Greg in Oceanside wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:04 PM:The fact that this Hirschfield character jumped off the boat, had drugs in his system, and was combative with the officers who were trying to rescue him does not support any monetary claims from his family. Not only do I hope they don't get one red cent from their lawsuit, I hope they're subsequently billed for the legal expenses the city has to pay to defend their officers.

It seems the family is suing as if the officer's who were out to save him, went out to kill him. Instead, the way I see it, Hirschfield was not in the right state of mind and made poor choices due to his drug abuse. So now the city is faced with the enormous financial and legal burden of exonerating their officers.

From what I've read and seen, if Hirschfield was grabbing for one of their guns the officers were in the right to use deadly force, period.

esteban wrote on Aug 27, 2008 6:11 PM:The officer couldn't have tased him because the druggie was using it to bash his partner's face in remember? The cops try to save the guy and he goes ballistic on them. Now the family wants to sue!??!!?!? You gotta be kidding me!!! I agree with Greg that the family should be counter sued! Unbelieveable!!!!

Jeff in Oceanside wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:28 PM:Shot in the back with a 40 cal hollow point bullet, match that with franklin White shooting a 8 year old boy in a public parking lot San Diego get ready to pay BIG TIME!!!

Greg in Oceanside wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:30 PM:I've now heard two television news interviews from Brian Claypool and I'm not buying any of his rhetoric and hope the jury doesn't either.

Hirschfield was under the influence of 'something' ... for jumping off the boat in the first place, and then attacking the officers who rescued him.

What else would possess someone to jump off a boat in the middle of the bay? Let me guess, is Claypool is going to explain that away too?

esteban wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:44 AM:Who cares if he was shot in the back? What difference does that make? The guy was pummeling his partner. It makes no difference where he was shot...it only matters to the naive anticops.

to estebum wrote on Aug 28, 2008 7:21 AM:The police said that he was shot in the chest and the autopsy said back, what else is made up in the police version?

TO to estebum wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:23 AM:until you have been in a situation wherein you are attempting to recue someone, and that someone then turns on you and you partner and is now threatening your partner, and you now have to determine if this guy is not only a threat to your partner, but also the other 900 passengers on the boat (oh yes, did I mention doing all this on a wet and rocking boat in the water), only then will you understand how difficult it is to recount exactly what took place. You'd have used a stun gun, but could not get close enough to use it. You baton was useless; as the guy had already taken your partner's and was using it on him. So, your gun was the best choice. But, remember your partner is in the middle of this and there are passengers too. You take your shot when it looks like you've got a clear shot at the perp's chest. But, he is turning fast and you are slipping on the wet boat deck. When all is said and done the bullet hit the guy in back. But, remember this: your partner and the passengers are all safe! Only the perp was shot, and unfortunately he died of his wounds. Maybe he should have thought twice about using the drugs, jumping off the boat, and then picking a fight with the people who were trying to help him!

to to to etc... wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:06 PM:All I made was an observation of an inconsistency in story and fact, also in your story remember he jumped off the party boat with the 900 passengers and was picked up on a different boat so take the 900 threats out of your story.

esteban wrote on Aug 31, 2008 11:43 AM:This was perfectly justifiable and will be deemed so by the DA. No cover up. Of course the anticops will call it murder and will want to disarm all police.