Posted on 06/23/2009 7:31:35 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
San Diego police Officer Frank White was found not guilty yesterday of criminal charges resulting from the shooting and wounding of a mother and her young son during a road-rage incident last year.
A Vista Superior Court jury acquitted White, 29, of a felony count of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm and a misdemeanor count of exhibiting a firearm.
White showed little emotion as the verdicts were read about 4 p.m., but after the jury left the courtroom, he bear-hugged his attorney, Rick Pinckard, then his wife, Jacquellyn.
(Excerpt) Read more at 3.signonsandiego.com ...
More cops getting away with murder (or attempted murder) simply because they are cops.
Great news.
/sarc.
LOL! I can almost guarantee that someone will come in here and say that without the /sarc tag.
Disgusting!
San Diego is run like a police state for one reason....
We don’t want it to be like L.A..
But that is no reason to let off duty police officers fire a gun into a woman’s car while he is in a truck, striking her and her child. (the relative size of the vehicles matters as the JBT in question claimed he felt threatened in his big truck by that woman in her little car, the car being her “weapon” that had him in fear for his life apparently).
Waiting for their defenders in 5, 4, 3, 2.....
Not guilty by reason of thuggary.
Oh wait, you meant your sarc tag for the “Great news” portion of your post, rather than your initial rant. Right?
It was a jury trial..and the jury spoke. It was not a simple case if you listened to the testimony.
I suspect that he will still loose his job as cop.
You should probably learn the law.
She was tested for alcohol (according to the other thread, she was drunk). Did they test the officer for steroids?
Defenders? The officer was acquitted. Let me guess, you just hate all police.
“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.”
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
Is the use of an automobile against someone else likely to cause death or bodily injury? Yes or no?
You have to understand: Free Republic is much better than a trial by jury, with all that evidence stuff and testimony from people who were actually involved. It's much more fair and just to simply read a couple of articles, view a couple of news segments from our good friends in the MSM then render a verdict.
That whole "trial by jury" thing is so old-fashioned. We all know what's right by Googling it.
why bother with facts when you can just make silly suppositions and sarcastic comments?
Steroid rage is a real problem. WE pay for the damage caused by cops who dope steroids.
I’m much more concerned about this subject than BASEBALL players who use steroids.
But not Congress.
a cop fires 5 rounds into a womans car, why did it take so long for him to call 911. He should have could have done something other than shoot into the care.
Maybe, but I would be more in favor of the lady getting off five rounds at the same distance, after I had spend a couple of days training her.
That whole "trial by jury" thing is so old-fashioned. We all know what's right by Googling it.
I see.
What truck? He was in a Mercury Milan which is a Ford Fusion with a higher price tag.
I'm a San Diego resident and I've paid a bit of attention to this story. When it first happened, my immediate reaction was, "I hope this juiced-up son of a bitch cop goes to prison for a long, long time!!!"
Then some details started to surface that really caused me to rethink things. First, as the story says, this woman was no angel. She instigated the confrontation while being drunk and high on meth and was acting like a maniac (with her child in the car). Neither side disputes this. Second, the cop emotionally testified on the stand that he didn't see her son in the passenger seat and had he known there was a child in the car, he never would've fired on her. I believed his testimony.
Like I said, I just paused to rethink the case. It became less cut and dried as some of these details surfaced but I accept the jury's verdict.
I was once terrorized by an unstable woman who, for over 10 miles, on streets and then on the freeway, attempted to harm me. What set her off is that I didn’t take off when a red light turned green quickly enough. She then proceeded to speed up, get in front of me and slam on her brakes, and I would go around her and she continued to try to force me off the road. I then got on the freeway, thinking she would go on her way, and she followed me on the freeway and continued on. I sped up to over 70 mph to try to get away from her and she went 80, pulled in front of me and slammed on her brakes. What happened at the end was I stopped dead on the freeway and she pulled up beside me. That was when I saw a boy leaning forward in the back seat looking out. This insane woman (Iranian looking) was driving like that with a child in her car. I think the shock on my face on seeing the child finally got through to her. It was terrifying.
While she is drunk and continuing to back into him and his car with his family into it. I don’t blame the officer. Anyone with a hand gun would have responded in like manner. This woman heard the first shot. It hit her son and shattered her car window. Did she stop? NO. ALL if this could have been avoided if the drunk driver had not FOLLOWED the officer into the parking lot.
His wife had called 911 BEFORE the first shot was fired
The civil case is still open. Count on the local taxpayers forkng over a load of D’oh.
Having shown that I don’t know several relevant factors in the case, and one of the “facts” I thought I remembered was wrong; I withdraw my comment.
A citizen who fired five shots into the woman’s car hitting her and her passenger would not be found “not guilty”. It was using deadly force.
Sideswiping a car happens. I see it happen in public a couple times a year and generally the other driver just takes off (hit and run).
Was her initial impact ruled “assault with a deadly weapon” or accidental (due to impared driving)? Because when he (out of uniform and looking every bit the civilian) started firing he posed a threat to her life.
Did he announce “Ma’am, I’m an officer and I’d advise you to stop your actions”?
It’s criminal to assault an officer even out of uniform.
Neither person seems to have handled themselves properly in this situation.
Been following this, too, and agree it is more complicated than it appears at first. Gotta defer to the jury on this one. Ditto on the civil side once that works its way through (although my guess is it will now settle).
Let me also add that I do believe that lethal force can be used on a driver if the situation warrants it.
I would even support officers shooting a driver in a chase rather than running around after them for 1-2 hours only to force them to drive into some civilian.
He wasn't testing for anything. The union kept him secured for quite some time afterward.
OK...so, it a citizen did the same thing...shot into the car...what would have happened?
Second, the cop emotionally testified on the stand that he didn't see her son in the passenger seat and had he known there was a child in the car, he never would've fired on her.
Again, what is a citizen admitted to shooting into a car when they couldn't see his target?
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.