George wrote on Jun 23, 2008 5:30 PM:You know what will happen. They are going to bury the Foley in stereotypical superstition made to look like reason. I have been on both sides of the gun and know for a fact the it only matters that he was lucky he shot a black man. They were in a cul de sac and the officer could have got back in his personal car and backed off much faster than Foley could close distance. Training should have taught him that. Fall back and regroup, what 10 year old with an xbox wouldn't figure that out?

Change need wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:15 PM:Well, Mansker was in his personal car, his personal clothes, did not show his badge, followed for many miles, sometimes speeding and then shot the other driver. I'm certainly no fan of drunk drivers, but if Mansker was following all the rules for off-duty cops then the rules for off-duty cops need to change. There are better ways to get drunks off the road.

Floyd wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:57 PM:Everything Mansker did followed the MO of a stalker following a celebrity. Foley didn't hurt anybody, but Mansker sure did!

Something... wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:46 PM:needs to be done with these off duty cops firing their weapons. Like he was trying to be a hero of some sort. No way would I have stopped for him either. Heard too many weird stories.

chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:47 AM:Foley could have also killed many people and ruined many lives with his drunk driving episode...You civil fools!Defending law breakers and sports people, regardless of their actions off the playing field. Find someone whos life, family and career has been destroyed by a drunk driver. I am glad foley was caught before he could inflict harm.

I wonder wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:14 AM:why the judge had a problem with "two men who were sitting in the gallery" wearing their Chargers gear? Doesn't seem to me like that would affect the outcome of the proceedings one way or another. Heck, two shirtless dudes would be more distracting methinks...

Kathy wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:07 AM:Ya know, it's too bad there isn't a "hind site 20/20" script an off duty officer could follow when dealing with these driving while drunk fools. That officer was better off turning the other cheek and just letting the fool drive drunk. Now he has to put up with the pressure of this lawsuit. Someone explain to me why the od officer as well as the city can't counter sue Foley for creating all this mess in the first place. Gees! Can we all agree that Foley ruined his football career; not Mansker and not the city. It's a heavy price to pay Mr Foley for your arrogance and drunkenness. Don't expect my tax dollars to bail your ass out!!!!

esteban wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:08 AM:Mansker will be vindicated. You monda morning QB's can't get in his mind to say he wasn't in fear of his safety. That's all that matters. You don't like it? Too bad. When you defend crooks like foley, that comes with the territory.

Lefty wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:21 AM:Very unfortunate for both parties concerned. Either one could have acted more responsibly. But this is the crazy stuff that happens when you ABUSE alcohol.

esteban wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:23 AM:Kathy gets it...why don't most of you?

Defend wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:08 AM:You can criticize Mansker without defending Foley - why does it have to be one or the other? Who cares what Folet did or did not do! Mansker was in total control here, and he blew it - simple as that! He let his emotions get the better of him and he made a rookie mistake. What? Cops don't make mistakes? Rookies don't make mistakes? Sure they do, and he had ample opportunities to do the right thing, but he felt he had to do it by himself. It may work on TV, but Mansker now knows it doesn't work in real life - regardless of the outcome of this trial.

you both dont get it wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:43 PM:Correction Esteban and Kathy...... You guys need another blnd mice for your trio....Three blind mice..... Foley was wrong and Mansker was wrong... Foley was intoxicated with liquor and Mansker ws intoxicated with emotions and prejudice.... They both are guilty and should be punished accordingly... Foley for DUI and Mansker for attempted murder..... Now I ask you? Who would you take your chances with.....

coldbreath wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:56 PM:Mankser would have done everybody a big favor if he simply implemented a pit maneuver on Foley's car with his own. Surely there were no kids playing on the street or law abiding citizens walking their dogs, at that time of the night.

That way Mansker could have sued Foley for damages to his personal ride. Hell, might as well sue Foley for emotional distress too - for making him (Mansker) force the maneuver. Yeah, and Mansker could also claim Post Traumatic Disorder. You know...having to pull your weapon and fire shots at a guy in a cul de sac all by his lonesome. The smell of gun powder and swerving vechicles makes Mansker fall into vertigo.

Pity the victim - Mansker. Get real people!

Q for Kathy wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:34 PM:Question for Kathy: Would YOU stop for someone in the middle of the night who is driving and old car, wearing jeans and T shirt, yelling "Stop, police!" and waving a gun but not driving, wearing, or showing ANYTHING that would indicate he's a legitimate cop? Be honest, and don't give us that "I don't drive drunk" excuse. It's been reported in the media that Mansker has tried to stop people before who were NOT DUI. If you yourself are a cop, do you advise your friends to simply pull over in such a situation? Sure, Foley was wrong, buts he's paying for his part in this. Why shouldn't Mansker pay for his part?

