Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 14
16
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 

yeah, so ??
show me the certifications of this cop and i'll concede, otherwise, you're just plain full of it.

from the Chicago certification training course ...

arc-chicago.axxiomportal.com...
Emergency Response, valid for 3 years
CPR for the Professional Rescuer, valid for 1 year
Successful completion of this course will NOT certify you as an Illinois First Responder. Students have the option to take the First Responder exam administered by the State of Illinois. First Responder certification is valid for 4 years.

now, since it's possible that this cop didn't get any of the required renewals, what proof do you have to the contrary ??

instead of questioning my reasonable questions, how 'bout proving your stance rather attacking mine?

ps ... re: my comment about FL protocols ... again, read it for yourself.

www.flsenate.gov...
For purposes of this section, a first responder includes any individual who receives training to render initial care to an ill or injured person, other than an individual trained and certified pursuant to s. 943.1395(1), but who does not have the primary responsibility of treating and transporting ill or injured persons.
(2) Each first responder agency must take all reasonable efforts to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the emergency medical services licensee within whose territory the agency operates in order to coordinate emergency services at an emergency scene. The department must provide a model memorandum of understanding for this purpose. The memorandum of understanding should include dispatch protocols, the roles and responsibilities of first responder personnel at an emergency scene, and the documentation required for patient care rendered. For purposes of this section, the term “first responder agency” includes a law enforcement agency, a fire service agency not licensed under this part, a lifeguard agency, and a volunteer organization that renders, as part of its routine functions, on-scene patient care before emergency medical technicians or paramedics arrive.
notice, agents and agencies are not the same thing.
so, once again ... which part of the "agency" was coordinating this scene ??
since the father was expected to "call it in" ... clearly the agency had no idea the scene existed or that its own agent was involved ... since it would be the agent's duty to notify, how did that become interpreted as the duty of the father ??




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 
you know i appreciate your input but Chicago is not a gun ownership location.
nor does it have "stand your ground" applications.

your assertion does not reflect the fact that the "right" possessed by the officer (gun) isn't an equal right amongst their society at large.

if 2 citizens cannot lawfully settle a dispute with deadly force, neither should an officer.

ok, so maybe "mortally challenged" wasn't the right phrase but deadly force is deadly force and deadly force was not being used against the cop.

and back to the beginning, had the "driver" simply stayed down, the father would likely be alive.


As for providing aid to the little girl, what kind of person wouldn't try to help a little girl?
the same kind of human that would walk on by without a glance ... sad, but they do exist and often, we taxpayers pay for such nonsense.

how you would react or how i would react has nothing to do with this incident.


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?
persons in a state of shock, persons suffering from a mental break/insanity, persons temporarily enraged, persons or parents who see the aggressor approach or handle their injured child.

i know the options of operating a cycle, been there, done that.
however, i do not ride through a populated area in such a manner as to allow such an event to occur.
the roads are wide for a reason and i certainly didn't see/read any speed indications.
so, where are you getting the 30mph from ??

ah come on, if you lay the bike down properly, the hot pipes are on the ground.
i disagree with your assertion, that ok with you ?
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 

I never insinuated that all cops are first responders
i never said you did but that straw-man dude is a popular person 'round here.

which "facts" aren't i sticking to ??
do you have some facts that we don't ??
if so, please share.

no, they don't ... one does but you keep clinging to it.

yeah, Mass reality really applies in Chicago
you keep believin it.
good thing your Mass reality doesn't apply in FL or i'd have to move, again.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sparky63
 

I never insinuated that all cops are first responders
i never said you did but that straw-man dude is a popular person 'round here.


Yes you did,
Here is your exact quote:


Originally posted by Honor93
you insinuating that all cops are certified FRs, is ridiculous.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


It is clear that you are the one who used a straw man. Just admit that you are wrong, believe it or not, most people here on ATS have a lot more respect for someone who has the intellectual honesty to admit that their wrong rather than stick to an indefensible and unreasonable argument.

