It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by conspiracyrus

actually, you claimed it wasn't a right.
i never said it wasn't a crime, however, i re-iterate, it MUST be a right, before it can be a crime.

i always have the right to commit a crime and provided i am not caught, who would know the difference ??

you seem to think the word "crime" prevents/limits or restricts ppl from committing such acts ... i'd love a reference for that opinion.

i'm not arguing "sides", i'm questioning and discussing facts and summaries, not sides.

tis a shame, that minus most of the facts, you are determined to assign blame.
sure hope you don't have any kids.

ummmm, the Constitution for the United States should be all you require.
legal precedence has no standing in determining rights, rather a collection of punishment for exercising said rights.
(so, does that mean you are not an American citizen ??)

I don't know what first aid steps were provided.
exactly. nor can you summarize what first aid he could have provided.
so, what are we to do with your wild misconceptions ????

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Honor93

So you are to back up your argument with a psuedo logic twist that still proves my point? The fact that it is a crime determines that it is not your right. My argument is based in fact. Yours is a figment of your imagination.

First step of first aid is assess the situation Thus he needed only be looking at the girl to be providing aid.

You're not getting this are you? Oh well, too bad in this case your ignorance is coupled with arrogance. You might have learned something.
edit on 26-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by conspiracyrus

ok then, explain how exercising a right that isn't prosecuted = crime ??

please explain to me how, after being physically assaulted 4 separate times, that not one of the assailants was prosecuted for their crime

officers had everything from pics to names and addresses, but apparently, given the lack of arrest or prosecution, clearly, their assault wasn't a crime.

The fact that it is a crime determines that it is not your right.
really ???
rape is clearly a crime but after being a victim 3 separate times, not one of the rapists was arrested, prosecuted or charged for that matter.
so, does this make "rape" less of a crime ??
engaging in sex acts with another is certainly a right, so how then is it also a crime ??

it is your pseudo-logic that has no foundation in fact.

while "looking at the girl" is your assumption, not fact, please provide any proof that "looking" is only what he was doing ... oh, that's right, there isn't any.

your assumptions don't make it fact and my questions are pertinent to discover the missing facts. perhaps when you learn some investigative thinking skills, then you'll have some questions of your own, rather jumping to nonsense conclusions based on hearsay and assumptions.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by Honor93

Sorry friend. I am giving you all the answers you ask for and still you have nothing but conjecture. From the officers own statement he was administering aid. You ask what aid could he have given. I answered. I say it is not your right to assault someone. You claim it is because if you dont get caught it isnt a crime. You ask why the 2 surviving assailants werent arrested. And I'll answer because the investigation hasnt been completed.

At some point I hope you realize how ridiculous your assertions are.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by conspiracyrus
you have not provided ANY answers based in fact, try again.

this whole story is based on conjecture, yet you cling to it like it's gospel.

btw, it is easier to befriend a pitbull and convince it to voluntarily acquiesce the bone it's chewing on than convincing you that a conclusion based on conjecture is no conclusion at all.

the officer didn't detail what "aid" he was administering and neither can you.
[heck, you haven't even proven that this officer was legally certified to provide ANY first aid - keeping in mind that in his state, it's required]

i never mentioned the assailants being arrested or not, but by all means, keep making things up as you go ... that seems to be all you've got to offer, anyway.

at some point, i hope you can provide ANY facts that support your nonsense.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by conspiracyrus

when you began our exchange with a threat, i really didn't have much hope for your ability to maintain an open mind ...

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.
and fyi, i do my best to avoid making such a mess as to require the services of the clean-up crew.

i never said the driver was out of line for firing as i wasn't there.
[however, i am still suggesting he may have been and no evidence has been provided to the contrary]

i did say that better choices by the driver could have averted the use of the gun.
i also continue to hold the belief that persons who initiate contact via aggressive confrontation (see quote above) deserve the response they get. (including dead as in this incident)

aggression begets aggression, doesn't make either side, right.
i also hold the belief that if officers may arm themselves, off-duty, then so should citizens.
while it's true this incident could have resulted in several more dead persons, at least deadly force would have been met with deadly force.

and all the discussion in the world still doesn't explain why not a single by-stander came to the aid of the officer, at any point in the reported scenario.

so, when or if you care to address the wider impact of this incident, i'd be happy to participate.
so long as you wish to fantasize about details not provided, please find another playmate.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

The cop should have never pulled a gun in this circumstance. He couldn't defend himself without resorting to lethal force? Everyone is so quick to pull a gun out for any reason. A real man would have backed off and not escalated the fight, even if it meant taking a few blows from an enraged father.

Did you not read the story? The dad and the 18 yr old were beating the Cop down! He was about to lose conciousness! How long was he supposed to wait? Unbelieveable. He is still in the hospital. As a father I KNOW 100% that my daughter would have been my number one priority. Maybe throw the guy out of the way so I could get to her, but thats as far as it would go. Such a tragedy.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Honor93

First and foremost, That was not a threat. I was pointing out your hypocrisy. If someone were to assault you after an accident you would in fact be hoping the police got there.

