This was on the news here today, I can't believe it hasn't been brought up here yet.



http://patdollard.com/2008/06/cop-k...o-stomps-baby-to-death-in-front-of-motorists/

 

Wow...

 

Good they should have blow his brains out...

 

RAGE STOMPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!

Woah, this shit is pretty crazy.

 

If you think that's crazy lets wait and see what happens next. No matter how horrific it was I'm pretty sure the officer did not have sufficient reason to resort to deadly force.

 

I'm praying that you're wrong, but I'm afraid that you're right.

 

What gets me is - all these folks around who'd stopped in their cars, and not one of them with a crowbar, tire iron, golf club, shovel, anything - they just stood and watched?

 

I think, if you read the text, this happened in a very rural, untraveled area, that anyone witnessed it is unusual. Also, several did attempt to get the guy to stop. However the cop showed up and did the deed.

 

The use of deadly force is authorized to prevent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or another person. If the cop challenged the scumbag and he didn't respond, the cop was completely justified in killing his ass.

Of course, I would have shot the asshole in the kneecap to make him stop then would have proceeded to beat the living shit out of him (just like he did to that helpless baby), then put a round between his eyes. I have absolutely no mercy for people abusing helpless children.

 

I did read the article. And it implied that there WERE, nonetheless, a few people about.

I'd still expect that someone would have had some sort of implement they could have smacked the guy in the head with, to at least knock him down.

 

I don't totally disagree, but I wasn't there. In my mind, thank God the cop was.

 

i couldn't even read that whole artical. it bothers me.

 

The cop is going to have enough trouble justifying himself, can you imagine a cicvilian trying to justify smacking that asshole down?

 

there are sicks fucks in the world, i just wanna know why he was doing it. what possible reason could there be?

 

The real question is, of course, would you really be able to have the presence of mind, in this situation, to calmly go back to your car, get our your nine iron, and smack the guy?

It's certainly arguable that I'd be so shocked, so stunned, that I'd be able to do little more than stand in disbelief, frozen with horror.

 

I would hope that we live in a world where idiots wouldn't try and make that an issue, but I fear you may be right.

 

Unfortunately we do.

 

It's only unfortunate that we'll never know why he did it. At least he got what he had coming to him.

 

The last thing I want to do is defend the guy who got shot or demonize the police officer but folks I think we really need to look at some things here including the old adage that horrendous cases make bad law.

First you're dealing with inexperience on there part when it comes to physical confrontation. Second what psychologists now call "mob mentality' (I think that's the correct term). Basically its a state of confusion and inaction because even if an individual thinks they know what to do, they are all waiting for some cue from the group before they act.

I do not know what I would really do in that situation, but since I do have some experience with physical confrontation, I would like to think I would have dove in, and in that instance provided the cue for others to jump in also. Its what happens a lot of times in bar fights.

It did say it was a rural road but if I remember the story correctly it pointed out that since it was a rural setting it was unusual that so many people happened to witness it.

Unfortunately, since not of them did act the police officer will probably at the very least lose his job, the police department will probably be sued, and the officer will be luck if he is not charged with a crime.

It does not say if the police officer told him to stop, but the key here is the man was not armed with a deadly weapon. In that instance if the officer is not confronted with deadly force or sees a direct threat of deadly force he cannot resort to using deadly force. Unfortunately contending he was trying to save the child's life will probably not be a reasonable defense.

No matter how big the guy was three people, male or female could have subdued him at least long enough for someone else to grab the kid and move him to safety. They were all however paralyzed by fear.

This is a very strange thing to me. The Child was obviously already dead. Shooting the perpetrator could not change that. So instead this appears to be revenge for committing a despicable act. That is not law enforcement, that is being a vigilante, which is actually against the law.

Actually I believe civilians in this instance would be in far less legal danger and liability than the cop is. Most states, and I think California is one of them subscribe to the Good Semeriatn doctrine. Under that doctrine a person can not be held liable for trying to help in a situation of need and distress as long as they are just trying to help stay within their training. The best example I can think of is people who might move someone at an accident scene, but doing it in such a way that it actually causes more harm. That person cannot be sued, while if a doctor, nurse, or EMT did it they could be sued because the either knew or should have known better due to their training.

That is what I believe puts the officer in a really bad situation. He has been professionally trained as to when using deadly force is acceptable and instead it appears he reacted emotionally.

It probably won't be idiots that will make it an issue. The first people liable to make it an issue are the police officers themselves who will conduct the internal affairs investigation. The next people involved will undoubtedly be lawyers.

Has it occurred to anyone else but me that this individual displayed some prominent symptoms of being insane. If that is the case he could not even be prosecuted for killing the child let alone killed for it.

BB aren't you studying law enforcement? If you are you must know that no matter how horrible this is the police officer is not allowed to place himself in a position where he becomes the judge jury and executioner.

 

Maybe you should read all of the press and various reports surrounding this event.


The witnesses said that they did not KNOW the ing=fant was dead.

The cop reported DID tell the guy to stop and back away, the guy ignored him and was posed to kick again, he then got shot. That shot could have saved the babies life.

I know you're trying to play a devils advocate here, but let's let this thing play out through an investigation.

The only victim here is the child. Let's not rush to include others.