Cop Looking at His Phone Plows Into Cyclist Sitting at a Stop Sign

Source: Free Thought Project
Published: Jul 27, 2018
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2018-07-27 10:17:30 by Deckard
Views: 7684

Peculiar, MO — A rather shocking video was uploaded to YouTube this week by a cyclist wearing a helmet camera who filmed a distracted police officer ram him head on as he waited at a stop sign. Officer Wallace with the Peculiar police department was looking down at his phone while turning left and never saw Joe Fas sitting there on his bicycle.

As Fas sat at the stop sign, waiting to turn, his helmet camera showed him looking right and then looking left. All of the sudden, officer Wallace, driving his police SUV, marked unit 396, turns left—into the wrong lane—and slams into Fas who couldn’t get out of the way fast enough.

“Whoa! Whoa!” Fas screamed as officer Wallace looked down at his phone, clearly not paying attention to where he was going.

“You mother….motherf**ker, you were looking at your phone, officer,” says Fas as he gets to his feet.

Wallace opens his door and immediately gives the excuse that he was “f**king looking at a text from another officer,” as if this makes plowing over an innocent bicyclist acceptable.

“396,” Fas says, recording to officer’s unit number. He then looks down at his Scott bike which appears to be twisted and broken.

“Why were you texting?” Fas asks the officer as he approaches him.

“I wasn’t texting, I was looking at my phone,” replies Wallace.

“Either way,” Fas retorts.

Wallace then does something police officers rarely do — he admitted he was in the wrong.

“I know, it was my bad,” said Wallace.

“Why were you doing that in a turn?” asked Fas.

“I wasn’t paying attention,” Wallace replies.

The two then assess Fas’ injuries and note the damage to the bicycle, saying, “the frame is cracked.”

Fas then explained that Wallace made the decision to call in the Missouri state police to investigate as there would’ve been a conflict of interest if he filed his own report.

According to Fas, troopers Green and Fuce showed up and filed the report and he refused the trip to the ER because he said he wasn’t that hurt. However, Fas says that the next day he was in much more pain.

As far as what happened to officer Wallace, Fas explained that he did not know. He did say that Wallace was given a breathalyzer by the state police as well as a urinalysis to see if he was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol.

Whether or not Wallace received a traffic citation of any kind is a mystery as Fas was not informed of the outcome.

In the state of Missouri, according to state law, “Text messaging and using a hand-held mobile device while operating a motor vehicle” is prohibited except as otherwise noted.

One of those exceptions is for “authorized emergency vehicles.”

The Free Thought Project reached out the the Peculiar Police Department to inquire about the punishment, if any, that officer Wallace received or will receive. However, we have yet to hear back from them.

Officer Wallace certainly handled this incident better than the last story TFTP covered in which officers were seen plowing into a cyclist.

Heins Rodriguez, 26, was minding his own business as he rode his bicycle down 43rd Avenue in August of 2015, when an unmarked police cruiser came out of nowhere causing him to go flying off of his bike.

When the officers got out of the vehicle, instead of making sure this man was okay, they fabricated a story, assaulted and arrested him.

Luckily with Fas, this did not happen.

Poster Comment:

Lucky the cyclist wasn't killed.

Chances are - the cop will get off with no punishment, as happened in this case where a cyclist was killed by a cop who was looking at his computer.

Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec While Texting And Driving — Because It's Apparently OK For Police To Do That

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: Stoner    To: Deckard (#0)

Damn sad !!!

It is commendable that the Officer admitted to being at fault, since he clearly was! His superiors probably ripped him real good for that !!

Stoner posted on 2018-07-27 10:53:53   Reply   Private Reply

#2: Deckard    To: Stoner (#1)

It is commendable that the Officer admitted to being at fault,

That is rare, and he didn't blame the cyclist - kudos to him for that.

It remains to bee seen whether or not he will be disciplined.

The taxpayers will be forced to pay for a new bike. It would be a real nice thing if the guilty cop paid for it himself.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 11:06:29   Reply   Private Reply

#3: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#0)

Chances are - the cop will get off with no punishment, as happened in this case where a cyclist was killed by a cop who was looking at his computer.
Fallacy of Antecedent

It happened once, so
it will happen again.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 12:25:51   Reply   Private Reply

#4: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#3)

Chances are - the cop will get off with no punishment, as happened in this case where a cyclist was killed by a cop who was looking at his computer.

