Off Duty Officer Strikes Girl, Takes Beating From Dad, Shoots Dad

[Dirtebiker]

the rider? How about the idiot kid that ran into the street?

Yes the kid has fault also. But the majority of the blame goes to the rider!
Like others have said, he should have been in control of his bike!
Yes, if a kid darts out in front of me, I can miss her!!!!!!!
It takes longer to lay a bike down, and that is NO way to avoid a crash, than to counter steer and avoid it! I've heard way too many times, "I had to lay it down"...... BULLCR*P!!!!!! Learn how to ride, eyes moving always, always EXPECTING something, or someone to dart across the road!

 

[Dr Dave]

Really? I would EXPECT a beating if I ran my motorcycle into a little kid!
If he had time to intentionally "lay it down", he had time to counter steer and miss the girl!
I've been riding bikes for 32 years, most people are not aware of a simple maneuver called counter steering. You can make very quick, sharp moves to avoid something in the road. It is something that should be practiced all the time! You can practice while everyday riding.
My guess is the officer is not an experienced rider.
Of course, the adult that was with the kid shares some of the blame, as does the father! But the idiot rider has the biggest share!!!

Swerving using countersteering around obstacles works great if....
A. you know how to do it and
B. the object doesn't move

If the kid didn't run into the street we wouldn't be discussing this .....

If the Dad didn't beat down the officer we wouldn't be discussing this....

If the Cop was trained in accident avoidance, was confident in his abilities, and the girl ran out and remained motionless, and the other kid didn't come into the street ( added distraction ) we MIGHT not be discussing this.....

That is assuming that the report is 100% accurate, which news report usually are....

 

[Dirtebiker]

Swerving using countersteering around obstacles works great if....
A. you know how to do it and
B. the object doesn't move

If the kid didn't run into the street we wouldn't be discussing this .....

If the Dad didn't beat down the officer we wouldn't be discussing this....

If the Cop was trained in accident avoidance, was confident in his abilities, and the girl ran out and remained motionless, and the other kid didn't come into the street ( added distraction ) we MIGHT not be discussing this.....

That is assuming that the report is 100% accurate, which news report usually are....

The object or person does NOT need to be still to be avoided!

 

[Excalibur]

The object or person does NOT need to be still to be avoided!

We know for a fact that the beating of an off duty officer for no reason other than emotional response that superseded simple parental protection could have been avoided. We would have to have been there to see if the entire accident could have been avoided.

 

[lucky4034]

Really? I would EXPECT a beating if I ran my motorcycle into a little kid!
If he had time to intentionally "lay it down", he had time to counter steer and miss the girl!
I've been riding bikes for 32 years, most people are not aware of a simple maneuver called counter steering. You can make very quick, sharp moves to avoid something in the road. It is something that should be practiced all the time! You can practice while everyday riding.
My guess is the officer is not an experienced rider.
Of course, the adult that was with the kid shares some of the blame, as does the father! But the idiot rider has the biggest share!!!

Hitting a kid is possible for anyone.... Who knows all the circumstances from this story. Maybe he couldn't see her and she ran out from in front of a car? But I agree with you... if he had time to purposely "lay down his bike" he had time to swerve or stop or whatever.

 

[Mackey]

It sounds like the cop did everything he could to mitigate a bad situation caused by circumstances completely beyond his control. It is a shame that it ended as it did, but nevertheless, it is hard to expect much more than deliberately taking risk of bodily injury plus guaranteed damage to his bike. I would not expect anyone to passively accept physical assault from two individuals without protecting himself. Under other potential circumstances, I may be a whole lot less sympathetic, but it is certainly not his fault that a youngster ran out into the road, and I fail to see what more he could have done other than clairvoyantly seeing the incident and staying in bed that day.

Maywood is a residential area. Speed limit no more than 30 mph. The officer had to lay down his bike (if the kid darted out in front of him, he wouldn't have had time to lay the bike down, have it flip then hit the kid). I will withhold judgement, but I'm wanting to know if they ever admit to the speed that this biker was travelling when he laid that bike down.

 

[patience0830]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZncehIh_Kw

Was he speeding?