Question to Q wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:37 PM:Ok if Foley was SO SCARED and thought the guy wasn't a cop and saw the gun why would he confront him? Why wouldn't he himself call the cops that some guy is waving a gun at me and drive to the police station???? Did he do that? No he got out of his ride and confronted him, causing the confrontation, remember? Why didn't Foley call the cops if he didn't think this guy was a cop? Hmmm answer that one

Q wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:55 PM:We agree that Foley made mistakes!!! He's paying for those mistakes. We're talking about Mansker!!! Why is it so difficult to admit that Mansker made mistakes? Do you think HIS mistakes don't matter? Do you think he should continue to disregard the Coronado Police Practices Manual and continue trying to stop people in the middle of the night because he THINKS maybe they're DUI? If you are Kathy, you didn't answer my question.

OK wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:00 PM:"Question to Q" is obviously a white woman. A man does not need to answer that question. To a black man, it's not even a question!

coldbreath wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:44 PM:Question to Q lives in a time warp...circa Dodge City, 1860.

Bad habit wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:26 PM:Based on the report Mansker tried to do the right thing by contacting the authorities who told him they were busy. Crime is rampant and the on-duty officers were to busy to assist. What else should Mansker have done - just say oh well lets let this obviously drunk person continue down the freeway and possibly kill sombody or try to stop him? Mankser' only mistake was not having a better game plan when Foley came to a stop on a cul de sac. Bad things happen to bad people.

esteban wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:31 PM:Mansker THINKS he might have been DUI???? Turns out he was right on. Foley should have called the cops if he was so scared. He's full of it. He approached Mansker to beat him. Mansker defended himself. Case closed, anticops, get over it. But with so many liberal nuts out there, who think they know what the police should and should not do, they will find in favor of Foley. Sad but true.

George wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:33 PM:It has been revealed that Foley was shot in the back and the back of the knee. This indicates that he was trying to make a retreat when he was shot. He didn't jump out of his car to confront Mansker/Metzker. Foley was at his home and trapped in a cul de sac. He is mach bigger that the average person and the "legal limit" would have much less effect on him. Celebrities get stalked by press and fan(atics) alike. Foley plead guilty for his drunk driving and paid his fine. Mansker needs to pay his fine.

Q wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:55 PM:You few people who think Foley was 100% wrong and Mansker was 100% right don't get it. This kind of polar thinking is more appropriate to 6 year olds. Nearly all bloggers to this article agree that Foley made bad judgments and should/is paying for those errors. What we are trying to get through to you who want to absolve Mansker of any fault is that he has made errors in his past employment, his job with Coronado, and obviously in this case, and should be held accountable for his errors also. With any luck, this case will result in a change to police policy that disallows rookie cops from carrying guns off duty until they have proven themselves mature enough to handle this responsibility . Mansker's history shows he's not ready. Both he and White are rookies who need experience and maturity before being given complete authority off duty.

esteban wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:16 PM:Oh that's a real good idea. Take the guns away from the rookies. So they don't have a right to defend themselves until you think they've PROVED themselves!??!?! And how do they prove themselves? If a guy high on meth comes after him and his family, and the cop takes him down with his bare hands....will that be the criteria? C'mon Q...I know you have a brain. PLease bring it to the blogs.

Now children... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:34 PM:simmer down.

Q wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:37 PM:Esteban, you are funny. Your code of silence comes through loud and clear in all your blogs. Perfect example of Polar thinking.

coldbreath wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:49 AM:esteban...Mansker was not defending himself. He was looking for trouble - trouble did not find him.

No one was asking Mansker to "prove" that he was an off duty officer trolling city streets looking for action.

Mansker should have simply gone home when his shift was over. There's plenty of real bad guys to bust out there but to shoot a guy in front of his home in a cul de sac is just a sad sad commentary on today's rookie cops.

Jack Webb where are you?

esteban wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:56 AM:NCT, please post my response to "coldbreath". It did not violate your policy. Thanks.

Pravda wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:04 PM:It is hard to believe that police screening dose not catch these vigilanty rogue cops abuseing the special powers granted them. This guy needs to get sent packing along with the other rookies who can't handle the power and the pressure. It's not anti-cop, it's pro society!!! Free speech is not alive and well on this blog site,the rules mean nothing, the opinions getting posted are biased.

Loudawg wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:58 PM:California law expressly states that citizens do not have to stop unless the officer is in uniform and in a marked police car.

Loudawg wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:03 PM:San Diego officer who requested anonymity: “Optimally, what you do if you see someone you think is a drunk driver is follow the driver, call for assistance and act as a witness. You do not make the arrest. Not at all.”

Loudawg wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:05 PM:Amongst the info about Mansker that will not be revealed to the jury: That he was reportedly turned down for employment by 10 agencies before being hired by the Coronado police department and that his father was killed by a drunk driver when Mansker was 13 years old.