When it happens again and again and again and again ad nauseum - it's not a fallacy.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 12:44:26   Reply   Private Reply

#5: Gatlin    To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone, GrandIsland (#0)

Lucky the cyclist wasn't killed.
Yea, that’s true.

And the syclist will be lucky if he doesn’t get a ticket.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 13:27:27   Reply   Private Reply

#6: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#5)

and the syclist will be lucky if he doesn’t get a ticket.

WTF? The cop admitted he was the one at fault. The badged "hero" was texting when he hit the cyclist.

Another of your posts that displays your unfettered submissive fetish for authority - cops are NEVER wrong in Gatlin "Cops are gods" world.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 13:46:59   Reply   Private Reply

#7: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#4)

When it happens again and again and again and again ad nauseum - it's not a fallacy.
Well, to paraphrase Bill Clinton: “It depends upon what the meaning of the words 'again and again and again and again' is.

At last count, there were 421,499 full time law enforcement officers is the US.

How many of those LEOs have hit a cyclist and “got off with no punishment”.... “again and again and again and again”?

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 14:05:17   Reply   Private Reply

#8: Gatlin    To: misterwhite, A KA Stone, GrandIsland, Deckard, Everybody (#6)

Gatlin: The cyclist will be lucky if he doesn’t get a ticket. Deckard: WTF?
Say, anyone – I am an old man with very terrible eyesight, cornea transplant and all that other stuff, so I need help here.

Please watch the video again and confirm that the cyclist did indeed make NO attempt to stop at that STOP sign and did in fact RUN that STOP sign.

Then please try tell me how many feet (yards) the cyclist was past those white marks designating the STOP POINT into the intersection before he got into the way of that nice police officer’s vehicle that was making a left turn….by being too far out into the intersection. The intersection does start past those white marks designating the STOP point.

Thank you …

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 14:22:19   Reply   Private Reply

#9: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#8)

The cop admitted he was the one at fault. The badged "hero" was texting when he hit the cyclist.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 14:28:52   Reply   Private Reply

#10: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#6)

The cop admitted he was the one at fault.
Uh, more than one party can “contribute” to the accident.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 14:31:27   Reply   Private Reply

#11: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#8)

Please watch the video again and confirm that the cyclist did indeed make NO attempt to stop at that STOP sign and did in fact RUN that STOP sign.

Bullshit! You can see the cyclist start slowing down at about 2:20 - you can hear the gears clicking as they slow down as well.

He then makes a COMPLETE STOP and remains stationary.

At approximately 2:30, the cyclist is still stationary as he LOOKS BOTH WAYS - you can see the vehicle approaching from the right.

As the cyclist is still stopped, the driver of the vehicle makes a left hand turn and plows head first into the stationary cyclist.

The texting cop does not even turn into the correct lane!

BTW - that's not a cheap bike - Scott bikes can cost as much as $12,000. Also the bike is equipped with composite wheels - not cheap either.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 14:48:37   Reply   Private Reply

#12: Gatlin    To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#6)

Another of your posts that displays your unfettered submissive fetish for authority - cops are NEVER wrong in Gatlin "Cops are gods" world.
No, cops can be wrong and others involved with cops can also be wrong.

We shall see if my post does display my “unfettered submissive fetish for authority”….OR….if my post makes lawful sense.

Let’s wait for reports from the individuals I asked to confirm the cyclist was far past the white stop marks and some distance into the intersection.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 14:54:55   Reply   Private Reply

#13: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#12)

Let’s wait for reports from the individuals I asked to confirm the cyclist was far past the white stop marks and some distance into the intersection.

I've already debunked your lies.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 14:56:23   Reply   Private Reply

#14: Stoner    To: Gatlin, Deckard (#8)

I watched the video again. The officer was clearly negligent. He clearly made his turn too sharp, and crossed into the lane that the cyclist was on, instead of turning into the proper lane, to the left of the lane the cyclist was on. That and the fact that the officer readily admitted he was at fault. If a civilian had done this, then they would have deserved a ticket. A judge would most likely determine that the officer did not have proper control of his vehicle.