Either way. I think most reasonable people would agree that the cop did nothing wrong by checking on the little girl.

edit on 8/17/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


None of that really matters. He doesn't have to be a certified "First Responder" to check on the status of the little girl.
So your whole argument is invalid.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 
actually, when i stated that it was against protocol for cops to provide first aid, you responded with a quote of the Mass First Responder requirements which DID INSINUATE that all cops are FRs. (and that's nonsense)

i then stated you were mistaken.
should you choose to rehash the conversation, feel free, just don't expect me to participate.

i know where i stand and it's in disagreement with you and your assertions minus facts.
and yes you're correct about admitting when you're wrong ... please lead by example.

ETA - you have yet to explain what Mass requirements have to do with Chicago anyway.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA

PS - coming from a stand your ground region, i totally agree with the driver's response by firing ... however, those aren't the laws that apply in Chicago and deadly force is to be used AGAINST deadly force.
since no deadly force was presented against the cop, no deadly force should have been used, period.
{the assailants were not wielding a knife/sword/machete, threatening with a gun of their own or throwing projectiles, hence, they were not utilizing deadly force}
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: PS



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sparky63
 
actually, when i stated that it was against protocol for cops to provide first aid, you responded with a quote of the Mass First Responder requirements which DID INSINUATE that all cops are FRs. (and that's nonsense)

i then stated you were mistaken.
should you choose to rehash the conversation, feel free, just don't expect me to participate.

i know where i stand and it's in disagreement with you and your assertions minus facts.
and yes you're correct about admitting when you're wrong ... please lead by example.

ETA - you have yet to explain what Mass requirements have to do with Chicago anyway.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA


If I were you I would want to stop participating too.

You made some bizarre allegations about this cops actions that were not supported by the facts. Your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sparky63
 
actually, when i stated that it was against protocol for cops to provide first aid, you responded with a quote of the Mass First Responder requirements which DID INSINUATE that all cops are FRs. (and that's nonsense)


The Mass First responder requirements never implied that all cops are first responders. That came from your own fertile imagination.

The part I quoted clearly said, "certain police officers". That means that not all police officers are first responders.
Here it is again in case you missed it.

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.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I bolded the word "Certain" so you would not miss it this time. So once again you are out in left field.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 

where are you getting this nonsense ??
i never said i wanted to stop participating in this thread.

i'm not participating in your game of fetch, that's all.

you have yet to provide any facts that support the actions of the cop.
(except for the one that says he was getting his arse beaten)

you claim ...
he had a right to discharge his weapon against unarmed men, check.
he had authority, need and requirement to attend to the injured party, check.
he had every reason to kill an unarmed man (getting his arse beat), check.
got ANY facts to support this BS ??

ETA: don't suppose it's equally possible that the only 2 reasons the cop fired were because dead men don't tell tales and because he knew NO ONE could/would fire back ??

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



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
since no deadly force was presented against the cop, no deadly force should have been used, period.
{the assailants were not wielding a knife/sword/machete, threatening with a gun of their own or throwing projectiles, hence, they were not utilizing deadly force}
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: PS


Whether or not the enraged father was using "deadly force" against the cop will probably be determined in court, but the legal definition of deadly force is:,


An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

The cop was getting beaten, punched and kicked by 2, or possible 3 people. In my opinion that is deadly force.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sparky63
 

where are you getting this nonsense ??
i never said i wanted to stop participating in this thread.


I never said that you wanted to stop participating in the thread. In fact, I hope you continue, you might be able to correct some of the many mistakes you have made.



i'm not participating in your game of fetch, that's all.


That's exactly what I though you meant.



you have yet to provide any facts that support the actions of the cop.
(except for the one that says he was getting his arse beaten)
you claim ...
he had a right to discharge his weapon against unarmed men, check.
he had authority, need and requirement to attend to the injured party, check.
he had every reason to kill an unarmed man (getting his arse beat), check.
got ANY facts to support this BS ??


Please show the quotes where I made these statements, because I just re-read all my posts on this thread and I never said any of those things, except perhaps the one stating that the cop did nothing wrong by checking on the little girl.
I will be waiting for the exact quotes or an apology. Either one will be fine.

