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.

 

Off-Duty Cop Crashes Motorcycle Into Little Girl Then Kills Her Enraged Dad!

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by insaan

Originally posted by Jake321
reply to post by insaan
 


Warning shot into the ground now? You obviously have no clue about guns at all. Besides the point that you ignore that he was probably already on the ground or at ground level. A shot into the ground depending on the angle has a good chance to ricochet. You are responsible for a bullet from the time it leaves your gun until it comes to rest. Besides you ignore that according to the source he was close to unconsciousness firing a warning shot might have been just as good as handing his gun to his assailant. A good rule to carrying a concealed gun is to never pull it unless you’re going to use it.


I'm sure I know more about guns than you do, and don't use the "probably" word when you are talking about a child's father being killed in front of her.

You're assuming that the father had the intention to kill the cop, keep making assumptions, an angry man can easily come back to his senses with a warning shot, I have seen it many times before.


You scold me for assuming yet in your 1st line you assume you know more about guns than me.

No, no one with any firearms training for self defense is ever trained to make a warning shot. I attempted to explain this in my original post you seemed to miss the point. Answer this question then hot shot. What if the needed (only in your mind) warning shot hits an innocent bystander would that be acceptable? Someone who has nothing to do with the incident, maybe a doctor who is running up to give aid. I’m sure since you’re such a top shot gun expert you can guarantee you wouldn’t right. Give me a break!

You don’t like the word “probably”, ok let me replace it. Common sense would tell you that an injured man from a motorcycle crash being beaten by 2 people and being kicked by a 3rd would be on the ground. There easy enough for you.

You stated
“You're assuming that the father had the intention to kill the cop, keep making assumptions,”

And you’re assuming that the father was going to stop beating the cop, how very hypocritical. And you’re not accounting for the other 2 assailants. You talk as if this was a 1 on 1 fight. It wasn’t.

Let’s say someone and I are in stand off and this someone pulls a gun and goes to take a warning shot lol. I can guarantee that, that warning shot just cost that someone their life. I am always carrying concealed, and I don’t take warning shots. Like my previous last line said, “A good rule to carrying a concealed gun is to never pull it unless you’re going to use it.” And I didn’t mean for a warning shot.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

he is not a first responder, not an EMT and certainly not a Dr ... he had NO business tending to her at all.



Have you paid any attention to anything posted in this entire thread? HE IS A COP that makes him a first responder and he is required by law to offer aid whenever it is needed.
How would you react if there's an injured child lying in the middle of the street, a cop looks right at her, throws his arms in the air and goes "woah, not my problem" and walks away?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Nothing you have said is even remotely based in fact.

For some crazy reason Instead of reading the thread and the article decide that you are qualified to have an opinion. Next time your in an auto accident I hope the other party believes it is ok to exact revenge on you. You'll be screaming for police.

What the father and cousin and family friend did was in no way acceptable... Assualt a man who was in an accident. Had 3 men decided to not assualt a police officer the father would still be alive to care for his poor little girl.

Lets go even further down the consequence road... Had the 18 year old been paying proper attention to a 4 year old she wouldnt have jumped into the street.

You talk about the cops BAC? He just discharged a weapon he got his bac taken and had to piss in a cup. Why not ask about the fathers BAC or if he had been doing drugs.

The officer, from the facts, had a broken ankle and a dislocated shoulder from his attempt to avoid the child... And still went to render aid to her... Then after announcing that he was a police officer at least 2 and possibly 3 men began to attack him. The officer said he feared for his life (which i absolutely believe) drrew his weapon and fired into the fathers groin.

Its damn shame any of this had to happen, but sorry to say the battered and beaten officer defended his life from people commiting a violent crime.


edit on 16-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The article stated that the little girl only had some bruises & contusions. There was really no excuse for this father to react in such a violent way. I have 5 kids and I have seen them injured in accidents of all types. My dad always taught me that "violence begets violence".
A decent human being would have tended to his daughters needs and also to the needs of the injured cop. I hope the family puts the blame for this tragedy where it truly belongs.

