same and she is doing the right thing. It sounds very biased to me.

enough wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:08 AM:If you were the chicken in the hen house would you talk with the fox, or would you hire a bigger fox to do your talking?

Jerimiah wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:24 AM:On the 10:00 PM news last night, they gave a lot more details than what is reported in this story. They said the officer followed the car into the parking lot because she was driving irradically. He got out of his car and identified himself. The woman allegedly drove her car into the officer's car while his wife was still in the car. She then drove at the officer who then fired his weapon. Let's wait for the full story before passing judgment. I would hate to have some of the writers of these comments on a jury hearing the case, since they have already made up their minds that the police officer was at fault.

Sand wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:28 AM:Can anyone cite any case in the last 10 years when a police officer (on or off duty) has been criminally charged in connection with a shooting and if there has been, how many have been convicted?

To protect and serve wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:59 AM:is what the police are hired, highly trained and paid to do, not escalate a driving violation into an officer involved shooting on their personal time. Their training should have instilled that they should walk away or find a way out before shooting one of the citizens they are paid to protect. In this and the Foley case the police officer is the professional and thereby has the responsibility to make sure it never gets to the level it did. If White and Mansker do not have the mental capacity to understand this then the agencies they work for should take the blame for giving them the weapons they carry.

hey Jerimiah wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:00 AM:Your comments are a bit hypocritical since you make accusations toward the woman that was shot when the police have not even released any details. Sounds like you have convicted her already with unsubstantiated claims.

Stop the Speculation! wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:11 AM:No one in this blog was there to know exactly what happened. OPD is investigating the case and will get to the bottom of this. About the alledged cover up, Detectives are not that stupid to put their career on the line for someone they don't probably know.


Last year, I witnessed a "Mom" in a minivan with a least 3 kids run a traffic light and caused a major accident. A 2 year old girl died in this accident and a 6 year old was critically injured. The victim's mother was a SDPD officer's wife. The "Mom" was not arrested on the spot.

A few weeks ago I read how a Police officer was convicted of killing his pregnant girlfriend.

So please wait for all of facts to come out.

Karl wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:17 AM:Quite a jury of peers to choose from here. I may have missed it but does anyone know if the woman and her child were actually struck by a bullet or were they struck by debris (glass etc) from the shots?

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:20 AM:Wow...still way too many verdicts in here without knowing the facts. All you anti cop types who believe every shooting is a cover up are just uneducated... Please tell me when the last time a cop on or off duty was charged with a bad shooting? That's right, you can't. Not because of cover ups, but because they were JUSTIFIED!!!!! Most of you know nothing of the law...

Foley Case wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:21 AM:Responsible Citizens report DUI drivers all of the time. Most of them follow the suspected DUI drivers until police arrived. Mansker did the same, he called CHP, CHP had no units available. The call was transfer to the Sheriff (poway) Deputy tried to catch up to Mansker and Foley. Unfortunately, Mansker turned into a culdesac with no way out.

Firefighter wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:28 AM:Why are some of you trashing Cops? I understand this incident sounds bad for the cop, but it does not mean all cops are bad or corrupted like some of you are saying.

Give them a break. When they respond to call of shots fired or stabbing, we (firefighter) wait until the cops make the situation safe. However, when there is a fire, cops don't wait for us they go in and try to make sure everyone is safe even though they don't have the protective gear we have.

Miranda wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:54 AM:You have a right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you...you have a right to have an attorney present...MIRANDA RIGHTS -- If you have any semblence of intelligence you will never consent to being interrogated "interviewed" by the police without your attorney present. I am amazed that people think hiring a competent experienced attorney is a confession of guilt. This incident is just another example of trigger-happy stupidity. When will the police get it through their heads that people will not obey someone who waives and gun and says "I'm the police" but who isn't in uniform and not in a marked police car. Especially women alone with a child. The police force needs to re-examine their procedures to ensure that uniformed back-up is present before the gun goes off.

get a clue wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:02 AM:When will the police get a clue -- call for uniformed back up ASAP whenever an off duty officer suspects criminal activity! Get the uniformed officer there ASAP! If some dude pulled a gun on me and said "I'm a police officer" you bet I would try to get the hell out of there -- women have been victimized and killed by gun-totting men impersonating police -- when will the police change their procedures to ensure this type of tragedy never happens again.

Soos wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:01 PM:Given the only details we have, what if the woman was acting in self defense? Two people in a car were following her and her child at 9pm, she turns into a parking lot and the man gets out and starts walking toward her. She doesn't know he's a cop and she has already called 911. If I was w/ my child, you can bet I wouldn't stick around to find out what he wanted! Then she gets shot. This would be scary no matter what, but the fact that he's an off duty cop, in my opinion, he should have known better than to draw his gun. He obviously lost control of the situation but he may have lost his temper, too. The whole thing is creepy to me and something just doesn't sound right.

Michael wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:05 PM:Does anyone know what division of the SDPD this guy works out of?