There is no way the cyclist deserves a ticket. I would predict that if the cyclist employs an attorney, and sues,he will win his case.

This officer has embarrassed his fellow officers.

Stoner posted on 2018-07-27 15:06:38   Reply   Private Reply

#15: Gatlin    To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#11)

Please watch the video again and confirm that the cyclist did indeed make NO attempt to stop at that STOP sign and did in fact RUN that STOP sign.

Bullshit! You can see the cyclist start slowing down

Uh, “start slowing down” is not STOPPING….you stupid libertarian asshole.
At approximately 2:30, the cyclist is still stationary …
Yes the cyclist is stopped FAR past the white marks designating the stopping point.

Te cyclist weny through the STOP sign and stopped in the INTERSECTION.

At approximately 2:30, the cyclist is still stationary as he LOOKS BOTH WAYS …
The cyclist is stationary in the INTERSECTION….it does not matter even if he looks up for God.
As the cyclist is still stopped,
Still stopped in the INTERSECTION.
The texting cop does not even turn into the correct lane!
and….AND….and runs into a cyclist STOPPED in the INTERSECTION.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 15:18:24   Reply   Private Reply

#16: Gatlin    To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#13)

Let’s wait for reports from the individuals I asked to confirm the cyclist was far past the white stop marks and some distance into the intersection.

I've already debunked your lies.

The whole basis of my presentations here has been: More that one person can CONTRIBUTE to an accident.

You have NOT debunked that.

We shall wait for a further report …

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 15:21:28   Reply   Private Reply

#17: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#15)

Good grief - your cop-fetish knows no bounds, does it.

The cyclist was STATIONARY when he was hit head on by a texting cop, who by the way made an IMPROPER left turn which put him in the left lane where the cyclist was standing, not moving, looking both ways.

The texting cop does not even turn into the correct lane!

and….AND….and runs into a cyclist STOPPED in the INTERSECTION.

Once you have mnde a complete stop, you are permitted to move past the white line. This gives the motorist (or cyclist in this case) a better view of on-coming traffic.

Once he had made a complete stop, it was legal for him to proceed past the white line.

You're trying to blame the cyclist for the cop's screw-up.

So typical of you.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 15:36:31   Reply   Private Reply

#18: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#16)

Don’t leave!

I have a NEWS FLASH for you….coming up shortly.

I am working on getting it now.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 15:37:45   Reply   Private Reply

#19: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#17)

Once you have mnde a complete stop, you are permitted to move past the white line.
Look at the video.

He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop.

NEVER….NEVER….NEVER.

The smartass let his video, that he ran to the news media with….get him in trouble.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 15:44:50   Reply   Private Reply

#20: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#17)

You're trying to blame the cyclist for the cop's screw-up.
Nope!

I am saying what I have said all along….and that is, two people can CONTRIBUTE to an accident.

I am still working on that NEWS FLASH for you.

Stand by …

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 15:48:43   Reply   Private Reply

#21: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#19)

He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop.

Are you effing kidding me? He was stopped for a good 20-25 seconds before he was hit!

So he stopped past the white line? Big deal - he made a complete stop and was stationary when hit head on by the cop.

That he didn't stop at the white line does not in any way contribute to the crash.

He was STOPPED.

Period!

AND BTW - the white line was severely faded and barely visible, I even missed it earlier.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 15:51:58   Reply   Private Reply

#22: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#17)

Once he had made a complete stop, it was legal for him to proceed past the white line.
I want to repeat this for emphasis.

You are DEAD WRONG. He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop.

He coasted right on past that STOP sign and stopped in the INTERSECTION.

He made video of himself doing that and stopping “past the stop sigh.”

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 15:53:32   Reply   Private Reply

#23: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#22)

He coasted right on past that STOP sign and stopped in the INTERSECTION.

None of which was a contributing cause of the accident.

If he had committed a traffic infraction, the cop should have ticketed him for it.

Oh wait, he couldn't. He was too busy LOOKING AT HIS PHONE!!