I have no love of cops but no man, even a cop, has to allow himself to be beaten like an animal.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Congratulations but I really don't care anymore.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 

yeah, i read the whole thread and i've been present on many accident scenes.
guess what ?? it's against protocol for cops to administer medical interventions of ANY kind.
they are not authorized. [not supposed to even apply a band-aid]

they direct traffic, coordinate communications and secure the SCENE, not the victims.

yes, there are a few who will break protocol in an emergency but not many and not often.
as a wounded victim himself, he should have stayed down, called it in and WAITED for assistance.

IF i were the parent who witnessed said events, (from restaurant window), and the "driver" approached my injured child, the "driver" would be seriously wounded as i would have no idea as to his intent with my injured child.
and i would be defending my injured child, nothing more.

i don't believe the other assailants have any grounds to get involved, however, that doesn't change my opinion whereas had the "driver" minded his own business, everyone would likely be alive today.

your assertion that the cop is legally required to assist is no more a requirement for him than any other citizen.
sorry, but he's not THAT special.

your hypothetical question doesn't deserve an answer because i've been there, more than once and cops do NOT offer assistance of any kind, at least in this state.
fyi, often, we watch 3/4 cops pass by before one actually stops or does anything at an accident scene.

btw, what he did by ditching the bike isn't what ANY experienced rider would do.
a controlled lay down, sure that's reasonable, but, to bail and let an out of control vehicle damage whatever or whomever is in its path ??

you find this acceptable behavior from a trained officer ??
why don't i find that surprising one bit ??



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracyrus
 
don't suppose quoting the article gave you a hint that i read it, eh ??

yeah, as a human, i'm entitled to express my opinion whether you like it or agree.

sorry for your late arrival but i've already suffered your curse, so try again.

i never once said the father was right or wrong for whomping on the "driver".
odd that you'd assume such a stance.
i also never said i condoned the physical attack of any of them.
fancy for you to assume such.

i'm not discussing the actions of the assailants, why are you berating me for something i didn't even mention ?? are you insisting that 2 wrongs = right ??

that may be true, we'll never know will we ??
equally, i can honestly say that had the driver (officer) minded his own business/injuries, the parent would have tended to his child rather attack the person who just injured her.
(that my friend is common sense)

so, if i hit you crossing the road and your mate witnesses it then sees me attempting to handle you, do you really think your mate is gonna stand back and let me ?????

i am not discussing blame as there is plenty to go around.
however, i am not paying the 18 yr old to "protect and serve" am I ??
and since i do pay for the officer to "pay attention", i can hold him accountable, can't I ??
also, as i am not an officer, i wouldn't be able to bypass prosecution of my actions, would I ??
hence, i hold the officer to a greater level of accountability as his position demands.

actually, i mentioned his BAL (blood alcohol levels)
when a citizen is involved, the local news prints such details in the first printing of the story.
this, is 5 days later, where are the details?

the father is dead, what does it matter ??
the father didn't discharge a weapon, what does it matter ??
the OPs story is 5 days later, where are the details ?

yeah, well, that much physical damage and a hero complex are effective indicators of intoxication.

i don't doubt the officer feared for his life at that point.
my point is, had he minded his own injuries/business, all would likely be alive to talk about it.

you're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to disagree
.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

btw, what he did by ditching the bike isn't what ANY experienced rider would do.
a controlled lay down, sure that's reasonable, but, to bail and let an out of control vehicle damage whatever or whomever is in its path ??


Once again, what article are you reading? The one the rest of us read says he intentionally laid down the bike in an attempt to avoid a head on collision. Your implication that he just hopped off the bike and let it continue on without a rider is completely unfounded and in direct opposition to all available evidence.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
YAY for not being able to give of a warning or a warning shot - nooooo, shot for kill. Yes, thank you.

Whatever the father was in your eyes, he was the godda*nfrickin' father of a little girl!

