On Jan 15, 11:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Evan wrote:
... airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...

I'm not looking around intentionally for things to disagree with you on,
but you make some irrational assumptions about things.

Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.

here want to see some code double talk here is a comment on new arc
fault protection they ant put into old wiring which actually provides
no protection

From Electrical contracting magazine
Analysis: As aging wiring systems become more of a concern in the
electrical industry, the Code is taking a proactive approach to
providing protection of these systems. Many areas of a dwelling
require the use of AFCI protection in an effort to help avoid
electrical fires. When AFCIs were first introduced into the NEC, the
substantiation for their inclusion was based largely on electrical
fires in older homes. With the inception of these devices, the Code
began protecting new and future wiring systems but didn’t address the
older ones that contained many of the fires discussed in the AFCI
arguments. This change expands the AFCI requirements to older homes.
Because these older homes often don’t contain an equipment grounding
conductor, installation of an AFCI circuit breaker does very little in
the way of protecting the branch circuits. The receptacle-type AFCIs
also provide a significantly lower level of protection, but they will
be required, nonetheless.

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:


Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.

If you look at the legislative history of the airbag you will see that
you are wrong. In 1977, when President Carter
appointed former Ralph Nader lobbyist Joan Claybrook to head the NHTSA.
Claybrook actively sought to establish an effective safety restraint law
and her efforts partially paid off when Transportation Secretary Brock
Adams ordered all new cars to have automatic safety belts **OR**air bags
by 1984.(This was also called the passive restraint law because of the
either mandate where the driver/occupants did not have to do too much
more than just sit in the seat. (emphasis mine). After a little hooha
under Reagan, (State Farm vs Auto Mfrs Assoc) the Department
of Transportation issued new regulations ordering Auto producers to
install air bags between 1986 and 1989. But it left one loophole: If, by
1989, states comprising two thirds of the US population implemented
mandatory seat-belt use, the federal regulation would not apply. (In
other words if there were mandatory seat belt laws, then there was no
need for airbags). IN '91 Bush the Senior signed a law saying airbags
would be mandatory in a couple of years, of course by then, most
automakers were offering them as standard for marketing reasons.
It was known, FYI,

Looks like your transmission was cut off at the end, but thanks for the
history.

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

It was known, FYI,

Looks like your transmission was cut off at the end, but thanks for the
history.

Yeah and by now I have forgotten what tremendously salient point I was
trying to make (g). I have always thought it sort of an interesting
example of the law of unintended consequences that airbags were
originally thought as a replacement for seat belts, until they started
killing people. Bureaucratic oopsy.
ALthough to be fair, the regs for airbags called for inflation forces
that were above what most of the airbags at the time were doing. (Which
triggered another round of rulemaking, BTW). I have often wondered if
the less aggressive airbags might have actually done their job.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Jan 16, 7:47*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
*Smitty Two wrote:

* * It was known, FYI,

Looks like your transmission was cut off at the end, but thanks for the
history.

* Yeah and by now I have forgotten what tremendously salient point I was
trying to make (g). I have always thought it sort of an interesting
example of the law of unintended consequences that airbags were
originally thought as a replacement for seat belts, until they started
killing people. Bureaucratic oopsy.
* *ALthough to be fair, the regs for airbags called for inflation forces
that were above what most of the airbags at the time were doing. (Which
triggered another round of rulemaking, BTW). I have often wondered if
the less aggressive airbags might have actually done their job.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

Just look at anti lock brakes how they where suppose to save lives and
instead end up taking lives when people push down here the strange
noise there suppose to make and then let off and try to pump there
brakes instead.
again lack of education and people die.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:58:08 -0800 (PST), nick markowitz
wrote:

On Jan 16, 7:47*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
*Smitty Two wrote:

* * It was known, FYI,

Looks like your transmission was cut off at the end, but thanks for the
history.

* Yeah and by now I have forgotten what tremendously salient point I was
trying to make (g). I have always thought it sort of an interesting
example of the law of unintended consequences that airbags were
originally thought as a replacement for seat belts, until they started
killing people. Bureaucratic oopsy.
* *ALthough to be fair, the regs for airbags called for inflation forces
that were above what most of the airbags at the time were doing. (Which
triggered another round of rulemaking, BTW). I have often wondered if
the less aggressive airbags might have actually done their job.