We're done here cop-sucker.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 15:57:21   Reply   Private Reply

#24: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#21)

He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop.

Are you effing kidding me?

No, I’m NOT kidding you. I am as serious as a heart attack.
He was stopped for a good 20-25 seconds before he was hit!
Yes, PAST THE STOP SIGN.
So he stopped past the white line? Big deal …
Maybe it is no big deal to you….with your libertarian ways.

But, I can assure you that it is a big deal in the eyes of the law.

… he made a complete stop and was stationary when hit head on by the cop.
He made a complete stop “PAST THE STOP SIGN.
That he didn't stop at the white line does not in any way contribute to the crash.
Oh, but the fact that he was stopped “PAST THE STOP” sign did CONTRIUTE to the accidednt.
He was STOPPED.

Period!

He was stiooed PAST THE STOP SIGN.

In the wrong place.

PERIOD.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 16:06:47   Reply   Private Reply

#25: Gatlin    To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#23)

We're done here cop-sucker.
Oh., NO….we’re not done here yet.
At 9:35 this morning, it was reported that Sgt. Collin Stosberg, of the Missouri Highway Patrol, confirmed that while the investigation is still underway….the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.

I tried to tell you so….but you just wouldn’t listen.

I said REPEATEDLY that the cyclist was past the stop sign [and white marking designating the stop point] and he was out in the Intersection.

Now, we’re definitely done here.

lol …

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 16:10:44   Reply   Private Reply

#26: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#25)

Sgt. Collin Stosberg, of the Missouri Highway Patrol, confirmed the investigation is still underway and the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.

This is just standard PD spin in order to diminish the actions of the cop and cast blame on an innocent victim. Standard operating procedure, in other words...CYA

The way the cop made that illegal turn into the wrong lane - he still would have hit the cyclist even if he had been back a few feet.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 16:16:28   Reply   Private Reply

#27: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#26)

I see we’re not done here.
Sgt. Collin Stosberg, of the Missouri Highway Patrol, confirmed the investigation is still underway and the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.

This is just standard PD spin in order to diminish the actions of the cop and cast blame on an innocent victim. Standard operating procedure, in other words...CYA

Nah, you CAN”T spin your way out of this.

By his own “video evidence”….the cyclist RAN the stop sign and stopped “past the stop sign” out in the intersection. There is no “diminishing” about it, There is NO blame being REMOVED from the cop. Your “innocent victim” violated the law. Standard procedure in this case is that the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the accident.

The way the cop made that illegal turn into the wrong lane - he still would have hit the cyclist even if he had been back a few feet.

Few feet, your ass.

Few yards, probably

And yes, it is possible the cop would still have hit the cyclist.

HOWEVER, if the cyclist had stopped at the STOP sign and not “past the stop sign”… then he would not have been cited for “contributing” to the accident.

Are we done here now?

If so, I have your meal ready for you.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 16:41:36   Reply   Private Reply

#28: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#27)

And yes, it is possible the cop would still have hit the cyclist.

Uh, no - it is a fact he would have.

Look at the angle of the cop vehicle as it is turning into the left lane - It's obvious that he did not have control of his vehicle and would have continued in the wrong lane until he hit something or ran off the road.

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 16:51:03   Reply   Private Reply

#29: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#28)

And yes, it is possible the cop would still have hit the cyclist.

Uh, no - it is a fact he would have.

It is NOT a FACT.

There is absolutely NO way of telling what would, or would not, have happened if the cyclist had been stopped at the STOP sign on the far right side of the road [close to the stop sign] where he SHOULD have been.

You are speculating. You should not do that.

If you are going to speculate, then you must speculate as to ALL possibilities.

There is one possibility that if the cops had a few more yards, then he could have looked up and slammed on his brakes before hitting the cyclists.

There is just NO giving up for you....you continue to show what a stupid person your really are.

Look at the angle of the cop vehicle as it is turning into the left lane - It's obvious that he did not have control of his vehicle and would have continued in the wrong lane until he hit something or ran off the road.
Mute Point. Don’t make me get my red meme.

I said all along that the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the accident.

He did.

And he was cited for that.