And the cop shot him, instead of giving of a warning shot! If that was supposed to be a warning shot which was misleaded by pure bad luck, well so be it.

If he shot to kill the attacker, it is just a sign for "DON'T WEAR GUNS, YOU MORONS!" - because another one of these things just took the father of a little girl!



how exactly are you supposed to fire a warning shot when 3 adults are ontop of you beating you senseless?. and its not like he shot the father in the face



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by Honor93

btw, what he did by ditching the bike isn't what ANY experienced rider would do.
a controlled lay down, sure that's reasonable, but, to bail and let an out of control vehicle damage whatever or whomever is in its path ??


Once again, what article are you reading? The one the rest of us read says he intentionally laid down the bike in an attempt to avoid a head on collision. Your implication that he just hopped off the bike and let it continue on without a rider is completely unfounded and in direct opposition to all available evidence.
what article ??

this one, page 4 ... need a refresher ??

Camden said the officer's decision to bail from the bike prevented a head-on collision.
bailing from a moving vehicle (regardless the type) is not what i would expect from ANY experienced rider, let alone a cop.

IF you're going to insist he laid down the bike, i would ask for a reference, please ?

ETA: because i just noticed the ex content i copied (from pg 4) wasn't posted with a link, here is the quote from the OPs article ... i did not write or say he "ditched it", everyone else reporting it did.

He intentionally "ditched" the bike in an effort to avoid hitting her, but it was too late. His bike slammed into 4-year-old Taniyah Middleton, as well as her 18-year-old cousin, who had run out to help her.



edit on 16-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 

The one the rest of us read says he intentionally laid down the bike in an attempt to avoid a head on collision.
i'd really like to read any article that says this ^^^^ got a link ??

btw: the last time i was rear-ended by a Dr (driver), even he didn't offer medical assistance or so much as get his medical bag out of his car.
in other words, if anyone is required to offer medical assistance, he would have been.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captainpudding
 

The one the rest of us read says he intentionally laid down the bike in an attempt to avoid a head on collision.
i'd really like to read any article that says this ^^^^ got a link ??

btw: the last time i was rear-ended by a Dr (driver), even he didn't offer medical assistance or so much as get his medical bag out of his car.
in other words, if anyone is required to offer medical assistance, he would have been.


Here you go:
www.dailyherald.com...

The officer laid the bike down to avoid hitting her, but the motorcycle skidded and flipped, hitting Tani’a and John Passley, her 18-year-old cousin who had ran into the street to help her, according to a statement from Larry Shapiro, Maywood’s spokesman.

The accident left the girl with minor injuries and the officer with a broken ankle and dislocated shoulder, officials said.



The 43-year-old officer, an eight-year veteran of the force, intentionally ditched his motorcycle Saturday night in Maywood when he saw the little girl – identified by WLS-TV as Taniyah Middleton – suddenly run into his path.

The downed bike skidded down the street, slamming into the 4-year-old and her 18-year-old cousin John Passley, who had rushed to help her.

www.nydailynews.com...


The police officer, in an attempt to avoid striking the child, deliberately placed the motorcycle on its side. Nevertheless, it continued to skid, and hit the girl and Passley, causing injuries.
www.wsws.org...


As he was driving home, the officer says he saw a child unexpectedly run into the street. In order not to strike the girl directly, the cop jumped off his motorcycle, pulling it down on its side on the pavement. However, the motorcycle skidded and flipped, hitting the 4-year-old girl and her 18-year-old cousin, John Passley.

www.theblaze.com...

That should suffice. You really could have just Googled the Fathers name and found all these yourself.
edit on 8/16/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 
thanks for the links but only one says he laid it down and that same person (Camden) has been quoted saying the opposite, so what are we to believe ??