Less aggressive air bags certainly would be better, assuming seat belts are
properly worn. OTOH, if everyone wore seat belts, airbags would likely have
never made the scene.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

Just look at anti lock brakes how they where suppose to save lives and
instead end up taking lives when people push down here the strange
noise there suppose to make and then let off and try to pump there
brakes instead.
again lack of education and people die.

Seat belts are hardly an issue of lack of education.

In article ,
" wrote:

Just look at anti lock brakes how they where suppose to save lives and
instead end up taking lives when people push down here the strange
noise there suppose to make and then let off and try to pump there
brakes instead.
again lack of education and people die.

Seat belts are hardly an issue of lack of education.
Or as a FA once said during a pre-flight briefing: "For those of you
who have been in a coma since the early 60s, this is how the seat belt
works."

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

Yeah, except if you're under 40 or so and haven't been on an airplane
before, the seat belt unbuckles differently from what's in a car.
That's why the FAA-required announcement exists.

On Jan 15, 1:15*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"DD_BobK" wrote



You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a garage

please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. * A CO detector in the garage can go off when you start the
car or pull it in and trap some before you turn it off. *As for smoke
detectors, there are types that work just fine.

Thanks, Ed.

In a garage a CO detector might be subject to "false positives", got
it.

cheers
Bob

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:40:55 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK wrote:

On Jan 15, 1:15*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"DD_BobK" wrote



You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a garage

please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. * A CO detector in the garage can go off when you start the
car or pull it in and trap some before you turn it off. *As for smoke
detectors, there are types that work just fine.

Thanks, Ed.

In a garage a CO detector might be subject to "false positives", got
it.

Again, why would you put a CO detector in the garage?

?
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:40:55 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 15, 1:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"DD_BobK" wrote



You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a garage

please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. A CO detector in the garage can go off when you start
the
car or pull it in and trap some before you turn it off. As for smoke
detectors, there are types that work just fine.

Thanks, Ed.

In a garage a CO detector might be subject to "false positives", got
it.

Again, why would you put a CO detector in the garage?

That is why you don't.

?
"Wayne Boatwright" wrote
You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a
garage

please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. A CO detector in the garage can go off when
you start the car or pull it in and trap some before you turn
it off. As for smoke detectors, there are types that work just
fine.

Thanks, Ed.

In a garage a CO detector might be subject to "false positives",
got it.

Again, why would you put a CO detector in the garage?

That is why you don't.



That really poses a problem for the many homes in AZ that have gas
water heaters in the garage.


The CO detector in the house is the one that is important. In a garage, you
can open the big door and vent too. In the garage, every time you move the
car in or out you have the potential to set it off.

On Jan 14, 11:33*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:41*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:





On Jan 14, 10:54*am, Frank Kurz wrote:

On 13/01/2011 4:56 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:46 am, nick *wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22 pm, Smitty *wrote:

In article
,

* *wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law.. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and *no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

So exactly what is the "maintenance" on a basic sprinkler system? *I'm
asking because I'm installing sprinklers in the garage I'm building..
I ran water pipes off the main cold coming in and I bought some of
those sprinklers with the little expansion glass pieces in the
centers. *You certainly can't test tripping one of them because then
you have to replace it.

In our neck of the woods you'd require a back-flow preventer on your
sprinkler system to avoid contamination of the domestic supply. *That
has to be inspected annually. *Check with your local AHJ regarding any
further requirements. *You may be required to interconnect your smoke
alarms to a flow switch. *If it's a heated garage and depending on your
location, you may require a low temperature alarm. *In fact it might not
be a bad idea to have one anyway and interconnect it to your monitored
security system.

So, about how many people have any kind of security system
in their house? *They're pretty rare here in small-town Midwest.

Cindy Hamilton

That is a **** poor excuse... *Do you have door locks on your doors
in small-town Midwest too? *Or is the town so small and safe that
everyone would be on red alert the moment a strange car pulled off
the main road at the blinking traffic signal at the one intersection?