As you say....PERIOD.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 17:12:02   Reply   Private Reply

#30: Deckard    To: Gatlin (#29)

I said all along that the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the accident.

He did.

And he was cited for that.

Nowhere in the article you linked to mentions that the cyclist is being cited.

Stosberg said the investigation is still underway, but the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and the narrow intersection contributed to the accident.

It says here that the "narrow intersection" was a contributing factor.

What else are you lying about?

Deckard posted on 2018-07-27 17:18:41   Reply   Private Reply

#31: Gatlin    To: Deckard (#30)

Nowhere in the article you linked to mentions that the cyclist is being cited.
Oh, then maybe he will not be.
It says here that the "narrow intersection" was a contributing factor.
On now in addition to the cyclist, we have yet another contributing factor.

But I cannot imagine the “narrow intersection” will be cited when the investigation is finished.

What else are you lying about?
That’s all.

You are slapping at a mosquito while an alligator is snapping at your ass.

My message was never about a citation for contributing to the accident, although since the investigating officer has already determined that, then a citation will probably be forthcoming. Ya think?

My message has ALWAYS been that the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the accident.

I have proven that....you need to accept that.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-27 17:47:40   Reply   Private Reply

#32: Liberator    To: Gatlin, Deckard (#29)

I said all along that the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the accident.

He did.

To 95% of the folks who watched this incident, the COP in the vehicle WAS DEAD WRONG. He either didn't see the cyclist or wasn't paying attention (the cop already admitted he was on the phone). Thus it was clear careless driving and neglect on his part. This is factual and not even arguable.

The cyclist "contributed to the accident" ONLY as as much as HE WAS HIT.

There is absolutely NO way of telling what would, or would not, have happened if the cyclist had been stopped at the STOP sign on the far right side of the road [close to the stop sign] where he SHOULD have been.

If the biker stopped at the actual STOP sign location, he'd NEVER have been able to see the traffic in BOTH directions. He had to creep up on the intersection to properly gauge the traffic.

But since it's been decades since you've taken a bicycle out on the road, you'd have no idea how that works. But maybe YOU think the cyclist should be sporting a retractable ten foot periscope atop of a Kevlar helmet. (Why not propose that kind of law to your reps Flake and Stain, Comrade?)

Liberator posted on 2018-07-27 18:05:38   Reply   Private Reply

#33: Liberator    To: Stoner (#14)

I watched the video again. The officer was clearly negligent.

He clearly made his turn too sharp, and crossed into the lane that the cyclist was on, instead of turning into the proper lane, to the left of the lane the cyclist was on. That and the fact that the officer readily admitted he was at fault. If a civilian had done this, then they would have deserved a ticket. A judge would most likely determine that the officer did not have proper control of his vehicle.

There is no way the cyclist deserves a ticket. I would predict that if the cyclist employs an attorney, and sues,he will win his case.

YUP >>>

We have admission by the cop. He cut the corner way too sharp. Wasn't watchful and is guilty of careless driving.

Under NO "LAW" can either a Cop or civilian ANY license to slam into a pedestrian or another vehicle. Technicality or no technicality. As flimsy as that might be.

Only the most statist, partial, unfair observer would not concede the above.

Liberator posted on 2018-07-27 18:12:18   Reply   Private Reply

#34: Stoner    To: Liberator, Deckard, Gatlin, everybody (#33)

I examined the video gain. Noticed in addition to other points, the officer did not use his turn signal. I am sure that most places that is a traffic violation

It is pointless to debate this further. Gatlin is too childish to concede he is wrong. It would be like trying to have a rational discussion with a pre teen child. I notice those he called on to save his ass have not shown up. Most likely they know he is wrong, and they are not going to make themselves look stupid by defending him. It is so obvious they know he is wrong.

Gatlin admitted: " I am an old man with very terrible eyesight," Maybe he is suffering with dementia or alzheimer's ? It is obvious that his eyesight is terrible.

Stoner posted on 2018-07-27 19:51:29   Reply   Private Reply

#35: Stoner    To: Deckard (#30)

Deckard to Gatlin " What else are you lying about? "

Here is a good tune for Gatlin

Stoner posted on 2018-07-27 20:32:12   Reply   Private Reply

#36: nolu chan    To: Gatlin, Deckard (#25)

[Gatlin #8] Please watch the video again and confirm that the cyclist did indeed make NO attempt to stop at that STOP sign and did in fact RUN that STOP sign.

