[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I still think the gun was the wrong decision.[/quote]
Easy to judge from the comfort of your home.
I feel sorry for the poor kid though. What he must be going through right now.
[quote]anonym wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
There are conflicting reports of who cut who off on the freeway
“The boy and his mother were in their car when the off duty police officer cut her off in traffic - Words were exchanged and I imagine hand signals and finger gestures. The unarmed woman was shot twice, her son shot once… They had to be life flighted to hospitals…”
Found here:
This quote here is actually a message board users interpretation of an article from way back in March, which does not mention the relevant data of the more recent ones (BAC was reported to have not yet been released, the didn’t know what prompted the shooting, etc…).
If you notice, the article mentions NOTHING to shed light on who cut whom off.
Repeat: this is some dude’s - “Gilligan’s” - opinion of an article - NOT something reported as fact.
Are you even trying to present a case, here?[/quote]
"Oceanside police have said White fired five shots at a Honda driven by Rachel Silva, 27, of Oceanside. Silva, who was unarmed, was hit twice in the right arm, and her 8-year-old son once in the left leg. Silva’s attorney says the incident began after White cut off Silva in traffic and they �??exchanged angry words�?? in the parking lot. "
here you go
our local news agency (which I also previously posted…)
You seem to want me to make a case. I stated that I was glad for a trial to get all the facts that will be admitted.
Were you presenting a case?
Honestly, if the woman was so out of control, why didn’t the officer call for some sort of backup before it escalated so far.
There are always two perceptions, but he should have contacted an on duty, uniformed officer at the onset of the incident.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
anonym wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
There are conflicting reports of who cut who off on the freeway
“The boy and his mother were in their car when the off duty police officer cut her off in traffic - Words were exchanged and I imagine hand signals and finger gestures. The unarmed woman was shot twice, her son shot once… They had to be life flighted to hospitals…”
Found here:
This quote here is actually a message board users interpretation of an article from way back in March, which does not mention the relevant data of the more recent ones (BAC was reported to have not yet been released, the didn’t know what prompted the shooting, etc…).
If you notice, the article mentions NOTHING to shed light on who cut whom off.
Repeat: this is some dude’s - “Gilligan’s” - opinion of an article - NOT something reported as fact.
Are you even trying to present a case, here?
"Oceanside police have said White fired five shots at a Honda driven by Rachel Silva, 27, of Oceanside. Silva, who was unarmed, was hit twice in the right arm, and her 8-year-old son once in the left leg. Silva’s attorney says the incident began after White cut off Silva in traffic and they �??exchanged angry words�?? in the parking lot. "
here you go
our local news agency (which I also previously posted…)
You seem to want me to make a case. I stated that I was glad for a trial to get all the facts that will be admitted.
Were you presenting a case?[/quote]
You certainly aren’t presenting the facts in an intelligent manner.
Your third post in this thread indicates that you somehow think this woman was justified in her actions - she was alone and drunk (she was not alone), he didn’t identify himself (he claims he stated he was a policeman), he escalated the situation by following her (the police say otherwise), she was scared when he pulled a gun and, instead of driving off, decided to ram his car with her child sitting right next to her (definitely the alcohol driving).
You then say there are “conflicting reports” out there, as if there is actual evidence out there to make us believe that things started differently than what the police have stated.
This is, of course, backed by quotes you have given us from two people 1) “Gilligan” (message board PI, already shown to have made a huge leap of imagination and judgement off of one article), and 2) Silva’s attorney…the most unbiased source I can think of.
[quote]anonym wrote:
You certainly aren’t presenting the facts in an intelligent manner.
Your third post in this thread indicates that you somehow think this woman was justified in her actions - she was alone and drunk (she was not alone), he didn’t identify himself (he claims he stated he was a policeman), he escalated the situation by following her (the police say otherwise), she was scared when he pulled a gun and, instead of driving off, decided to ram his car with her child sitting right next to her (definitely the alcohol driving).
You then say there are “conflicting reports” out there, as if there is actual evidence out there to make us believe that things started differently than what the police have stated.
This is, of course, backed by quotes you have given us from two people a) “Gilligan” (message board PI, already shown to have made a huge leap of imagination and judgement off of one article), and b) Silva’s attorney…the most unbiased source I can think of.[/quote]
Why would I take it on face value just because it was stated by the police?
How can you claim a bias for Silva’s attorney but not for the police department? Don’t claim a bias for one side and not the other. That is naive and narrow minded.
Fella if you have your mind made up then good for you.
and please… you count her son as being of any assistance for her in that situation? For all intent and purpose the woman was alone.
HE claimed… SHE claimed… he pulled a gun when he could have called for back up and waited for a marked unit.
you seem to want an argument with me but I don’t have a “side” except that I believe that the use of the weapon in this situation was a bad idea.
I am hoping the trial brings to light more of the actual events.
[quote]Christine wrote:
Honestly, if the woman was so out of control, why didn’t the officer call for some sort of backup before it escalated so far.
There are always two perceptions, but he should have contacted an on duty, uniformed officer at the onset of the incident.[/quote]
Really? If some woman is in her car, trying to kill me with it, I am not going to waste time trying to get a cell phone out to call for backup. I am going to do what I can to stop the situation immediately, before I or my passenger is killed.
And I do not know if he even had a cell phone… maybe one of the articles mentions it.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Christine wrote:
Honestly, if the woman was so out of control, why didn’t the officer call for some sort of backup before it escalated so far.
There are always two perceptions, but he should have contacted an on duty, uniformed officer at the onset of the incident.
Really? If some woman is in her car, trying to kill me with it, I am not going to waste time trying to get a cell phone out to call for backup. I am going to do what I can to stop the situation immediately, before I or my passenger is killed.
