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

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

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


My opinion? You have no handle on your emotion. Assualting. An injured man who is rendering aid is despicable. You want to judge? So be it, it is your right. I will however express my opinion. Given the circumstances the father was wrong to attack a wounded man doing what he could to render aid to a child who made a childs mistake. Find yourself friend.




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kastogere
 





And since cops are trained to shoot for the middle...usually that means yer dead.


Nothing personal, but I have to address this. Depending on the source, between 70% and 90% of people that get shot survive. Even people that get shot in the torso tend to survive more than 60% of the time. Handguns are not magic death rays.

The guy was shot in the groin. Unfortunately there are a lot of vital parts transporting blood in the area. He just ended up being really unlucky. He became one of the small number of people that don't survive. This is a prime example of why any use of a gun against a person is considered lethal force. There is no telling what you might hit once the bullet leaves the gun. There are a myriad of factors that affect how the bullet travels. It doesn't matter how well you aim.

Also, in America, there is no warning shot. Every bullet that leaves the gun has to stop somewhere. If you fire in the air to scare one person you can injury or kill another. Also legs and arms are small fast moving targets. Hitting one is harder under the best of circumstances. Try doing it while getting kicked and punched, with your adrenaline flowing, injured, and nearing unconsciousness. In that situation trying to shoot someone in the arm is effectively choosing to take the lowest percentage shot possible and endangering others.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

I had a feeling you would not admit it.


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 already stated that the whole first responder argument is completely invalid.
You are the one who was insisting that the cop was breaking "protocol" for checking on the child.
You might want to pause and re-read your posts. You made a lot of inaccurate statements and misquoted me more times than I can count. You refused to acknowledge any of these even when you were kindly corrected.



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.

So let it be written, so let it be done. You can't say I didn't patiently try to point out your errors.


ps ... apparently you forgot, i'm not playing fetch with you.

Looks like you were the one who forgot.




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


Fair enough. I am just going to come to the conclusion that you made some very foolish statements and once links and proof was supplied that proved you were inaccurate, you refuse to admit it. Good job man! That's really denying ignorance! I really wouldn't have even addressed your posts if it weren't for all the misquotes.

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



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Another article told me it was in the 1000 block area of 1st street, I streetviewed the area and there seems to be a fair bit of gas stations, there may very well be footage available. If not of the accident, hopefully at least something demonstrating the speed/control of the cop on the motorcycle.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I would like to state that in my jurisdiction all emergency personel are trained in first aid. They are required by law to administer it to parties who need it. I sacrifice so that you have the right to disagree. Mad? Dont F'ng care. My community loves me.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
There is no one in their right mind that would claim that the cop was wrong for checking the girl. It doesn't look like he had time to even start administering any first aid before he was assaulted.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by Honor93
 


My opinion? You have no handle on your emotion. Assualting. An injured man who is rendering aid is despicable. You want to judge? So be it, it is your right. I will however express my opinion. Given the circumstances the father was wrong to attack a wounded man doing what he could to render aid to a child who made a childs mistake. Find yourself friend.
i have expressed emotion for both sides as this was a horrible and tragic loss for all involved.

am not sure what other emotional expressions you refer.
care to clarify ?

i haven't been discussing the assault, i am discussing the application of deadly force and the fact that a better decision could have and should have been made long before the gun made an appearance.

who's judging ?? i'm inquiring and being challenged that said inquires are unreasonable.

ETA -- what i am doing is still trying to process the simple fact that not a single bystander, not one, came to the aid of the man being beat (for whatever reason) ... right or wrong is irrelevant when you consider the bigger impact of the entire situation.
if you want to nit-pick at the bark on the trees, be my guest, but i am looking at the forest.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I will clarify then. Should you choose to assault
someone rendering aid I will defend that person. That is my stance

And yes deadly force was required when 2 (possibly 3) decides to assault a man already seriously injured and rendering aid to a child
edit on 17-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 
now why would i admit to your false accusation ?
however, i do notice that you simply refuse to legitimately correlate Chicago with Mass.

in Illinois, FRs are required to be State certified.
since only a few cops are actively certified FRs and you have not provided any proof of certification of this officer,
your assumption that he was a certified First Responder is an assumption until proven otherwise.

next ??

as a human, as a parent and as an aware citizen, if any person attempted to handle my child on an accident scene before medical professionals arrive, they would be rendered unconscious as is my right as a parent in defense of my injured child.

anyone can "say" they are whatever ... doesn't make it so.
so the driver said he was a cop, did he show any proof ?

hmmmmm, mis-quoted you ?? link it.

i have yet to be "corrected", just challenged with rhetoric.

how could i forget ?? i don't fetch for just anybody


what links prove any of your argument ??
all you've said is that i'm wrong ... ok, prove it.

the only reason i'm still addressing yours is for the entertainment factor, so thanks


ETA: you know what i find funniest of all ??
in all your rhetoric, you cannot bring yourself to agree with my only opinion ... that this death could have been averted by better decision-making by the officer involved, period.
why is that so hard for you to agree with ??
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 




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 ??