Kirk, I've rarely seen a woman that thin on a motorcycle in the last few years and I've NEVER seen one that thin driving one.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

To the miraculous riders that have never been over their heads on their bikes and could of simply steered around the child, You certainly could of shot expertly so as to stop the attack yet not hurt the attackers? Must be a piece of cake for anyone who can really shoot! It's too bad you weren't there to save EVERYBODY with your excellence.

 

[Denny347]

Looks like we need to be handing these awards out to plenty of members here.

 

[tatic05]

I say the blame goes to both of them. If people are going to be making judgments towards the officer (i.e speed and time to react) then we can make judgements that the father told the girl to go run out in front of a cop. Maybe he was busy making a drug deal or so other illegally activity. just saying dont pass judgement when you really dont know s*%t about what happened. The father was probably shot with an automatic weapon too.

Regardless where the blame should go its no reason to beat a guy. Also I believe that the 2nd wrong action that the sister was speaking about should be the fact that her brother attacked the LEO. Shooting the guy was not wrong it was defense.

 

[giovani]

Note to all,Name calling after you have lost an argument is bad sportsmanship.

 

[Mackey]

...
Regardless where the blame should go its no reason to beat a guy. Also I believe that the 2nd wrong action that the sister was speaking about should be the fact that her brother attacked the LEO. Shooting the guy was not wrong it was defense.

You're saying that a guy doesn't deserve a beat down if his recklessness resulted in the injury of a small child? What if this person frequently blew down that road on his bike to the raised fists of the people who lived there (whose children are evidently supposed no never play in the street ... like 99% of us here remember doing), and then eventually this happens? Ok, that's just a hypothetical. But no reason to beat a guy?? We'll have to see about that!

Look. I don't know what happened. But someone died here. This cannot be brushed under the rug.

 

[littletommy]

The armchair quarterbacking here is AMAZING!

 

[Mackey]

Note to all,Name calling after you have lost an argument is bad sportsmanship.

Thanks for these words of wisdom.
But there is no won or lost arguement in this thread that I can see.
I've seen this tactic before. It may work in high school hallways, but not here, thank you very much.
(note: no name calling in this post).

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Note to all,Name calling after you have lost an argument is bad sportsmanship.

It's me! I called him miraculous and excellent...... Sorry, I was so wrong.....

 

[Rookie]

Guess he should have been riding on the sidewalk. Accident prevented.

I prefer the sidewalk. Less traffic.

 

[littletommy]

Were you there or are you Miss Cleo?

Somebody rep him for me. Gotta spread it around.

 

[tatic05]

You're saying that a guy doesn't deserve a beat down if his recklessness resulted in the injury of a small child? What if this person frequently blew down that road on his bike to the raised fists of the people who lived there (whose children are evidently supposed no never play in the street ... like 99% of us here remember doing), and then eventually this happens? Ok, that's just a hypothetical. But no reason to beat a guy?? We'll have to see about that!

Look. I don't know what happened. But someone died here. This cannot be brushed under the rug.

No I dont think he should get attacked for injuring her. IF this guy "blew down" the streets on a daily basis is different than what this article tells us. YOU are the one jumping to conclusions beyond what is stated. I dont think he should be beaten if he did so on a daily basis. Should there be a punishment involved yes, but beating a guy who is already injured by the incident (articles says broken bones i believe) is not right, even if he is not hurt it should not happen. I feel you have no compassion for human life if you think he needs his a$$ kicked because of an accident. If your spouse accidentally hurt a child and it was your spouses fault then your spouse needs an a$$ beaten too right?

The armchair quarterbacking here is AMAZING!

+1

 

[Excalibur]

The actual news vid and the article tells 2 different stories and there are the "witnesses" but the problem is we don't know if they are telling the truth or acting on emotion to protect their dead relative's reputation. In this kind of situation, we can't trust either side completely because they both could be lying

 

[jon5212]

Best thing to do is avoid hitting pedestrians, even if they dart in front of you. If you do you aren't at fault for it in Indiana however...

(I work in insurance claims), you and your insurance company are still going to have an exposure... yes that is the way it is nowadays.

Oh and if you do... keep your mouth shut until you get some legal advice.