Of course we have locks on the doors. We also have a very low
crime rate; security systems seems like expenditure for very
little return. Not that I think you're interested, but here's a
crime map for my area:

http://arborweb.com/articles/crime_maps/

I live in the lower right corner.

Wow... *Sadly the ridiculous things that are being offered as
challenges and/or excuses against requiring automatic fire sprinklers
in homes are surprising me... *Which shouldn't, I mean airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...
In many accidents the combination of airbag and seatbelt will save
your life...

I was just curious about how many people have security systems. My
previous house had a really crappy one; the previous owner was some
kind of paranoid cheapskate. It kept going off by itself, so we
disconnected it.

My 1948 house probably will never be retrofit with sprinkler systems,
and I think a security system is unlikely while I live there.

Cindy Hamilton

On Jan 17, 11:37*am, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Jan 14, 11:33*pm, Evan wrote:





On Jan 14, 4:41*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Jan 14, 10:54*am, Frank Kurz wrote:

On 13/01/2011 4:56 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:46 am, nick *wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22 pm, Smitty *wrote:

In article
,

* *wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.

On Jan 17, 2:38*pm, Jim wrote:

Would seem to me that anyone wanting to break into a home just might
look at a "low crime" area as a place where few people have alarm
systems ...... or that a lot of people have alarm system.

The thing to keep in mind is ..... anyone who has the mentality to
think that breaking into homes is ok, is not likely to have the
mentality to evaluate where the crime rate is high or low. If it looks
easy and the conditions are right ..... they do it. Ya just never
know ..... Security systems are like insurance. You have it just in
case you need it hoping that you never need it. If you don't have a
security system when the time comes .... you regret it for the
relatively small cost as compared to the loss you suffer...
particularly the sentimental items and the "invasion of privacy"
issues that no one ever can appriciate until it happens to them.
Statistically, people with alarm system suffer a lower dollar amount
of loss then those who don't have systems. The other probably more
important reason is the fire alarm.

There's got to be something to it if the insurance companys give a
discount for having an alarm system. Many times the discount almost
equals the cost of the central station monitoring fee. You never know
if you're going to be one of those "statistics"

Life's a gamble.

We do get a few break-ins in our area. Usually, they pick soft
targets: people who leave their car unlocked with the garage
door opener inside. People who leave their garage door open.

Oddly, they seem to pick the newer subdivisions, and leave
our older neighborhood of one- and two-acre lots alone.

Actually, we did have our shed broken into once. They
got our old, non-CAFE* gas can. The *******s! We were
able to replace the rototiller just fine, but not that
gas can.

*Is that the right acronym? California Air Something
Something. ****es me off that the whole country
has to dance to their tune.

Cindy Hamilton

On 17 Jan 2011 06:23:25 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

On Sun 16 Jan 2011 09:30:45p, Ed Pawlowski told us...

?
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:40:55 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 15, 1:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"DD_BobK" wrote



You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a
garage

please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. A CO detector in the garage can go off when
you start the car or pull it in and trap some before you turn
it off. As for smoke detectors, there are types that work just
fine.

Thanks, Ed.

In a garage a CO detector might be subject to "false positives",
got it.

Again, why would you put a CO detector in the garage?

That is why you don't.



That really poses a problem for the many homes in AZ that have gas
water heaters in the garage.

Who cares? So what if there's CO in the garage? It's sorta normal.

On Jan 15, 4:21*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

I agree, Evan, but not everyone lives like that. *Building a 5000 sq. ft.

On Jan 15, 4:26*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:47*am, Evan wrote:



On Jan 15, 12:22*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Evan" wrote

I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... *Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. *You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.

I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... *So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent.
She also blocked an exit. *This was an intentional deed, not accidental CO
leaking. *I image she deactivated any alarms beforehand. *Sprinklers would
not have helped her in any case. *She was intent on murder/suicide and was
50% successful.

Not a $50 problem... *You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in
a
garage, but I am sure you knew that... *Not many single family homes
have
any rate-of-rise heat detectors installed in them, which is what you
would
want to have in a garage...

Not in rental property which must have those detectors tested twice
annually...