And I do not know if he even had a cell phone… maybe one of the articles mentions it.
[/quote]
Both parties had cell phones and both called 911.
The police will not release the calls.
Sounds like horrible judgement by both parties. A drunk woman driving with her kid and smashing into another persons car, and a cop pulling out and firing (off duty at that) at a woman and her kid. Just a unfortunate and sad event.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Christine wrote:
Honestly, if the woman was so out of control, why didn’t the officer call for some sort of backup before it escalated so far.
There are always two perceptions, but he should have contacted an on duty, uniformed officer at the onset of the incident.
Really? If some woman is in her car, trying to kill me with it, I am not going to waste time trying to get a cell phone out to call for backup. I am going to do what I can to stop the situation immediately, before I or my passenger is killed.
And I do not know if he even had a cell phone… maybe one of the articles mentions it.
[/quote]
Wasn’t he in the car with his wife. I assume he was driving, she could have been calling 911.
I was under the impression that both parties called only after it had escalated too far. He is a police officer and observes someone driving erratically, I would think his first instinct should be to call for back-up?
This article mentions “witnesses” who claim that [quote]Silva tailgated and pursued the off-duty officer during the clash on Old Grove Road, revving her engine and finally blocking his car, clipping the side-view mirror and then striking the back end of his vehicle.[/quote]
Not just a “he said/she said” (more like a “they said/she said”), I guess, though it does mention there is insufficient evidence to nail her on using her car as a battering ram…
[quote]anonym wrote:
This article mentions “witnesses” who claim that Silva tailgated and pursued the off-duty officer during the clash on Old Grove Road, revving her engine and finally blocking his car, clipping the side-view mirror and then striking the back end of his vehicle.
Not just a “he said/she said”, I guess…[/quote]
no… not necessarily.
if there are witnesses and as such none have been interviewed by any of the newspapers which casts doubt on that, but if so, they only know what happened as they watched, they don’t know what might have happened previously.
we could really probably pull article and article but I think I said all I needed.
The best thing in this situation is a trial to get more information, opinion, conjecture, and even facts, out to the public.
This gives a more detailed overview:
The mere fact that this involves a police officer skews it automatically. A cop’s word is taken very seriously and very hard to discredit. When he gets on the stand to testify, he will say what he saw and there will be little to poke holes in his testimony. If the woman was found to be drunk, then her credibility is gone, and will be prosecuted.
I hate to be “that guy,” but when in doubt, I would trust a cop over another person.
I think the story should be checked, but if the woman was ramming his car with hers, it’ll be pretty easy to prove, I would think.
For those of you talking about “calling for backup” I think you’re nuts. Definitely the driver shouldn’t have, perhaps the wife could have, but she must have been under some serious stress too. Also, would you call the cops for simple road rage and tailgating? Seems there wasn’t an opportunity or need to call the cops until she followed him into the parking lot (at best) and I wouldn’t have called until she sideswiped his car with hers.
I love this.
Knowing he was a police officer (and an armed one, at that), she still decides to pop her vehicle into reverse and drive into his car.
First, why were you hoping this would happen? The lady was driving drunk!! Its her fault in the first place for being the cause of the incident.
[quote]This was a woman alone and drunk.
She didn’t know who this guy was.[/quote]
Yea, so I guess it would’ve been ok for her to kill an innocent driver, just so long as he was’nt a cop. God forbid he tries to defend himself.
He was an officer, he was probably going to
charge her. Would you rather he let her go?
Well she WAS drunk, so in this case you would have gone to prison for drunken manslaughter of an officer; which carries a hefty prison sentence, possibly life.
Yea for her to be drunk driving.
By law you can’t force a spouse to testify, but I doubt she even wants to, so good for her.
Cars hit a lot harder than 9mms, 45 acps, and 357 magnums. Depending on what happened, deadly force might be warranted.
LOoks like prison time for the crazy broad.
[quote]Christine wrote:
Honestly, if the woman was so out of control, why didn’t the officer call for some sort of backup before it escalated so far.
There are always two perceptions, but he should have contacted an on duty, uniformed officer at the onset of the incident.[/quote]
Good idea, his backup could show up in time to scrape his body parts off the pavement.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Cars hit a lot harder than 9mms, 45 acps, and 357 magnums. Depending on what happened, deadly force might be warranted.[/quote]
I beleive it was warranted. here you have some drunk chick trying to ram you with her car. She has her kid in the car, so right now not only are you in danger but so is her kid (which is COMPLETLEY irresponsible, hopefully she looses custody for that) also, the cop’s wife was in the car.
In that situation I could care less what happens to me, if someone puts my wife’s life in danger, they better believe that I’m going to do EVERYTHING in my power to end the threat.
[quote]Slay the Dragon wrote:
Christine wrote:
Honestly, if the woman was so out of control, why didn’t the officer call for some sort of backup before it escalated so far.
There are always two perceptions, but he should have contacted an on duty, uniformed officer at the onset of the incident.
Good idea, his backup could show up in time to scrape his body parts off the pavement.
tom63 wrote:
Cars hit a lot harder than 9mms, 45 acps, and 357 magnums. Depending on what happened, deadly force might be warranted.
I beleive it was warranted. here you have some drunk chick trying to ram you with her car. She has kid in the car, so right now not only are you in danger but so is her kid (which is COMPLETLEY irresponsible, hopefully she looses custody for that) also, the cop’s wife was in the car.
In that situation I could care less what happens to me, if someone puts my wife’s life in danger, they better believe that I’m going to do EVERYTHING in my power to end the threat.[/quote]
True, when the media starts blabbing about some shooting, they get almost everything wrong and do not understand the where and why to well. When you see the evidence, the shooting often looks justified. In this case a car can be seen as a deadly weapon.