[Deckard #9] The badged "hero" was texting when he hit the cyclist.

[Deckard #11] The texting cop does not even turn into the correct lane!

[Gatlin #15] The cyclist is stationary in the INTERSECTION….

[Deckard #17] Once you have mnde a complete stop, you are permitted to move past the white line.

[Gatlin #19] He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop. NEVER….NEVER….NEVER.

[Deckard #21] AND BTW - the white line was severely faded and barely visible, I even missed it earlier.

[Gatlin #22] You are DEAD WRONG. He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop. He coasted right on past that STOP sign and stopped in the INTERSECTION.

The cyclist did not stop at the stop sign with the white line across the road adjacent to the stop sign. He did roll through and stop after the sign and line, and was stopped for a significant time before the cop hit him. Any contribution to the accident is minimal.

https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/traffic-tickets/moving-violations/running-red-lights-and-stop-23

Running Red Lights and Stop Signs in Missouri

Read about Missouri’s red light and stop sign laws and the consequences of a violation.

[Excerpt]

Making the Stop

At a red light (solid or flashing) or stop sign, motorists must make a complete stop at a clearly marked stop line or before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. And if there is no stop line or crosswalk, the driver needs to stop before entering the intersection.

After stopping at the line, I know of nothing which permits rolling up further before actually proceeding through the intersection.

There is no evidence that the cop was texting. Phone records could establish if he were texting. The cop admitted that he was looking at his phone, was not paying attention, and it was his bad.

The cop was responsible for the accident.

The town should pay for the damages to the bicycle.

nolu chan posted on 2018-07-27 23:14:47   Reply   Private Reply

#37: goldilucky    To: nolu chan (#36)

Subpoena the texting records from the phone company or wireless server.

The cop admitted to being responsible for the accident.

The cop should pay for the damages to the bicycle; not the town. The cop should be sued in their personal capacity and get their own lawyer and not one appointed by the town paid by the taxpayers.

goldilucky posted on 2018-07-28 00:17:03   Reply   Private Reply

#38: VxH    To: Gatlin, deckard (#22)

You are DEAD WRONG. He NEVER made a COMPLETE stop.

LOL. He was stationary (that means not moving) for nearly 30 seconds.

You and Nolo Chan's TRIGger happy donkey should get together.

VxH posted on 2018-07-28 17:41:34   Reply   Private Reply

#39: Gatlin    To: Liberator (#32)

YOU think …
There was no need for me to THINK about anything other than what I actually SAW in the video. After watching the video, all I EVER said was the cyclist did NOT stop at the stop sign. He rolled through the stop sign and stopped in the intersection. The intersection began past the white marks at the stop sign.
It was reported by KMBC News 9 ABC that Sgt. Collin Stosbergof the Missouri Highway Patrol, confirmed that while the investigation is still underway….the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.
You have your OPINION, which of course you are entitled to, while Sgt Collin Stosberg, of the Missouri Highway Patrol, has his CONCLUSION.

Your OPINON matters ONLY to you, while Sgt Stosber’s CONCLUSION that the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident is what matters in the OFFICIAL FINDING of the investigation.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-29 22:26:59   Reply   Private Reply

#40: Gatlin    To: Stoner (#14)

I watched the video again. The officer was clearly negligent.

There is no way the cyclist deserves a ticket.

No ONE ever said the officer was NOT clearly negligent.

After watching the video, all I EVER said was the cyclist did NOT stop at the stop sign. He rolled through the stop sign and stopped in the intersection. The intersection began past the white marks at the stop sign.

It was reported by KMBC News 9 ABC that Sgt. Collin Stosbergof the Missouri Highway Patrol, confirmed that while the investigation is still underway….the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.
You have your OPINION, which of course you are entitled to, while Sgt Collin Stosberg, of the Missouri Highway Patrol, has his CONCLUSION.