That should suffice. You really could have just Googled the Fathers name and found all these yourself.
yeah, i could have but the OP didn't link any of those stories.

besides, 2 of your stories say he ditched it, 1 says he laid it down and the other claims he jumped off of it.

the point again is ... he should not have been traveling in such a manner as to need to "ditch" it, period.
the 4yr old was not a tractor-trailer in his way.
the 4yr old was not another vehicle of any kind, hence, ditching it was a beginner mistake that ultimately cost a life.

notice, the articles don't mention how long he was a cycle rider but they do mention how long he's been an officer ... hence, he should have known better than to approach the victim at all.

ETA - since this happened in Chicago, why would any officer need to discharge their weapon on an UNARMED citizen at any time whatsoever ??
they cannot claim "self-defense" when the citizens have no equal right.
IF the citizens are expected to "duke it out" as the need arises, why should cops be entitled to any greater advantage as the gun provides ??

the officer was not "mortally" challenged in any manner so what gives him the right to fire upon an unarmed man?

edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA

edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


He intentionally laid his bike down in an attempt to avoid hitting the 4 year old.
I don't see why that is hard to understand.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captainpudding
 

yeah, i read the whole thread and i've been present on many accident scenes.
guess what ?? it's against protocol for cops to administer medical interventions of ANY kind.
they are not authorized. [not supposed to even apply a band-aid]
'

That is complete nonsense.

Here is a excerpt for the Mass. first responder training requuirements.


105 CMR 171.000: Massachusetts First Responder Training

171.010: Purpose

105 CMR 171.000 is set forth for the purpose of interpreting and implementing M.G.L. c. 111, § 201, which confers on the Department of Public Health the responsibility for establishing training standards in first aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, for certain police officers, fire fighters and lifeguards, hereinafter referred to as “first responders.”



First Responder means a member of any of the following entities: a police or fire department; the state police participating in highway patrol; an emergency reserve unit of a volunteer fire department or fire protection district, and persons appointed permanent or temporary lifeguards by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions. A first responder shall not mean a police officer, firefighter or persons engaged in police and fire work whose duties are primarily clerical or administrative.

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:io1bfRhfcyAJ:www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/regs/105cmr171.rtf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=fire fox-a

Cops are req'd to render first aid if necessary. And as a human being it would be his moral responsibility to check on the condition of the girl.

Your argument is lame and with any foundation.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by captainpudding
 

yeah, i read the whole thread and i've been present on many accident scenes.
guess what ?? it's against protocol for cops to administer medical interventions of ANY kind.
they are not authorized. [not supposed to even apply a band-aid]

they direct traffic, coordinate communications and secure the SCENE, not the victims.


You couldn't be more wrong on this.
Here is an example of an officer who was honored for rendering medical assistance and saving a life.

On behalf of every law enforcement officer, firefighter, and EMT/Paramedic in the United States the American First Responder Institute extends congratulations to Police Officer Christopher Elliott of the Chicago Police Department. Officer Elliot works in the 14th District on the North West Side of Chicago.

Officer Elliot is being hailed as a hero after he revived a choking toddler around Wednesday night. Elliott had been writing a traffic crash report near the intersection of Diversey and Western in the city’s Logan Square neighborhood when a man ran up to his car, tapped on the glass and asked for the officer to come to the 15-month-old boy’s aid. The child’s parents did not speak very much English but Elliott went immediately into action to save him.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Elliott proceeded to administer CPR by doing chest compressions on the child and turned the boy over in order to clear out food that had been blocking his airway. The boy then began to breath on his own before an ambulance arrived on the scene and took him to the hospital, where he was checked out before being released Thursday morning.

www.honoringheroes.com...

He was NOT breaking protocol when he rendered emergency aid to the victim.

You might want to rethink your argument or offer some proof that the cop was out of line by checking on the little girl.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



the officer was not "mortally" challenged in any manner so what gives him the right to fire upon an unarmed man?


Already injured from a motorcycle wreck. I've had a few of those. And then blind-sided by an angry father unexpectedly. Put completely on the defensive, and then 2 other adults join in, so he is now injured, and on the ground, being pummeled by 3 adult men. I'd say that is about as "mortally challenged" as any fight is ever going to get.

