Posted on 08/13/2008 9:18:38 AM PDT by rednesss
SAN DIEGO -- Charges were filed Tuesday against an off-duty San Diego police officer who shot an 8-year-old boy and his mother during a traffic dispute.
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis made the announcement Tuesday in connection with the March 15 shooting involving Officer Frank White, 28. He was charged with one felony count of gross negligent discharge of a firearm with two enhancements for great bodily injury and one misdemeanor count of exhibiting a firearm. The charges carry a maximum sentence of nine years in prison.
White surrendered to authorities in Vista and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He came to court in a suit with his wife by his side. White maintains that he did nothing wrong in the apparent road-rage incident. He is not in custody and has been released on his own recognizance.
White was driving his personal car when he and Rachel Silva nearly collided in Oceanside. Witnesses say Silva responded aggressively, tailing White and his wife to a parking lot at a Lowe's Home Improvement Store.
White told investigators that he fired after Silva backed up, sideswiping his car. He said he did not see her son in the car. White fired five shots into Rachel Silva's car, striking her twice in the arm and her son once in the knee.
"Based on the evidence and the law, these charges are appropriate," said Dumanis, who declined to answer questions at a brief news conference.
White's attorney, Richard Pinkard told NBC 7/39 his client did nothing wrong.
"At this point, based on statements that have been provided to us, our client's conduct as reasonable under the circumstances. Obviously that's the pivotal issue in this controversy," he said.
According to search warrants filed in the case, White said he displayed his handgun but only began shooting after Silva sideswiped his SUV as she reversed past him. White's wife, a police dispatcher, was in the car.
The San Diego police officer was put on paid administrative leave after the shooting. The district attorney's office did mention that this is only the second time in more than 20 years that an officer has been charged in an officer-involved shooting.
Silva's attorney said he was satisfied with the charges.
Tests showed Silva had a blood-alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit. The 27-year-old pleaded not guilty this month to felony child endangerment. Silva -- who has two drunken driving convictions from last year -- faces up to six years in state prison. Lawyers for her son filed a complaint in federal court in May claiming police were inadequately screened, trained and disciplined.
A readiness hearing in White's case will be held on Aug. 26. The preliminary hearing is scheduled for Sept. 17.
I never said it was an excuse. I know this is hard, but separate out the two people in this story. We can all agree that the Mom was a scumbag, however, at the point in time that Officer Yosemite Sam decided to send a "hail of bullets" her way, he could not have known that she was a) drunk, and b) a scumbag.
All of these sordid details came out later, and none of them are justification for discharging a firearm in a parking lot in the direction of 2 people. This could just have likely turned out that the Mom wasn't drunk, but just a really big b!tch which is also not a capital offense in California.
“These pictures are not the best but I see no damage to the cars, so is the officers story true”
If a cop is standing and someone tries to run him down he should have the ability to shoot them. It would be better to jump out of the way though.
We’ve all seen the video of cops stepping in front or up to a moving car and then opening fire. The premise is usually that the driver was trying to kill the officer. IMO the officer has already decided to shoot when he steps into the danger zone.
IMO thats what happened here. She did not know he was a cop. All she knew was that a guy was pointing a gun at her. She tried to drive out of danger and came close to and probably scraped his car slightly. He had already decided to shoot her and didn’t let lack of damage or lack of a threat to him impact that decision.
All the folks here saying “ram” or “run him down” or equally misleading terms are covering for him.
Using information learned after the shooting to justify the shooting is just an example of cops protecting other cops, in other words corruption under color of the law.
It is amazing how most will only go by what someone else says and not look for themselves. The whole case is a real crock.
He didn’t see the boy through the tented windows but though the boy was shot in the leg, compared what the mother has been doing right along, the officer probably saved the boy’s life by getting her behind bars"
So you're saying that he was precognizant of her background and was able to do a breathalyzer from 15 feet away and through 2 closed car doors and thus concluded that it was okay to shoot her. And is it your earnestly held belief then, that crimes committed against people with a "laundry list of her background" are to be commended and legally should just be a mulligan???
