It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marine fatally shot in his car by police in front of his two young daughters

page: 19
61
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Your the one claiming to be the constitutionalist while not having a clue as to what the constitution says. As ive stated before, when you learn what it says, in its entirety and not just the parts you want, feel free to join in.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

hmmm, you got nothing better than a personal attack, eh ???
cooooool, cause that means you are out of arguments ... have a nice day.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

hmmm, you got nothing better than a personal attack, eh ???
cooooool, cause that means you are out of arguments ... have a nice day.


Thats not a personal attack.. It's an observation and based on your posts a proven fact.

If you disagree, feel to appeal the decision to the court above the US Supreme Court as you claimed in a previous post. While your waiting familiarize yourself with the aspects of the constitution you continually state have nothing to do with the topic, when in fact they do.

As I stated before, multiple times, there is nothing left to explain to you. All you are doing is using the same argument, and going in circles while not refuting anything ive said with facts. Feel free to point out in the Constitution where I am wrong.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I pointed out the charges committed in the presence of the deputy, which directly influence the deputies actions.

noooo, you didn't, you assume actions witnessed by the officer could be interpreted as suspicious or potentially dangerous, nothing more.

there is no proof that Mr Loggins committed ANY crime of any kind.
once more, the officer witnessed an auto accident, then chose to escalate rather render assistance.

you keep insisting he was speeding ... where's your proof?
without proof of his speed, this is a moot subject.
just because the officer may "say so" doesn't mean it IS so.
you're reaching, the PA cannot prosecute, he said so.
speed is not a factor in every accident, nice try though.

***** i think MythBusters should tackle this one ******
i'd like to see a Yukon with a chain-link gate attached to its undercarriage, THEN speed anywhere. yeppers, i'd really like to see that.

again, you are reaching regarding a report.
shock is relevant and the timeline didn't exactly allow for a "report" to take place.
clearly, the officer was more concerned with his own perceptions rather a report.

the man could not be charged with fleeing as he returned, give it up already.
(this i'm sure of as they tried that when i left a scene to use a bathroom)
--- they were pissed though cause legally, they couldn't do any field tests.

elements equating to a potential arrest ???
sure, in the outer limits of one's mind but in reality, not even close.


The accident was not classified as a traffic stop.
yet, you claim it was in multiple posts, do i really need to post links?

so, if it isn't classified as a traffic stop and it was reported as a crime in progress, when is an accident just an accident?


Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

obviously i do as this was not reported as an accident, rather a crime in progress, so once more, where is the crime in progress?

and, do you know what else?
because you keep rehashing false assumptions, i am positive that i am correct in my assertions.
thanks again for the affirmation.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Thank you for proving my point..

Have a good day



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Destroying the gate and speeding through the parking lot are 2 separate incidents.

yet, only one of those can be proven.
also, neither speed or property damage is a crime.
a legal infraction sure, but a crime ??? not yet.


Operating a motor vehicle in a wreckless / impaired manner with children in the car is endangering the welfare of a child.

since i have yet to see a seat belt infraction equate to child endangerment charges, i call BS when an accident is involved.


He intentionally drove through the gate, doing damage, and left = Leaving the scene of an accident.

just assuming intent i see, that's becoming your motto in this thread ... assume, assume, assume, eventually it will be true.
he didn't leave the scene, he was wandering about the scene.


He failed to stop when the accident occured, he left the scene, he left at a high rate of speed, he failed to make contact with the deputy, he failed to report to incident to 911.

and more assumptions. vehicle was parked (stopped - so much so that subsequent officers boarded it to comfort the children), the fence still caught on the undercarriage, if he left the scene, how was he shot on scene ??

he left at a high rate of speed
???? - now you're resorting to making stuff up?
the deputy FAILED to make contact with him, clearly.
why would he call 911 when officers appeared on scene?
there is a 10 day time limit regarding reporting an accident with only property damage (see pvs links).

yes, you're assumptions are intentional and i'm pretty sure more than i can tell.

ya know, this discussion reminds me of an incident several yrs back.
offending driver and responding officer = friends
offending driver runs a red light, makes a left turn and plows into my driver's front quarter.
officer is in nearby parking lot, witnesses accident occurring.
i am knocked unconscious and transported to ER.
sometime later, in the ER, the officer appears and wants to "ask a few questions".
he proceeds to ask one, and only one, a very directed question, which, in my weakened state of mind and body, i foolishly answered.
when i said "yes, but ...." only the yes was recorded and the offending driver, who was also an illegal immigrant, was simply told "go get your license".
no charges, no fines, no punishment and i got all the pain, the recovery and the bills.

the question was ... "was the light red?"
not, what color was your light, or any other non-directed question.
the truth is, my light was green, however, since i was observing the light for a distance of roughly 100+yards and it changed to green before braking was necessary, i answered his question honestly.
i said, "yes, but i wasn't there yet".
point is, we all know, the truth is irrelevant in these situations.

this was the third lesson absorbed that finally convinced me, you can NEVER trust a cop.
and fyi, obtaining a lawyer in my case was pointless as you cannot sue an illegal immigrant, but, they can get a license.