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



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

ETA: don't suppose it's equally possible that the only 2 reasons the cop fired were because dead men don't tell tales and because he knew NO ONE could/would fire back ??

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


Another ridiculous statement. If that had anything to do with why he fired, he would also have had to kill the 18 year old and any other witnesses to what happened.

Sorry, but that is just stupid.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Are you willing to admit that I never implied or stated that ALL cops are first responders?
Are you willing to admit that the cop does not have to be a first responder to check on the status of the injured child?

I just want to see how reasonable you are and if we can overcome these technical difficulties.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


You don't know the law do you? It's okay because it can be different state to state, but all in all you can't fire a warning shot (safety reasons I guess).
And the truth is why would you want to? If I identified myself as a cop and was still hit, then attacked by more people as well I would shoot anyone hitting me. Even if I was not a cop,but just a permit holder, it would be the same result.
If anyone, be it a father,18 year old kid, or a pit bull, attack me with intent to do great bodily harm and/or kill me then I will defend my life with a gun, rock, stick, bat, teeth, ect.........



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 
your point ??
i did state in previous post that i agree with the response, however, the laws in Chicago do not.

our opinion of "deadly force" being applied is specific to the incident and location for that matter.

an unknown person entering my abode without consent is enough for me to perceive "deadly intent" and that's enough for me and the laws of this state ... there is no requirement for them to be "armed" in order for me to discharge my weapon in defense of both myself and abode/castle.

so let's not get into nitty gritty details cause we don't have all of the facts to ponder.

contrary to your personal attacks, your insistance that my understanding is subpar and your continual responses to irrelevant subject matter, my opinion remains the same.
had the driver not interfered with the injured party, all parties would likely be alive today.

and a side note ... the only reason i seem to be interested in this topic is not to bash cops ... but the realization that the human condition must be worse than i thought when you contemplate that with 3 dudes attacking, NOT ONE bystander came to the assistance of the driver/cop ... not one ... and just what does that say about the "condition" of the environment in which we all must survive ??



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by Honor93
 


Are you willing to admit that I never implied or stated that ALL cops are first responders?
nope because you did and you never explained how Massachusetts applies to Chicago.


Are you willing to admit that the cop does not have to be a first responder to check on the status of the injured child?
when you prove a First Responder did, sure ... or are you back to insinuating that the cop must have been a first responder ??
(you know, that thing you didn't say)


I just want to see how reasonable you are and if we can overcome these technical difficulties.
technical difficulties ?? where ?

if agreeing with you is my choice, i'll pass.
i like the freedom i enjoy to make my own decisions, suppositions and inquiries based on everything available, including personal experience.

ps ... apparently you forgot, i'm not playing fetch with you.
you asked me to fetch non-existant quotes when you were never quoted ... go play with someone else.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ps



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
"I feared for my life" straight out of the Cop hand book for justified murder.
Let me get this straight they are beating the crap outa this guy and he is about to black out but the
beaters step back & let him draw a gun and shoot. Ok now i got it.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
If someone was attacking me, punching and kicking, and I pulled out a gun and killed him in the street.. I would be in prison for at least 20 years.

Not justified until I hear more evidence that it was warranted to kill him.
edit on 14-8-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)


Actually if you were injured from a motorcycle wreck, being attacked by someone while trying to administer first aid, and then a second person jumped on you it would be justified. It is called disparity of force. You are weakened by the wreck and unable to mount a normal defense. Then a second person begins to beat on you. You are legitimately in a position where you could be beat to death. If you pull and shoot there will be an investigation, but most likely you will go free.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire


BTW hitting some one with a vehicle is vehicular assault a felony, funny when a cop does it its only a accident.
edit on 14-8-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)


Vehicular assault has to be intentional or come from a reckless disregard for the life and safety of others. No one has stepped forward to prove the cop was intentionally attempting to hit the child or showing reckless disregard.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
does anyone know if there are active street cams in the area where the incident occurred ?
i would be curious to view the footage before concluding or determining that actions of any participants were right or wrong.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join