I hope the "pol" in your username refers to politician and not police, or else I hope that some sane person relieves you of your tin shield and gun immediately before you can continue to wipe your butt with the Constitution.
I can see very slight damage in one picture. Just a slight widening of the lines between hood and quarter panel. Could have been pre-existing though.
There was a case here in Tampa where a cop responded to reports of gun fire at a street party. Kids were shooting guns in the air. Cops show up and try to control the situation. A kid points his gun at other kids and at one cops. Cops shoots him once. Kid then brings his gun back to the cops and gets shot again, killing him. Unfortunate but an example of an appropriate use of deadly force.
This case is definitely not clear cut but those calling the cop in this threads case a hero are sick individuals.
You are right, he was in his vehicle (shot out his window). Additionaly he brandished his gun which is not right. If she was sideswiping him than the kid in the front seat was only two door widths from him, he should have seen him.
I live in San Diego where this took place.
We have more news and outlook what went on.
not just a TV station blurb.
I am a ret. legal asst. with the County Attys.
I have a litle more knowledge of the laws and have
worked over the years on Homicide to child abuse cases
and everything inbetween.
When the St. Atty Gen. took over this case to investigate
the gal, even the left wing bleeding heart Atty Gen. threw the book at her.
Many people I know who are liberals and not the ones to jump on the pro police bandwagon, support what he did.
The St. Atty Gen’s 32 page report is on line.
read it and then comment.
I live in San Diego where this took place.
Read the St. Atty Gen’s 32 page report on this and then comment
“FR, home to a bizarre number of people with a Pig Complex.”
I’m offended that you would refer to jack boot thugs as pigs.
Whether or not she was drunk has not been decided in court. The cop’s guilt ALSO has not been decided in court. Only in your mind. Can’t cherry-pick justice.
If anything, he was better prepared to deal with this situation than any Joe Six Pack and he chose to recklessly endanger people. I believe they were less than a mile from the local cop shop, all he had to do was wait 2 minutes. I've seen the parking lot photos, I've seen the photos of the cars, no reasonable person would have believed that their lives were in eminent danger. Thus there is no self defense justification.
It seems that many posters here post a current story on the board after building a "bag of rocks". When someone responds to the poster's donated story, they are then beaten with the "bag of rocks" proving without question that the original poster is incredibly brilliant for just "knowing" all these facts. It is widely known that he/she is uncanningly right and everyone else is wrong based on his/her gigantic volume of information right at his/her fingertips and thus can have all the conservative men/women on the forum scream in delight at the very sight of any word he/she might utter. I mistakenly thought you were one of those. I can't imagine that you would deliberately try to make anyone else look stupid.
Apparently not since quite a few people on this thread tend to treat her rather heroically.
I'm sure the jury will determine the guilty party. This is a liberal state. If the cop is guilty, he will certainly pay. Double.
Imminent does not mean it has to happen.
Individuals are authorized to use deadly physical force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to, defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force...
Action is not required. Only a reasonable belief that an action is imminent.
It's up to a jury to decide whether the belief in this case was reasonable. There certainly isn't the cut and dry "let's hang him now" evidence that you claim.
Nope, and I'm not making a broad judgment of condemnation either. I have said quite a few times let's wait for the jury.
It's assault with a deadly weapon. He was in the car. The difference is about 1/4 inch of sheet metal. “I hope they do. Keep her drunken butt off the damn streets. He’s the one facing 9 years. Which is only about 30 years too little IMO."
How 'bout 30 years for 3x DUI, assault with a deadly weapon and child endangerment?
Hmmm, I don't know about that. Maybe since this is only the 2nd cop charged in the last 20 years in San Diego means they just avoid the justice system by have willing accomplices in the DA's office never file charges.
hmmm... have you seen those pictures of GWB setting off the TNT at the base of the Trade Towers? hmmmm.....
what a case this one is. the female was obviously the aggressor since she followed the cop, she was in an impaired state, and she initiated the physical contact.
that being said, a cop is taught to fire when someone is using or he believes will imminently use deadly physical force against them or someone else. simply stated, did he think he was gonna die? i will not 2nd guess. i was not there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.