As a constitutionalist I am surprised that you dont understand that the US Supreme Court is the end of the line for court challenges. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. There are no more courts to appeal to after they rule, so your claim is wrong.
so, how does a SC ruling get over-turned if they are the END ALL in case law?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


familiarize yourself with the aspects of the constitution you continually state have nothing to do with the topic, when in fact they do.

i gave you plenty of facts, quotes, links, SC rulings and yet come back with this ???
so, do tell, which ... "aspects of the constitution you continually state have nothing to do with the topic, when in fact they do" are you talking about???

you've made no references here, provided NO LINKS and no reasonable arguments to support your assumptions.
(and considering your last link and cyber dagger, please post the verbiage as i do not trust any of your links anymore)

so, according to you, i should believe rulings like Dred Scott was over-turned by ????? POTUS?
ohhhh, yeah, that'd be SCOTUS ... or shall i say, the END ALL in case law.
_________________________________
ooooops, forgot to finish the previous post ...

i think this is where you believe the blind can't see what is in front of them.
if the officer responds to an "accident" there is NO potential for escalation.
whereas, if he is responding to a "crime in progress", escalation is anticipated and expected.
all that remains is a plausible story.

must be some of that cya training/coaching that they don't do.

btw, since NO ONE knows where Mr Loggins was when he was "out of sight", did it ever occur to anyone that he was examining the opposing side of his vehicle and then stepped away to utter a series of vugarities (as some adults will do) out of the range of his children?
since when are acts such as these indicitive of danger to anyone ????

if you noticed, i haven't offered excuses but reasonable explanations for acts that were more than likely misunderstood. and i find that to be the fault or failings of the officer.


edit on 19-2-2012 by Honor93 because: add text


fyi -- i did try to watch your videos before posting this commentary and received the "embedding has been disabled" notice and since youtube is blocked on this system, i'll try again tomorrow.
edit on 19-2-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
This is one case that will not be going away anytime soon.


Shooting of Loggins Looks 'Completely Unjustified,' Family's Lawyer Says


Brian T. Dunn, who has previously handled lawsuits involving L.A. riot victim Reginald Denny and Black Panther leader Geronimo Pratt, said Monday that Cochran's firm has several investigators looking into the case and "based on what we have now, we're pretty much convinced that the shooting was completely unjustified."


Loggins Shooting Was Avoidable, Police Experts Say


Could bloodshed have been avoided? "Definitely," said Michael Levine, a retired DEA agent who now works as a trial consultant, expert witness and police instructor. In particular, Levine and two other police veterans faulted the actions taken by deputies after Loggins stepped out of his GMC Yukon and reportedly walked off into the darkness, leaving his two young daughters in the SUV's back seat.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Holy guacamole! You will never believe what happened! I am so shocked, I had to set this post aside and walk away to settle a bit. How could they do this?


After a sheriff's deputy shot and killed their unarmed father as they watched, the two young daughters of Marine Sgt. Manuel Loggins were falsely imprisoned and isolated by police for 13 hours before they were released to their family, according to a claim filed by survivors of the dead Marine.




Also outlined in the claim was that Loggins was shot multiple times -- "at least two, maybe three," Dunn said.


Slain Marine's Young Daughters Unlawfully Held, Isolated After Shooting, Family Alleges



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Please bear in mind the job of a defense attorney is to do just that, defend. Just because they make a claim does not mean its valid / true. Which is the very same argument others have made against the deputy / Sheriffs Office.

Is there anything from the Sheriff's Office / PA's office on the possible reasons the children were held that long / held at all?

Also, for what its worth Law Enforcement is allowed to (emergency) seize a child if there is legitimate concern that the children could face harm if sent home with a parent / guardian. Since its California my comment here is in general since the standards arent the same from state to state.

What I find interesting is the civil suit itself. Making the comment that they dont want to identify the children in order to protect them while talking about a lawsuit is counter productive. The Children can be used to either coroborate or impeach other witness testimony since they were present at the time. There ages will influence the judge (since the children are older) in terms of weighing the pros and cons on allowing / requiring their testimony.

Also have you seen any comments from the PA's office on the investigation? They are the lead agency and I have been unable to find any updates on it.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by elouina
 


ust because they make a claim does not mean its valid / true. Which is the very same argument others have made against the deputy / Sheriffs Office.

Also, for what its worth Law Enforcement is allowed to (emergency) seize a child if there is legitimate concern that the children could face harm if sent home with a parent / guardian. Since its California my comment here is in general since the standards arent the same from state to state.


Those gals are old enough to make excellent witnesses, Especially the eldest. And obviously the mother would have been a witness to this. Plus if I was mom, I would have videotaped them denying me my children. I hope she did.

Seizing a child after shooting their parent could have no rational explaination. Those girls suffered enough already. And if they were interrogated without a parents permission, or an attorney present, it is much worse.

Then giving them false hope and saying their father was in the hospital? I bet they were emotional wrecks wanting to see their possibly dying father in the hospital. But were instead being held captive. And then what? Getting released and finding out he was dead all along? This was abuse in itself.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


uhm ok...

by all means complete your 100 meter rush to judgment.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I will not go back and forth with you. And I will just keep providing updates until they collect their checks and the cop is punished.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I will not go back and forth with you. And I will just keep providing updates until they collect their checks and the cop is punished.


Of course you wont because you would lose the argument. Better for you to act on emotion anyways right? I mean why wait for the investigation results to come out. You have already charged, tried and convicted the officer.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
61
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join