Actually, I agree with you on this part. I ride my motorcycle near the middle line of the road to provide as much reaction time as possible if someone pulls out of a parking spot, or pushes a trash can into the road, or a dog darts out in front of me. I have never hit a dog or a squirrel or a cat or anything else, I have always been able to avoid them. The only times I've had to lay my bike down was for other drivers being idiots.

The last one (and worst one) was a guy parallel parked on a one way street. He pulled out of his spot directly in front of me, and I was doing about 30mph. I hit both brakes and started to skid, but I was under control if he would have just kept going, but he saw me in the mirror, panicked, and hit his brakes. My choices were to either slam into his trunk and flip over my handle bars, or lay it down, bail off, roll, and take the road rash. I took the road rash, and a few staples in my head, and that asshole drove off and didn't help me. People came running out of nearby businesses to help me, but nobody got his license number.

There are times, where even a very experienced biker, doing everything correctly, still has to lay down his bike to avoid a bigger crash.
edit on 17-8-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Your speech is rhetoric friend. Fact and good judgement dictates you help injured parties. Not assault them. It is not your right to assault anyone. Get the picture? Consider yourself corrected.
edit on 17-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
I would like to state that in my jurisdiction all emergency personel are trained in first aid. They are required by law to administer it to parties who need it. I sacrifice so that you have the right to disagree. Mad? Dont F'ng care. My community loves me.


In many states it is required to keep your commission. The department I work for has yearly certification courses and semi-annual refresher courses.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Don't doubt it at all. I think my department is lucky. We have monthly courses in all walks of "manners". First aid , apprehension legal boundaries. Truthfully its to keep liabilities down but it is useful.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
as a human, as a parent and as an aware citizen, if any person attempted to handle my child on an accident scene before medical professionals arrive, they would be rendered unconscious as is my right as a parent in defense of my injured child.

Im a parent too and i think its appaulling you would assault someone simply for trying to help your child.

I remember when i was young and slipped and fell off my skateboard on a busy street. Many people simply did what you would suggest and drove around me, leaving me injured and bleeding on the street. One nice lady however stopped her car in the middle of the road, got out and walked me a block and a half home. I was suffering from a concussion and dizzy and staggering. Would you suggest my father assault this lady for having the audacity to help me?

After reading the last three pages of this thread, i cannot believe the things you are saying and am going to either assume you are a troll, in which case i just fed you, or simply arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sparky63
 
now why would i admit to your false accusation ?
however, i do notice that you simply refuse to legitimately correlate Chicago with Mass.

in Illinois, FRs are required to be State certified.
since only a few cops are actively certified FRs and you have not provided any proof of certification of this officer,
your assumption that he was a certified First Responder is an assumption until proven otherwise.

I told you repeatedly that it doesn't matter whether he is a certified First responder or not, But you seem to keep missing the point,

As far as the Mass First Responder training link. It was just to refute the ridiculous claim you made here:

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}

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The link proved that certain police are "First Responders". at least in Mass.

And Yes, "certain police" are also "First Responders" in Chicago and probably every other city in the USA. Even Chicago!

The next link I provided proved that Police in Chicago are not breaking "protocol" for administering first aid.
www.honoringheroes.com...

I hope this clears things up for you, But like I said, The cop did not have to be a "certified First Responder" to check on the condition of the girl.
Your claim that he was breaking protocol or some other rule is wrong, and I think you know it.


edit on 8/17/2012 by Sparky63 because: toned it down a bit
edit on 8/17/2012 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
The father could be taking his little girl out for ice cream today if he had chosen not to assault an injured man.
What a shame. People should think twice before they attack someone...you never know who is armed.
edit on 8/17/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

what links prove any of your argument ??
all you've said is that i'm wrong ... ok, prove it.


Already have, over and over again. Not going to do it again, wouldn't be prudent as this juncture.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by insaan
 


You do know that "warning shots" can be lethal too, right? That which goes up eventually comes down, and a bullet fired into the air can injure or kill a person when it comes back down.

But that would be the cop's fault too, right? Better that he just lets himself be beaten to death.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by Honor93
 


I will clarify then. Should you choose to assault
someone rendering aid I will defend that person. That is my stance

And yes deadly force was required when 2 (possibly 3) decides to assault a man already seriously injured and rendering aid to a child
edit on 17-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)
then i guess IF you had been there, the outcome would be different but it wasn't, was it ?

how can deadly force be "required" when citizens aren't permitted such an option ??
that is my point ^^^

question for you ... what if the cop was like normal Chicago citizens and not carrying a gun ??
aren't you the slightest bit concerned that NO ONE came to his aid ??
{edit: at least no one has been reported as aiding him - wasn't there, don't know for sure}

and here's one more ... it's been reported that his shoulder was dislocated ... so, on the ground, under 3 other persons and with a dislocation, how did he retrieve his weapon ?
edit on 17-8-2012 by Honor93 because: edit



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You should read more into the law, and this thread. Citizens do have that right... You are just ignorant of said right. No i will not go into fanciful hypotheticals. Simply put assaulting someone giving first aid is wrong ... Geeze you'd think you wouldnt have to tell people that

Wow... Just wow. I'm not even sure you are thinking.
edit on 17-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join