And, no, according to the fire chief who was interviews at a press
conference
about the incident no alarms were disabled...

As to your assumption that sprinklers would not have been any help, I
wouldn't
jump to that conclusion, those grills put out a lot of heat, confining
that heat
inside one room might have gotten hot enough at the ceiling to pop a
sprinkler
head, don't know either way because no one has conducted an
experiment
and measured how hot it got in the room...

Your assertion that the mother was mentally ill is the first I have
heard about
that aspect of the case, do you have a source for that information, or
are you
just adding your personal opinion/moral judgment to your
argumentation?

~~ Evan

Evan-

Evan, are you implying that this 8 year old's death was not
necessarily murder but possibility due to accidental CO poisoning?
Or are you saying that orchestrating a murder / suicide is not an
indication of mental illness?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...leid=1309623&s....

Not 100% positive proof but surely an indication of intentional
poisoning.

cheers
Bob


Is that article representative of evidence which will be presented at
trial... All I read in it was a scant summary of what happened
peppered with opinions as to what is common in other cultures...

It would actually be a bad thing for this woman to be deemed
insane, as she would eventually be let out of the mental facility
where she would go instead of jail...

Massachusetts isn't Arizona, we don't punish mentally ill people
twice...

Like I said, the facts and evidence will come out during the trial...

~~ Evan

On Jan 15, 4:38*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I've had similar problems with Even missing points. So,
don't feel bad.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

You keep missing the point, if someone wants a house full of
sprinklers or a car with airbags and seatbelts fine but
don't have the
government mandate it


And for someone who is supposedly busy "working" and doesn't
have enough time to explain his personal method of performing
an industry standard technique on something, and then keeps
stating that the actual industry standard when described by
someone who knows it is wrong... well...

But it does seem like you have enough time to constantly
window shop Harbor Freight products and make off the wall
commentary on Usenet, just not defend your REAL position
on something you claim to be an experienced tradesperson
in... oh well...

You are starting to sound much more like an un-handy
handyman troll who does quite a few things but none
of them well...

~~ Evan

?
"Evan" wrote
Ed:

Code here is all smoke detectors wired in to sound at the same time...
So your $10 per room solution is WAY off, it would cost much more
than that to accomplish what is required by code...

Charcoal in a grill creates smoke, enough smoke to activate a smoke
detector if said grill is used inside a confined space like a small
bedroom...

Assuming the detector is in the bedroom. In most places, it is allowable to
have them in hallways and a bedroom can be shut off from the detectors by
just closing a door.



Yeah, I doubt it until the Commonwealth's District Attorneys present
evidence in court to prove she was or wasn't insane at the time the
accused crime took place... If you are making all your determinations
based on sound bites heard on the news you aren't much use as
a potential juror because you have already made up your mind...

I'd make the perfect juror. In fact, the accused should be sitting in the
electric chair in the courtroom so when the verdict is read, the judge just
hits the switch. We can save a lot of time and money that way.

Anyone that tries to kill their child is mentally ill. Nothing to debate.


I hope you remember that when you see such stories and realize that
everyone will be doing the same thing if you were ever arrested for
something like that rather than giving the benefit of the doubt and
letting
it play out in court in a year or 18 months from now, rather than the
court of public opinion from the news reports who possess very little
in the way of facts or evidence about the case...

If I tried to kill my kids, I'd expect to be put away or, if successful,
give the death penalty posthaste.

That said, under present circumstances, I'm against the death penalty. Why?
Because it costs so damned much for appeals and takes too much time.
Cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell. No TV either.

On Jan 17, 6:09*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 15, 4:26*pm, DD_BobK wrote:









On Jan 15, 10:47*am, Evan wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:22*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Evan" wrote

I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... *Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. *You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.

I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... *So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent.
She also blocked an exit. *This was an intentional deed, not accidental CO
leaking. *I image she deactivated any alarms beforehand. *Sprinklers would
not have helped her in any case. *She was intent on murder/suicide and was
50% successful.

Not a $50 problem... *You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in
a
garage, but I am sure you knew that... *Not many single family homes
have
any rate-of-rise heat detectors installed in them, which is what you
would
want to have in a garage...