As for providing aid to the little girl, what kind of person wouldn't try to help a little girl? If I hit a little girl on my motorcycle, my fault or not, the only thing going through my mind would be saving that little girl. I would be doing everything in my power to help her. Contrast that with the worthless father who didn't even think about the little girl, and instead just went after the man trying to help her? What kind of person leaves a frightened and injured little girl, his own daughter, lying there so he can go beat up a man that is already injured and not attempting to flee or anything?

As for ditching and/or jumping off the bike. I've been riding for at least 25 years, longer if you count dirt bikes and mini bikes as a kid. If I'm on a neighborhood street doing maybe 30 mph, and a little girl steps directly out in front of me, 1/4 second to react, you have about 3 options. Brakes, swerve, or Ditch. Brakes are probably obviously out of the question, not enough room, swerving on a bike, especially if combined with brakes is liable to just slide the back tire and hit her broadside with the hot engine and exhaust pipes and hundreds of pounds of steel, but ditching the bike gives you an opportunity to throw the bike away from the girl and hopefully spin it over into the gutter while you go the other direction. Ditching or laying it down means you will definitely get injured, but your bodyweight is significant enough to drastically alter the path of the bike and maybe miss the girl.

He did everything any experienced bike rider would do. He threw the bike away from the girl, sacrificing his body in the process, and then when it wasn't completely successful he tried to help the girl, and then when attacked by 3 men, he shot one of them. This sounds like just about any biker I ever knew. It doesn't matter one bit that he was a cop, he didn't do what a cop would do, he did what any man ought to do. And Chicago or not, I don't go anywhere without a gun. Again, doesn't matter that he is a cop, I would have had my gun too.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by Honor93
 


He intentionally laid his bike down in an attempt to avoid hitting the 4 year old.
I don't see why that is hard to understand.
unless you were there, you are making an assumption of which i don't agree.
no additional understanding necessary, i ride motocycles too.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 

you are entitled to your opinion and i certainly haven't attacked yours.
however, first responders are not always cops and cops are not always first responders.
that depends on the state you're in and in Chicago, see for yourself.
arc-chicago.axxiomportal.com...

what does Mass standards have to do with this incident or conversation ??

not all cops are certified first responders.
some teenagers are more qualified than the cops on the beat.
ps ... none of the stories/articles indicate that this cop was a certified FR.
you speak as though a certification lasts a lifetime or the life of employment and that's not even true.

since the responding cop has been on the force for 8 yrs, it's more likely than not that any certification he held, expired.

you insinuating that all cops are certified FRs, is ridiculous.

just so we're clear, my assumptions are no more extreme than yours.
from the details revealed in the articles, i am only asking reasonable questions.
which, btw, you haven't answered, just provided argumentative commentary.
so, carry on ... is no skin off my nose.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sparky63
 

you are entitled to your opinion and i certainly haven't attacked yours.
however, first responders are not always cops and cops are not always first responders.
that depends on the state you're in and in Chicago, see for yourself.
arc-chicago.axxiomportal.com...

what does Mass standards have to do with this incident or conversation ??

not all cops are certified first responders.
some teenagers are more qualified than the cops on the beat.
ps ... none of the stories/articles indicate that this cop was a certified FR.
you speak as though a certification lasts a lifetime or the life of employment and that's not even true.

since the responding cop has been on the force for 8 yrs, it's more likely than not that any certification he held, expired.

you insinuating that all cops are certified FRs, is ridiculous.

just so we're clear, my assumptions are no more extreme than yours.
from the details revealed in the articles, i am only asking reasonable questions.
which, btw, you haven't answered, just provided argumentative commentary.
so, carry on ... is no skin off my nose.


I never insinuated that all cops are first responders, You are wrong again. Stick with the facts and you can't go wrong. The articles clearly stated that he intentionally laid his bike down in attempt to avoid the girl. You requested a link and one was provided. If you want to stick to your assumptions and speculation go right ahead.
My assumptions are not extreme at all. They are based on reality...yours are not.
edit on 8/17/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join