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

[semperfi211]

At least some people in Il can carry a gun to prevent themselves from being beaten to death.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

And I have to go into Maywood tomorrow. Fantastic....

 

[Benny]

At least some people in Il can carry a gun to prevent themselves from being beaten to death.

Yep. A very, very select few can. I certainly can't though...Neither can close to 13M Illinois residents either.

 

[Mackey]

Yep. Looks like the posted speed limit was 35.

 

[Benny]

Yep. Looks like the posted speed limit was 35.

What buffoon doesn't keep their 4 year old within arm's reach next to a road like that?

Kurt, kids seriously "play" out in the middle of that road around there? That's some fantastic parenting and people on the road should be held 100% responsible.

 

[Glock19]

How are there actually people on this forum still blaming the cop and not one of you blaming the parents? If I missed you im sorry....but really? No one thinks the parent shouldnt be responsible for their 4 year old running out into the road?

 

[jd4320t]

Thread title is misleading....like something the media would write.

The dad got what he deserved.

His sister said he was a good man and yada yada yada...sound familiar?

 

[TiminMishawaka]

You'r right JD, the thread title is very misleading and First Avenue is NOT a place to let a 4 year old kid run around. It is a VERY busy street and Maywood is where it lets off and on I-290. As far as the speculation that it has to be 30 mph or under, that's for people who've never driven First Avenue. I used to live 2 blocks from First Avenue in Lyons, IL. It's 45 mph at parts.

 

[IndySSD]

Kirk I'm frankly shocked that you're so wholeheartedly basing your position on the fact that there were kids in the road and that a FOUR YEAR OLD PLAYING IN THE STREET caused an accident, and somehow that's the motorcycle riders fault because "Kids are known to play in the streets there"?


I'm inclined to think that Kirk is sitting back having a good chuckle at everyone's expense because normally Kirk would be analyzing and breaking down the assault/shooting portion of this incident, not supporting claims that a 4 year old should be playing in the street and that teenagers are perfectly in the right playing soccer on a state highway...

If you're not having a go at us Kirk, I'm frankly disappointed because this just seems by all accounts available at this time to be a sad and unfortunate situation.

 

[45fan]

It is a tragic thing that a child was injured. Even more tragic that there are 3 children that will grow up without a father. But the simple fact is, accidents happen, happen every day, no matter whos fault it was, it happened, and everyone would have walked away relatively unscathed had the father been more concerned for the welfare of his child than beating an injured man.
If this neighbourhood raised their children to not play in the street, like the rest of this country, and the parent had been watching his 4 year old child a bit closer, this entire mess could have been avoided.

 

[tbhausen]

Parental supervision... it serves our children well.

 

[Tydeeh22]

well. at least there's gonna be an autopsy. perhaps toxicology reports will show some drugs n alcohol. im sure thinking clearly while your daughter is writhing in pain is a difficult thing, but personally, id be trying to help my child. beating the **** out of the guy fixes it? right?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I'm thinking he'd make a better lawyer than you (oh wait ... anyway..). Your defense seems to consist of impugning those who's opionion differs from yours. I'm thinking that won't hold up in court counselor.

Why all the rage? Really, it's ok if we disagree.

I'm all for differing opinions. In fact, I used to think that some of the opinions on INGO were good ones, but sadly they are few and far between. In this case, Kirk is offering his opinion as fact, even though he wasn't there to witness any of the incident. So, counselor, is he giving his opinion or fact?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's opinion, just like everyone else.

One of the foundations of self-defense is that you are in place where you have a right to be.

If one is speeding through a residential neighborhood like a cafe racer and offer up some bs excuse about laying down a bike to avoid a child it is foreseeable that you will get your backside stomped right there and right then.

The notion that your behaviour prior to pulling the trigger will not be considered by the police, by the prosecutor, by the jury is less than realistic.

We shall see what happens. It helped that the motorcyclist was a LEO. If you do not have a badge it may not go the same for you. Be advised.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If one is speeding through a residential neighborhood like a cafe racer and offer up some bs excuse about laying down a bike to avoid a child it is foreseeable that you will get your backside stomped right there and right then.

How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that he was speeding through the neighborhood like a cafe racer? I don't want to read what you think, I want to read what you know about this incident.

 

[IndySSD]

It's opinion, just like everyone else.

One of the foundations of self-defense is that you are in place where you have a right to be.

If one is speeding through a residential neighborhood like a cafe racer and offer up some bs excuse about laying down a bike to avoid a child it is foreseeable that you will get your backside stomped right there and right then.

The notion that your behaviour prior to pulling the trigger will not be considered by the police, by the prosecutor, by the jury is less than realistic.

We shall see what happens. It helped that the motorcyclist was a LEO. If you do not have a badge it may not go the same for you. Be advised.

I don't understand your continued reference to "cafe racer", I also don't understand why you're so convinced he was driving unsafely. Granted it's been about 15 years since I rode a motorcycle but I've ditched one avoiding a car while I was traveling ~ 25 mph, I can certainly see ditching one to avoid a little girl. I can also understand why the parent of said girl would be pissed enough to wail on someone.

What I'm having the most trouble understanding Kirk, is why in the Carry/Self Defense forum, you're adamantly advocating the populating of public streets by unsupervised children surpassing the rights of motorists on said streets by stating that the motorist is the sole cause of this entire unfortunate scenario?

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position but it seems to me by your statements here that you feel as though the motorist deserved to get beaten down because he was driving on a street that he should have known children would be occupying and therefore should have avoided driving on that street. That position smacks of absurdity to me.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that he was speeding through the neighborhood like a cafe racer?

I don't, hence the use of "if":

If one is speeding through a residential neighborhood like a cafe racer

I don't understand your continued reference to "cafe racer",

Cafe racer is a term that originated in Europe. Urban racing, more here:

Café racer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I'm having the most trouble understanding Kirk, is why in the Carry/Self Defense forum, you're adamantly advocating the populating of public streets by unsupervised children surpassing the rights of motorists on said streets by stating that the motorist is the sole cause of this entire unfortunate scenario?

Children in the streets is a reality in some neighborhoods of Chicago and around Chicago. If you do not realize this reality then you will be more likely to cause injury to a child.

In order to claim self-defense you must be in a place that you have a right to be. If you think that a jury does not look at who is ultimately responsible for what happened then you are not being realistic.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position but it seems to me by your statements here that you feel as though the motorist deserved to get beaten down because he was driving on a street that he should have known children would be occupying and therefore should have avoided driving on that street. That position smacks of absurdity to me.

No, but certainly something a jury could consider.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It seems to me that Kirk is writing with a slight shade of purple and playing devils advocate a little bit.

Kirk is a lawyer, he has seen some stupid stuff happen in court, he is making points that some people on a jury might find blame with Snoopy if it was portayed to them in a certain way.

I could be entirely wrong, I do not know, but that's what I take from it.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Does anyone really know how fast he was going?

I bet he does and he isn't saying... Bottom line that little girl shouldn't have been out in the road playing in traffic.

 

[Denny347]

There are quite a few different levels of fail in this thread.