It’s easy to see why he would feel his safety was in danger; when you consider that the backing away was only 3 to 5 seconds of the entire incident. Most people run away from bullets. Seem sensible to back up. Then again, maybe she was backng up to make another run at him?

However I can see how you would wonder that.

How sad that you are so desperate to ‘get a cop’ that you will not even consider how idiotic is your last comment. Your whole argument is: ‘kid was shot, cop is wrong’. That is beyond moronic.

If liberals have their way

Officer White would have to respond this way: In the space of 15 seconds — approximating how long the incident took — Officer White should have called “time out”, then exited his vehicle, reconnoitered the area, removed any non-combatants, then escorted any under-age — what age level is appropriate — individuals from the vehicle, and then after all of that alerted this clearly ‘whacked out’ individual that he was about to discharge his weapon in her direction and would she like to surrender? Then after her negative response — sorry she must respond negatively before you can proceed — he would hand her a leaflet from the liberal ACLU which has required that it be handed out before discharging his weapon, then he must say — flip over your Miranda Warnings — : “as you can see from the leaflet a bullet passing through your body is harmful to your health, do you wish to surrender?”, after a negative — must be plain and understandable — here is the Surgeon General’s warning on the side of my cartridges. Would you like to surrender? Once again a negative is required. Then after that negative you must ask: Are you sure you wish to continue this violent assault on my person? Having heard a negative — remember must be clearly audible and understood — Officer White must say: “As stated by law after showing you the leaflet, asking you three times if you wish to surrender and clearly hearing your intentions to not surrender, and clearing all others to safety I am now allowed to shoot you. Do you wish to surrender now?”

That’s where we are headed if people don’t wake up from this thought-coma.

No offense Kip, but if you are going to attack cops — you are — then you should at least do it for reasons that make sense; not bleeding heart nonsense like ‘a child was shot’. Where is your anger at Rachel Silva for putting her son in this position; NOT ONCE BUT TWICE that we know of? Hmmm.

You don’t want to discuss ‘evil versus virtuous’ because you can’t make a case that way.

You want to immediately accuse the cop of being a gun toting maniac because a ‘child was shot” — more likely you just don’t like cops — without even considering what would have happened to the cop’s wife or himself if he had not protected himself and her.

Oh and self-preservation is a right, and you don’t lose it in the presence of a child.

As for ’showing my gun’; I wouldn’t have given the maniac a warning; I would have shot her. As a citizen I have that right — at least until liberals decide that the Constitution only applies to them, oh wait they did that — cops don’t seem to have that right anymore. Any wonder why we can’t get the best people to be cops?

I am so sick of candy-asses whining about this boy, looking to blame someone other that who is at fault: HIS DRUNKARD MOTHER WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PRISON.

The facts as we know them: a woman and her son in one car, a guy and his wife in the other. A differences of opinions. An expression of what’s popularly titled ‘road rage’. Now there is a car with a wrecked driver’s side and two people shot.

When was the last time you “showed” a handgun to somebody you were arguing with in the parking lot? Did you also shoot them and their young child when they hit your car?

Would you support me doing it?

I’m not a cop hater. I do ask them, with their need to carry lethal weapons, to be extremely circumspect and careful about pulling the trigger anytime it is pointed at a human being. Maybe I’d even like them to err on the side of caution, which would’ve prevented what we’re talking about here.

Officer White has been with SDPD for 3 years, not 4 months.

Rachel Silva IS NOT married, she is divorced (twice I believe).

It’s sad that some only care that a criminal gets off. Unless it’s a cop and then suddenly they want blood.

Unlike the druggies and drunks I don’t automatically assume that cops are guilty.

Fortunately for me most people read what I write before commenting and showing their ignorance.

As for Police apologist, hardly. I live in Oceanside not San Diego.

Rachel Silva is a Drunkard, criminal, and irresponsible person. Frank White is a cop, who to date has not been shown to be a drunkard, criminal, or irresponsible. Hmmm, who should I side with? Beyond that Silva was engaged in overt act of lawlessness; driving on a suspended license. Even worse she decided to confront someone whilst doing this with her son in the car. Now she is pretending to be an expert in policing and responsibility, all while claiming the mantle of victim.

If this was not so serious, if would be a skit on Saturday Night Live as it is so fantastic as to be comical.

Oh yea, and the headline is accurate, they are defending their handling of the case. duh.

An objective reader could place you in the the camp of police apologists.

Thanks,

Terry