Not in rental property which must have those detectors tested twice
annually...

And, no, according to the fire chief who was interviews at a press
conference
about the incident no alarms were disabled...

As to your assumption that sprinklers would not have been any help, I
wouldn't
jump to that conclusion, those grills put out a lot of heat, confining
that heat
inside one room might have gotten hot enough at the ceiling to pop a
sprinkler
head, don't know either way because no one has conducted an
experiment
and measured how hot it got in the room...

Your assertion that the mother was mentally ill is the first I have
heard about
that aspect of the case, do you have a source for that information, or
are you
just adding your personal opinion/moral judgment to your
argumentation?

~~ Evan

Evan-

Evan, are you implying that this 8 year old's death was not
necessarily murder but possibility due to accidental CO poisoning?
Or are you saying that orchestrating a murder / suicide is not an
indication of mental illness?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...leid=1309623&s....

Not 100% positive proof but surely an indication of intentional
poisoning.

cheers
Bob

Is that article representative of evidence which will be presented at
trial... *All I read in it was a scant summary of what happened
peppered with opinions as to what is common in other cultures...

It would actually be a bad thing for this woman to be deemed
insane, as she would eventually be let out of the mental facility
where she would go instead of jail...

Massachusetts isn't Arizona, we don't punish mentally ill people
twice...

Like I said, the facts and evidence will come out during the trial...

~~ Evan

It would actually be a bad thing for this woman to be deemed
insane, as she would eventually be let out of the mental facility
where she would go instead of jail..

now who's jumping to conclusions?

"ABLE1" wrote in message
news
Nick,

Did you imagine when you started this thread it would explode into so much
conversation?? And did you notice that we have a lot more lurkers that
have now decided to participate??

It just boggles the mind some times. ( @@ )


I'm not sure that alt.security.alarms suddenly has more lurkers, the whole
thread has been cross posted to ASA and AHR, most of the replies probably
originate from alt.home.repair.

Anyway I saw this in a local (Southern California) newspaper this morning

http://www.ocregister.com/news/fire-...prinklers.html

Doug

On Jan 18, 2:32*am, DD_BobK wrote:
On Jan 17, 6:09*pm, Evan wrote:



On Jan 15, 4:26*pm, DD_BobK wrote:

On Jan 15, 10:47*am, Evan wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:22*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Evan" wrote

I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... *Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. *You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.

I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... *So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent.
She also blocked an exit. *This was an intentional deed, not accidental CO
leaking. *I image she deactivated any alarms beforehand. *Sprinklers would
not have helped her in any case. *She was intent on murder/suicide and was
50% successful.

Not a $50 problem... *You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in
a
garage, but I am sure you knew that... *Not many single family homes
have
any rate-of-rise heat detectors installed in them, which is what you
would
want to have in a garage...

Not in rental property which must have those detectors tested twice
annually...

And, no, according to the fire chief who was interviews at a press
conference
about the incident no alarms were disabled...

As to your assumption that sprinklers would not have been any help, I
wouldn't
jump to that conclusion, those grills put out a lot of heat, confining
that heat
inside one room might have gotten hot enough at the ceiling to pop a
sprinkler
head, don't know either way because no one has conducted an
experiment
and measured how hot it got in the room...

Your assertion that the mother was mentally ill is the first I have
heard about
that aspect of the case, do you have a source for that information, or
are you
just adding your personal opinion/moral judgment to your
argumentation?

~~ Evan

Evan-

Evan, are you implying that this 8 year old's death was not
necessarily murder but possibility due to accidental CO poisoning?
Or are you saying that orchestrating a murder / suicide is not an
indication of mental illness?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...leid=1309623&s...

Not 100% positive proof but surely an indication of intentional
poisoning.

cheers
Bob

Is that article representative of evidence which will be presented at
trial... *All I read in it was a scant summary of what happened
peppered with opinions as to what is common in other cultures...

It would actually be a bad thing for this woman to be deemed
insane, as she would eventually be let out of the mental facility
where she would go instead of jail...

Massachusetts isn't Arizona, we don't punish mentally ill people
twice...

Like I said, the facts and evidence will come out during the trial...