When you asked a question I provided a factual answer. You then retorted with conjecture and speculation... Its all there friend, you can go back and reread. I think however it is not your memory at fault. The problem lies with your inability to seperate your emotion from this argument.

"it is my right to assault someone"
"before it is a crime it is a right"

These are your words friend.

If we take your words at face value it seems you're a little unbalanced. Honor indeed.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by conspiracyrus

no hypocrisy here. plenty of threat, there.

If someone were to assault you after an accident you would in fact be hoping the police got there.
assumption on your part and in this incident, the police WERE there and acting inappropriately.

keep dreaming ... you said, we said, and they said, still doesn't make it so.
proof please or keep your conjecture to yourself.

i have no emotion attached to this incident, however, your clouded vision is evident.

yes, those were my words, taken out of context but still applicable. so, what's your point ??
your inability to recognize a right is no fault of mine.

hmmmm, instead of attacking my person or my honor, why don't you provide an example ??
please, list any relative crime that doesn't involve exercising a right, first ??
vehicular manslaughter ??
careless driving ??
DUI ??
speeding ??
fatal punch in a boxing ring ??
fatal choke in a MMA match ??
defense of a family-member ??
do tell, which of those is a "crime" without exercising a right, first ??

which laws PREVENT any crime whatsoever ??
without laws, there is no such thing as crime, ever think of that ??
sure, there would be plenty of brutality and chaos but no such thing as crime.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by Honor93

You apparently don't understand the meaning of conjecture. I am not here to change your mind. I provided facts you brought this into the realm of ridiculousness. Askew whatever you like. I do hope common sense prevails should you ever find yourself believing you're entitled to assualt someone. The officer in question behaved appropriately. He defended his life from 3 attackers while injured. What happened is sad. It could have been avoided if 3 men hadn't decided to assault someone. Cheers friend! I have no doubt your in line for a darwin award.

posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by conspiracyrus

I have no doubt your in line for a darwin award
thanks, i'll be sure you're included to receive the press release

at least it would be more factual than your fantasies.

btw, if he was "acting out of duty", as you claim, i hope the family sues the begeezus out of the county/state/local PD division involved

posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
You apparently haven't had children, and there's likely no way the father had any indication the guy was a cop ... just some dude that hit and injured his 4 year old daughter.

Dad went overboard, in this case, when his efforts would have been better served by attempting to help / aide his daughter ... or, Perhaps even, having had a better eye out on her in the first place - 10 o'Clock at night. (?)

I don't even know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but I'll say it again.

Prove to me he didn't tend to his daughter first? Prove it.

Second, she was not left alone, she was with an 18-year old cousin, WHO WAS ALSO HIT. This starts to bring up a few more questions for me, personally. I'm leaning towards the cop being reckless considering he hit not only the child, but the cousin as well.

Was the father justified in "beating an injured man", no probably not. But I don't know what transpired during this altercation. Maybe the cop had some choice words after the accident that escalated the situation? Who knows.

Your anti-police agenda is quite clear already in this thread. You're looking for any angle you can find to have a go at the cop but the fact remains this man would still be alive if he'd acted like a decent human being rather than a thug.

He has only himself to blame.

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by SyphonX

Couldn't have said it any better. You're 100^% absolutely correct.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by lethalized

Except it's wrong, he was not in his home and they were not on a residential street.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by captainpudding

haven't you projected enough hyperbole in this thread yet ??
plenty of restaurants are located on/near residential streets. i have lived across the street from several restaurants over the years and pretty popular ones at that.

It should also be noted that when faced with the choice of helping his injured daughter or attacking an injured man, he chose to ignore his injured daughter.
prove it.

so they were most likely not on a residential street.
link a streetview of the area or you're lying.

clearly states he intentionally laid down the bike to avoid hitting the child
not in the article posted but i did read it elsewhere and yes that statement appears in one of 5 articles ... does that make it true ??

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?
fantasize much ?

what article are you reading?
the one posted. do you need a link ?

The situation seems as if he were at a range of a few feet or less, he would likely be able to raise the weapon using only his wrist, since he hit him so low in the body, it could have occurred that way.

more supposition ?? got any facts to go with it ?? nope ?? then your opinion is as invalid as any other who wasn't there, so why do you feel obligated to attack them or their opinions ??

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by Honor93

I'm sorry if you can't understand the information presented to you, but there's nothing more I can say at this point.

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:19 PM

Originally posted by RealSpoke
As much as I hate cops, if the father was actually watching the little girl she wouldn't be dead. She was 4 years old and shouldn't have been wandering around in the road.

I agree... oh there is also a time for an ass beating if need be...typically after you take care of your daughter though....

The cop was trying to help the little girl and the dad was beating him to death seemingly not caring at that point whether his little girl was dying or not.

edit on 11-9-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16   >>

log in