Your OPINON matters ONLY to you, while Sgt Stosber’s CONCLUSION that the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident is what matters in the OFFICIAL FINDING of the investigation.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-29 22:35:48   Reply   Private Reply

#41: A K A Stone    To: Gatlin (#40)

I finally watched the video. Quit being a dumb ass. It was the officers fault 100 percent.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-07-29 22:39:49   Reply   Private Reply

#42: A K A Stone    To: Gatlin (#40)

The cops opinion doesn't matter. The video matters it shows the cops wasn't paying attention. The officer should lose his driver's license and probably his job. He or she can't drive good enough to be entrusted in a vehicle ever again.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-07-29 22:41:44   Reply   Private Reply

#43: Gatlin    To: Liberator, Stoner (#33)

We have admission by the cop. He cut the corner way too sharp. Wasn't watchful and is guilty of careless driving.
That is absolutely CORRECT and no one ever said otherwise.

After watching the video, all I EVER said was the cyclist did NOT stop at the stop sign. He rolled through the stop sign and stopped in the intersection. The intersection began past the white marks at the stop sign.

Sgt. Collin Stosberg of the Missouri Highway Patrol, confirmed that while the investigation is still underway….the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.
This was reported by KMBC News 9 ABC.
Under NO "LAW" can either a Cop or civilian ANY license to slam into a pedestrian or another vehicle. Technicality or no technicality. As flimsy as that might be.
Of course not.

Again, it was Sgt. Stosberg’s CONCLUSION that the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident. There is NO technicality. That is hard evidence from the cyclist’s video.

Learn to live with Sgt. Stosberg’s CONCLUSION because there is absolutely nothing else you can do except continue to espouse your personal OPINION which will not affect the outcome of the official investigation in any way whatsoever.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-29 22:56:56   Reply   Private Reply

#44: Gatlin    To: A K A Stone (#42)

The cops opinion doesn't matter.
Sgt. Collin Stosberg offered NO opinion.

Sgt. Collin Stosberg reached a CONCLUION.

The video matters it shows the cops wasn't paying attention.
That is ABSOLUTELY correct, the video does show that.

And the video also shows the the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign”. It was Sgt. Collin Stosberg’s judgment that the “cyclist contributed to the accident” by being stopped out in the intersection.

While you have a right to your personal opinions, that you disagree with Stosberg’s judgment will have no affect on the outcome of the official investigation.

The officer should lose his driver's license and probably his job. He or she can't drive good enough to be entrusted in a vehicle ever again.
I have no disagreement with this. The officer should be severly punished.

All I EVER said was that after watching the video, the cyclist did NOT stop at the stop sign. He rolled through the stop sign and stopped in the intersection. The intersection began past the white marks at the stop sign.

I NEVER said the cyclist CONTRIBUTED to the accident.

It was Sgt. Collin Stosberg of the Missouri Highway Patrol, who confirmed that while the investigation is still underway….the cyclist was pulled up “past the stop sign” and contributed to the accident.

I neither support nor defend Sgt. Collin Stosberg’s conclusion. I merely reported it.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-29 23:23:01   Reply   Private Reply

#45: Gatlin    To: A K A Stone (#41)

I finally watched the video.
Okay.
It was the officers fault 100 percent.
Did I EVER say it was not the officer’s fault?
The answer to that is: No, I did not.
It was definitely the officer’s fault.

And did I EVER SAY the cyclist contribute to the accident?

The answer to that is: No, I did not.
I only showed where that was reported.
Quit being a dumb ass.
As you wish….so it respectfully shall be.

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-30 00:10:06   Reply   Private Reply

#46: Stoner    To: Gatlin (#40)

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT !!!

ROFLMAO !!!! LAYDS !!!!

Stoner posted on 2018-07-30 07:15:25   Reply   Private Reply

#47: Stoner    To: A K A Stone, ALL (#41)

" Quit being a dumb ass. "

Stone you are wasting your time ! You are trying to reason with a spoiled, petulant, brat child !! Complete waste of time !! There are many adults on this board, he is not one of those !!!

Stoner posted on 2018-07-30 07:26:52   Reply   Private Reply

#48: Gatlin    To: A K A Stone (#45)

Gatlin posted on 2018-07-30 10:16:25   Reply   Private Reply