~~ Evan
It would actually be a bad thing for this woman to be deemed

insane, as she would eventually be let out of the mental facility
where she would go instead of jail..

now who's jumping to conclusions?


LOL... Based on the thousands of people in Massachusetts who need
state provided mental health beds, the volume of people being sent
into
the mental health system by the state courts for "evaluation" and the
fact
that the state institutional capacity even with vendor provided units
hovers
at around 1,500 beds not too many of those beds are available to be
reserved for "indefinite stays"...

In Massachusetts you are either found innocent and walk away free,
found not guilty by mental illness or defect and sent to a state
mental
facility OR are found guilty and sent to the state prison/house of
correction
depending on the length of sentence to be served... The only offenses
right now which are flirting with the border of an "indefinite stay"
are
certain sex offenses which could result in a civil commitment after
the term of the convicted prisoner's sentence in prison terminates...

See, I actually know something about a part of my state government...

~~ Evan

On Jan 17, 10:31*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"Evan" wrote

Ed:

Code here is all smoke detectors wired in to sound at the same time...
So your $10 per room solution is WAY off, it would cost much more
than that to accomplish what is required by code...

Charcoal in a grill creates smoke, enough smoke to activate a smoke
detector if said grill is used inside a confined space like a small
bedroom...

Assuming the detector is in the bedroom. In most places, it is allowable to
have them in hallways and a bedroom can be shut off from the detectors by
just closing a door.

Yeah, I doubt it until the Commonwealth's District Attorneys present
evidence in court to prove she was or wasn't insane at the time the
accused crime took place... *If you are making all your determinations
based on sound bites heard on the news you aren't much use as
a potential juror because you have already made up your mind...

I'd make the perfect juror. *In fact, the accused should be sitting in the
electric chair in the courtroom so when the verdict is read, the judge just
hits the switch. *We can save a lot of time and money that way.

Anyone that tries to kill their child is mentally ill. *Nothing to debate.



Which is EXACTLY why you would NOT make a perfect juror, your
mind is already made up based on the barest understanding of the
concept and not even the faintest whiff of the evidence...

So in your eyes, would a booking picture of someone with red
bloodshot eyes be the only thing you would need to see to find
someone guilty of DUI ?

Sadly your blood lust and desire for revenge is misplaced...
Massachusetts has no death penalty... You would be wise
to push aside your preconceived notions and flawed schemas
of how people work emotionally -- if you were on the jury
hearing this case, and you really felt strongly about your
belief that anyone who tries to kill their child is mentally
ill, you would have to find the accused not guilty by reason
of mental illness or defect OR be dishonest and make
a the choice wanting to hear nothing beyond what you
had already decided the first day in court when you were
being empaneled as a juror...

To find someone guilty of a crime in Massachusetts you
must believe that they knowingly committed the offense
they are accused of and that they were not influenced by
or had their mental faculties impeded by a mental illness...





I hope you remember that when you see such stories and realize that
everyone will be doing the same thing if you were ever arrested for
something like that rather than giving the benefit of the doubt and
letting
it play out in court in a year or 18 months from now, rather than the
court of public opinion from the news reports who possess very little
in the way of facts or evidence about the case...

If I tried to kill my kids, I'd expect to be put away or, if successful,
give the death penalty posthaste.

That said, under present circumstances, I'm against the death penalty. Why?
Because it costs so damned much for appeals and takes too much time.
Cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell. *No TV either.


Cheaper to toss bad guys in a cell ? ROFL... You don't have a
clue...
It is NOT cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell, especially with LIFE
sentences in play... Someone who is 30 at the time of conviction can
live another 50+ years behind bars... It costs a lot to house those
people in humane conditions (properly controlled environmental
conditions,
no overcrowding), feed them three times a day, clothe them and provide
for their healthcare... Costs per inmate vary by facility but can be
upwards of $50,000 per inmate per year...

~~ Evan

?
"Evan" wrote
Anyone that tries to kill their child is mentally ill. Nothing to
debate.



Which is EXACTLY why you would NOT make a perfect juror, your
mind is already made up based on the barest understanding of the
concept and not even the faintest whiff of the evidence...