To Michael wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:15 PM:Southeastern

To Firefighter wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:41 PM:Bless you for your comments. I know that there is always a little rivalry between police and fireman, but, when push comes to shove everyone pulls together. My son, a policeman, was first on the scene of a fire and saved a woman's life. He said he didn't know how the firemen could do what they do and they said the same of his job. Most people don't have a clue. Until all the facts come out we won't know anything. So to the public who demand to know everything right now. Tough! You have to wait just like everyone else. You watch too much TV.

Susie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:34 PM:Now the lawyer will take all her money.

Hey Fireman wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:28 PM:Just gose to show you who the real heroes are. you guys just have a better ad campaign.Now go buff the right rear wheel on engine 2.

On the other hand wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:30 PM:Regardless who was at fault, this has nothing to do with good cop/bad cop or cop vs. fireman, I think we would all agree the vast majority of you folks on the job are true HEROES, However, More than likley the public(myself included)is just tired of the "Do as I say and not as I do" mentality by officials for example, being told to -Back off, take a walk and cool down, take the high road and drive away, don't get engaged in the altercation, and my favorite around election time "I never cheated on my spouse" etc.- I guess acting reckless and stuped from time to time is only reserved for Government officials and the other side of the thin blue line?

Rasta Man wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:42 PM:I would hope that Lowes and it's employees donate a couple of Weber grills one to the police officer and one to the woman/child because both these folks are getting BBQ'ed

Just curious wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:46 PM:So where is her husband the marine?

Jamie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:03 PM:Most of you here are blaming the cop, without any real facts. Most of you are at least saying he should not have engaged the woman, just like what was said with the Folley case. I just wonder, if an off duty officer sees an impared driver, calls it in to 911 and then does NOT continue to follow or engage the impared driver and he goes on to cause an accident with serious injury or death, did the officer do the right thing? Or does the family of the victim file a lawsuit claiming the off duty officer was obligated by oath to intervien in the dangerous situation? I have on more than one occasion called in an impared driver, not once have police arrived in time to intervene.

Connie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:04 PM:Since the officer was accorded the presence of his atty., plus a "peer support" person, I was glad to see the woman ask for an atty. I also was curious as to who gave permission for her 8-yr-old son to be interviewed while he was hospitalized.

To Connie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:49 PM:Not only who gave permission, if the investigators are so concerned about doing everything correctly and making sure it all looks good since it's a high profile case, why not wait to talk to the 8 year old child?

Really Esteban @ 9:20am wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:54 PM:So you're telling us that every officer, every time, every situation in history that they fired their weapon was justified. All are perfect, and you call other people un-educated!

esteban wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:28 PM:Sorry, shoulda clarified...Never said all shootings were perfect. Just wondered when the last bad one, locally, was. Can you tell us? I can 't think of one. There may be one, but I can't think of it.

To Esteban @ 7:28 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:08 PM:I'm always for the good cops that do their jobs well and right. I also believe that the majority of people on the force do just that. However, I have never trusted any organization to police their own. Now, with that said, are you asking when the last bad shooting was or when the last bad shooting was acknowledged?

To Esteban` wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:59 PM:If we are all uneducated, then please tell how one can become an educated truck driver. Inquiring minds want to know.

Heros wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:19 PM:Heros should not be used by the local Govt's as revenue enhancements... They should be stopping REAL crime, the kind that degrades and endangers society... ticketing cars so the city and a few greedy tow companies can make a fortune... isnt heroic. You want society to trust its police again... earn it... stop being lackys for the accountants... too much of your time involved in money making duties... thats why mistrust is brewing.

crashd wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:27 PM:Plain and simple. Sure she hired a lawyer, wouldn't you? But, why does the cop get to sit at home collecting pay (provided by YOUR tax money) while the investigation continues? If Joe Normal Citizen shoots, no matter why, we get arrested, no pay, sit in jail or mortgage our house for the bail, and get tried. If we shoot at a police person, no matter why, forget it. Might as well hang ourselves in our cell. But the police person is above reproach so he sits at home, drawing pay from us, and we pay his defense. This whole thing stinks to high heaven!

To Heros wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:51 PM:Well said!!!

To crashd wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:53 PM:I agree totally!!

To be honest wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:39 PM:I hold the off duty police officer more responsible. Isn't he the one who should be setting examples?

anotherview wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:47 PM:Last I heard, suspects have a right to remain silent.

concernedmom wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:34 PM:I am trying not to pass judgement but I just can not find ANY reasonable excuse for this man to shot that woman.
Everyday I am on the freeway I get cut off or at times cut someone off- unfortunatley thats CA freeways. If I were alone at night with my daughter who is also 8 years old and some car followed me. Then a man with another person in the car - remember its night and I probably wouldnt be able to make out who it is- I would try to leave and if they pulled a gun. DAMN right I would run them over. How would I hear its a police officer- Am I going to roll down my window with my child in the car and it being night time? With some stranger I just cut off approaching me with a gun!? No Im trying to leave or Im running his ASS over!

Think about your daughters, mothers, wives. What would they do in this situation? What would you expect them to do?