Let's see how it plays out. Lawyers will try all sorts of pleas, but any
mother that tries to kill her child is not normal. I don't see how that can
be debated.



So in your eyes, would a booking picture of someone with red
bloodshot eyes be the only thing you would need to see to find
someone guilty of DUI ?

No, but a field sobriety test and a follow up breathalyzer will do.



Sadly your blood lust and desire for revenge is misplaced...
Massachusetts has no death penalty... You would be wise
to push aside your preconceived notions and flawed schemas
of how people work emotionally -- if you were on the jury
hearing this case, and you really felt strongly about your
belief that anyone who tries to kill their child is mentally
ill, you would have to find the accused not guilty by reason
of mental illness or defect OR be dishonest and make
a the choice wanting to hear nothing beyond what you
had already decided the first day in court when you were
being empaneled as a juror...

I'd be honest. Mentally ill. See, that was quick and in these days of tough
times, very cost effective.



To find someone guilty of a crime in Massachusetts you
must believe that they knowingly committed the offense
they are accused of and that they were not influenced by
or had their mental faculties impeded by a mental illness...

Exactly


That said, under present circumstances, I'm against the death penalty.
Why?
Because it costs so damned much for appeals and takes too much time.
Cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell. No TV either.


Cheaper to toss bad guys in a cell ? ROFL... You don't have a
clue...
It is NOT cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell, especially with LIFE
sentences in play... Someone who is 30 at the time of conviction can
live another 50+ years behind bars... It costs a lot to house those
people in humane conditions (properly controlled environmental
conditions,
no overcrowding), feed them three times a day, clothe them and provide
for their healthcare... Costs per inmate vary by facility but can be
upwards of $50,000 per inmate per year...

Sorry, Evan, but that is the truth. In a recent conviction here in CT, the
lawyer is considering using the cost factor as a defense to toss out the
death penalty in his case. We spend millions to defend and appeal cases for
people on death row. Put them in a cell, toss them some food and move on.

Check out some arguments here
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view....rceID=002000#6
CON: "In the course of my work, I believe I have reviewed every state and
federal study of the costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years. One
element is common to all of these studies: They all concluded that the cost
of the death penalty amounts to a net expense to the state and the
taxpayers. Or to put it differently,the death penalty is clearly more
expensive than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment.
[It] combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and
complicated death penalty trials, followed by incarceration for life...
Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death
penalty case, only more so:
.. More pre-trial time...
.. More experts...
.. Twice as many attorneys...
.. Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for
punishment.
.. And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held
in the high security of death row."
Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD
Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center
Testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of
Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and
Related Issues"
Feb. 7, 2007

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Evan" wrote
Anyone that tries to kill their child is mentally ill. Nothing to
debate.



Which is EXACTLY why you would NOT make a perfect juror, your
mind is already made up based on the barest understanding of the
concept and not even the faintest whiff of the evidence...

Let's see how it plays out. Lawyers will try all sorts of pleas, but any
mother that tries to kill her child is not normal. I don't see how that can
be debated.
There is mental illness and then there is LEGAL mental illness. Two
VERY different animals. Legally mentally ill basically boils down to can
they form intent. While obviously a major looney turner, the AZ shooter
will most likely NOT be judged legally insane, since there was planning,
and intent behind it.


So in your eyes, would a booking picture of someone with red
bloodshot eyes be the only thing you would need to see to find
someone guilty of DUI ?

No, but a field sobriety test and a follow up breathalyzer will do.
Well, that and some indication he/she was actually in the car on the
driver's side (g).



belief that anyone who tries to kill their child is mentally
ill, you would have to find the accused not guilty by reason
of mental illness or defect OR be dishonest and make
a the choice wanting to hear nothing beyond what you
had already decided the first day in court when you were
being empaneled as a juror...

I'd be honest. Mentally ill. See, that was quick and in these days of tough
times, very cost effective.

But LEGALLY mentally ill? You may believe going in that a person is
clincally mentally ill, but wouldn't you still have to look at the
evidence for the legal definition?