Burying the story? wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:35 AM:At 113 comments for the Woman Refusing to Talk article and 81 comments for this one, how come these articles aren't linked in the most popular box in th upper right hand corner? The editorial about how the police need to be more forthcoming about this incident aside, has the NCT decided to help bury this story. The volume of comments tells me this story means a lot to the community. Let's keep it front and center.

Randy wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:51 AM:The other shoe is about to drop. The police, under their mutual assistance agreements, are circling the wagons. The SDPD is about to be hit by an excessive force civil lawsuit, the likes of which they have not seen for a long, long time. What do you expect when you shoot women and children in a parking lot over a case of road rage?

Cimarron wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:44 PM:Breaking news: Woman now has a name and was driving on a suspended license due to two DUI convictions

...

Cimarron wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:01 PM:Well, my link to another local news source was edited out of my previous post. But, I'm sure you all can find it on your own.

Hit the Gas! wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:07 PM: The police need to rethink stopping procedures when they are out of uniform. I totally agree with Concernedmom, and I would expect my wife to do the same thing that Concerenedmom said she would do! Think about it, if someone walked up to your car at night, with a gun, would you want to stick around? It wouldn't matter if he said he was a cop and flashed a badge, (which any Joe Shmoe could buy off the internet), I would hit the gas and be high tailing it out of there!

To Hero wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:59 PM:We (cops) don't give tickets to enhance the revenue of the city. Tickets are given to discourage bad behavior, such as speeding, DUI, running red lights, etc. If you don't think none of these reasons are a big deal, then tell that to the mother of a 2 y/o who was killed last year by woman who ran a traffic light. I guarantee if it was your daughter you would be complaining about the lack of enforcement. a

Cimarron wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:29 PM:More breaking news being reported elsewhere (and I won't bother trying to post the link because it will be removed).

Mother and child have been released from the hospital.

To To Hero wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:37 PM:Is that I see units sitting at the freeway on ramps during rush hour or cruising the HOV lanes, but whne traffic is light enough for drivers to do over eighty I never see a unit around. You focus on what your management says to focus on and it comes back to revenue generation. As for a ticket being negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement changes behavior, negative only changes it until the perpetrator is out of sight.

To To Hero wrote on Mar 21, 2008 5:28 PM:First of all, my management doesn't tell where to sit and look for violators. My supervisor usually tell us what area citizens are concern about. It's up to the individual officer if he wants to conduct enforcement in that area or not. Some officers look for parolee walking around your city or others focus on traffic violations both in my opinion are a good thing (don't you agree?). There is no minimum or maximun tickets you have to give a month like some people think. When traffic is light is when we do most of our proactivity, so we maybe conducting traffic or pedestrian stops and unfortunately we can't be everywhere. Trust me I hate it too when people drive like a mania when I'm off duty but what can't you do.

esteban wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:00 PM:Yes, you do have to be educated to drive a truck. Not college educated, but you must be able to learn and retain information. When I call you uneducated in relation to your comments, I am actually saying you have no common sense. You don't have to have a masters degree to make comments in here, just common sense. Something many of people in here do not have...including you.

Oh Esteban wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:33 PM:Such harsh comments when you are hiding behind your computer screen. Doesn't sound like retirement is going too well for you. Get a hobby!

To: NCT ... from Seen Worse wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:48 AM:Hey folks, any chance you could post my comments from yesterday? Thank you!!

To To Hero wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:59 AM:I will concede I see a good presence on surface streets, but on highways I almost never see a unit doing what I would consider patrolling. Overall, I think we are well served by most of our agencies in the county, but when a shooting like this happens and the investigation drags on it feeds the distrust of many in the community.

To To Hero wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:21 AM:I agreed, we are all eager to learn the details of this incident. I suspect OPD won't release any details until the DA looks at all the evidence and make a decision on who if anyone will be prosecuted for this.

At least I would like to know if the child was shot or hit with glass? did the officer's wife call 911? was the mother intoxicated or was she driving recklessly? was the officer the one driving recklessly? Was the incident caught on video?

I hope you understand, most officer (I believe) don't like bad cop and if officer White was at fault, we would like for him to be punish.

esteban wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:28 AM:To Oh Esteban....well we don't know who you are either do we? Plus shooting down stupidity IS my hobby. Thanks for playing.

Oh Esteban wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:25 PM:Maybe you should get a different hobby as this one doesn't seem to be working out too well

To Esteban... wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:50 PM:I am not the one calling people idiots with no common sense or burger flippers. Hmmm...go figure, but you are entertaining! lol

esteban wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:56 AM:Thanks. Did you see the news piece with the attorney? He spewed his clients side. According to him, his client was just moseying along when all of a sudden she was shot for no reason. Horrible.

answer hero wrote on Apr 2, 2008 10:08 PM:it doesnt matter if she was drunk or she had the devil inside. when he is offdutty he is ust as anyone else with no privlidge to use a gun, after he shot them he wasnt even arrested, he is on probation n still getting paid. now if it was you or me we would be in jail with no possibility of bail. isnt this stupid ... stupid cop. go do it in south central buddy ust go see what happens