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

?
"Kurt Ullman" wrote
There is mental illness and then there is LEGAL mental illness. Two
VERY different animals. Legally mentally ill basically boils down to can
they form intent. While obviously a major looney turner, the AZ shooter
will most likely NOT be judged legally insane, since there was planning,
and intent behind it.


So in your eyes, would a booking picture of someone with red
bloodshot eyes be the only thing you would need to see to find
someone guilty of DUI ?

No, but a field sobriety test and a follow up breathalyzer will do.
Well, that and some indication he/she was actually in the car on the
driver's side (g).



belief that anyone who tries to kill their child is mentally
ill, you would have to find the accused not guilty by reason
of mental illness or defect OR be dishonest and make
a the choice wanting to hear nothing beyond what you
had already decided the first day in court when you were
being empaneled as a juror...

I'd be honest. Mentally ill. See, that was quick and in these days of
tough
times, very cost effective.

But LEGALLY mentally ill? You may believe going in that a person is
clincally mentally ill, but wouldn't you still have to look at the
evidence for the legal definition?

That is a problem as they should be the same. Mentally ill people that do
horrific crimes should not be put back into society. The only difference is
where they spend their time.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

But LEGALLY mentally ill? You may believe going in that a person is
clincally mentally ill, but wouldn't you still have to look at the
evidence for the legal definition?

That is a problem as they should be the same. Mentally ill people that do
horrific crimes should not be put back into society. The only difference is
where they spend their time.

IF the crime is the result of the mental illness why not? Get them
treated, the mental illness goes away and so does the reason for the
incarceration. Purest form of rehab in this context.
Federally the standard is outlined in the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to
prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the
commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a
result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate
the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" (18 U.S.C. §
17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from
wrong" standard.
Also, the use of this defense is not all that frequent. According
to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of
all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those
cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously
diagnosed with mental illness.

Many states now have a 3rd option of guilty but mentally ill. They
serve a "normal" sentence in a mental institution until better and
then transferred to a regular prison.
The definitions aren't the same because the needs aren't the same.
The medical definition (s), are for purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
The legal definition for holding people responsible for their criminal
actions. There is a certain (very small area) where the two overlap.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 2011-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

horrific crimes should not be put back into society. The only difference is
where they spend their time.

With the economy the way it is, they're most likely spending it filching
half-eaten meals off un-bussed tables at McDonalds.

nb

?
"Kurt Ullman" wrote

That is a problem as they should be the same. Mentally ill people that
do
horrific crimes should not be put back into society. The only difference
is
where they spend their time.

IF the crime is the result of the mental illness why not? Get them
treated, the mental illness goes away and so does the reason for the
incarceration. Purest form of rehab in this context.

In the pure form, you are correct. There are, unfortunately, problems with
the practical application. We don't really have good capability to decide
when and if a person is cured, or even if a person was mentally ill when
committing a particular crime of it if was just used as an excuse to stay
out of jail. "Your honor, I was mentally ill when I robbed those ten banks,
but now I feel cured. Can I go home?"




Federally the standard is outlined in the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to
prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the
commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a
result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate
the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" (18 U.S.C. §
17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from
wrong" standard.



Also, the use of this defense is not all that frequent. According
to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of
all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those
cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously
diagnosed with mental illness.

I wonder if that success rate is due to the jurors being convinced (or not)
or the result of professional evaluation. Of the 90%, I'd guess that
erratic behavior or really serious deviation from the norm make it easier to
believe.



Many states now have a 3rd option of guilty but mentally ill. They
serve a "normal" sentence in a mental institution until better and
then transferred to a regular prison.
The definitions aren't the same because the needs aren't the same.
The medical definition (s), are for purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
The legal definition for holding people responsible for their criminal
actions. There is a certain (very small area) where the two overlap.

That can be a difficult area. Mental illness in our society is not
acceptable. We have the utmost sympathy for patients with physical
diseases, but we generally want to take anyone with any mental problem and
put them away out of site.

Getting back to the original premise of sprinklers saving lives, if a person
wants to kill another, or themselves, a sprinkler system is not going to
stop them. Anyone engaging in such an activity to kill their child has
mental problems and should be dealt with accordingly. It may be possible
that person can be returned to society to be a productive member with no
desire to kill anyone else.