Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ed Huntress says...
I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said? What does that have to do with running stop signs and lights? Um, there was an implicit stop sign that told Ted not to drive off the bridge? Oh well. Gunner's point, while not on topic for this discussion, is correct: if you are a politician, or a realative of a politician, you can pretty much take *all* those fancy road ornaments as optional. Same as if you are an off-duty cop. They're the only ones who drive worse than politicians. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
jim rozen wrote:
I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to themselves and others on the road, by driving above the speed limit. Jim There must be a lot of that sort of logic around Albuquerque. Every morning as I drive down Menaul (3 lanes each way) at about 40 mph (even in the 35 areas) staying with trafic, there is always a bunch of cars and trucks zipping by cutting in and out doing at least 10 mph faster and at the next trafic light there they are waiting for the light to change. :-) ...lew... |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Feb 2005 19:57:10 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... Good point. I think I should be able to run red lights. Hardly the same thing, and even you know that. OK, fine. You don't like *that* analogy, I'll propose another one. Imagine my surprise. I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to themselves and others on the road, by driving above the speed limit. You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological influence. Running a red light, (if by "running" you mean "ignore and go through without looking") is unsafe for anyone, equally. Talking on a cellphone is only unsafe for people who are unsafe drivers. *I'm* a safe, skilled driver so I should be allowed to ignore the sign and drive as fast as I want. After all, they should punish the poor drivers who cause crashes, and I don't cause crashes. Just driving fast shouldn't be illegal, driving poorly should. Because I'm highly skilled and mentally acute, the limit shouldn't apply to me. I dunno Dave. If you don't like that analogy, I could probably come up with a few more. You keep missing the basic difference between your examples and a cell phone, so I don't see that there's any point, do you? My point is that *all* the folks who disagree with, or flat out disregard, those kinds of laws use exactly the same rational that you do for cell phone use. Those are examples of the _BAD DRIVING_ that I'm saying should be the punishable offense, Jim. Aw, I'm not hurting anyone. Indeed. I'm not. You don't drive like a ****** when you use your phone in the car. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. But 90 percent of those that do, drive *exactly* that way. So punish the bad driving, Jim. It's very simple. First you say it's so hard to define, then you go and define it. Those are the things to give tickets to people for, not the guy who is doing none of that. As the classic third grade teacher line goes, "it's a real shame that the bad actions of a few rotten apples have to spoil the fun for the rest of you..." Yes, it's a very much a coward's approach. I used to work in an office where one guy got lots of personal calls during the day. Instead of the boss having the balls to go talk to him, telling him to knock it off, the boss decided _nobody_ could have personal calls. It's a perfect example of what you want to do with cellphones. Most folks in NY drive like ******s when they have their ears glued to a phone. In your opinion. Based on your biased observations. Because of that, you can't use a hand-held in that state. (another) good reason to avoid living there. I'm happy because at least when some soccer mom shoots across three lanes on the taconic parkway, Ah, so you mean, she's DRIVING POORLY. deeply immersed in whatever *vital* phone call she's doing, I can have the miniscule, faint, microscopic hope that maybe someday she'll get a ticket for it. If the cops don't pull her over for driving like an idiot, why would they pull her over for the phone, Jim? |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
In general I agree with you, Dave. What should be punished is bad
driving. And there are lots of laws to do that. But in this case I think that outlawing driving while talking on a cell phone is reasonable. My reasoning is that most drivers don't drive as well while using a cell phone. In fact I suspect that all drivers drive less well. Excellent drivers may still be good drivers, but still not as good as when they are not using a cell phone. But average drivens become sub-average. Now the problem is that all drivens think they are above average ( or if they are really poor, they think they are average ). So if you permit driving while talking on cell phones, close to all drivers will do it. Now while I consider myself as an above average driver, I really don't want to contend with a lot of average drivers driving while talking on a cell phone. Dan Dave Hinz wrote: Talking on a cellphone is only unsafe for people who are unsafe drivers. You keep missing the basic difference between your examples and a cell phone, so I don't see that there's any point, do you? Those are examples of the _BAD DRIVING_ that I'm saying should be the punishable offense, Jim. So punish the bad driving, Jim. It's very simple. First you say it's so hard to define, then you go and define it. Those are the things to give tickets to people for, not the guy who is doing none of that. If the cops don't pull her over for driving like an idiot, why would they pull her over for the phone, Jim? |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. -- Ed Huntress |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... I wonder what Mary Jo Kopechne said? What does that have to do with running stop signs and lights? Um, there was an implicit stop sign that told Ted not to drive off the bridge? Oh well. Gunner's point, while not on topic for this discussion, is correct: if you are a politician, or a realative of a politician, you can pretty much take *all* those fancy road ornaments as optional. Laura Bush (she wasn't "Bush" yet) was neither a politician nor, as far as I recall, the relative of a politician. She was just from a well-off family that threw a lot of weight at that time. -- Ed Huntress |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message ... But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Your colors are shining brightly, Ed. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than, oh, say, you. |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message ... But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Your colors are shining brightly, Ed. That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years, former delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former local Republican politician. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than, oh, say, you. Oh, yeah, they certainly do. They know it was a fix. Do you know what she did, Dave? -- Ed Huntress |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:14:02 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message ... But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Your colors are shining brightly, Ed. That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years, former delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former local Republican politician. And yet, you resort to the name-calling. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than, oh, say, you. Oh, yeah, they certainly do. They know it was a fix. Do you know what she did, Dave? Yes, I'm familiar with the accident in question. |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:14:02 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message ... But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Your colors are shining brightly, Ed. That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years, former delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former local Republican politician. And yet, you resort to the name-calling. Jesus. And this from the guy who, with no provocation, called my statements "insane." Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Perhaps the people involved in the case know more about it than, oh, say, you. Oh, yeah, they certainly do. They know it was a fix. Do you know what she did, Dave? Yes, I'm familiar with the accident in question. Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything. ?!? -- Ed Huntress |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Why are they both walking around loose? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:44:11 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:14:02 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message ... But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Your colors are shining brightly, Ed. That's right. Confirmed moderate, registered Republican for 23 years, former delegate to my county Republican convention, PR writer for a former local Republican politician. And yet, you resort to the name-calling. Jesus. And this from the guy who, with no provocation, called my statements "insane." Yeah, because "Gee, Ed, that's insane" or whatever, is _so_ much like "Laura the Highway Killer". Yes, I'm familiar with the accident in question. Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything. Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed. Or are you going to say that the Bush Family somehow interceded? |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
... Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything. Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed. Apparently not. Questioned about it by several news sources, neither the DA's office nor the police dept. could explain why the box for "charges" was left empty. Or are you going to say that the Bush Family somehow interceded? Bush didn't even know her until 13 years later. Her own family was well-connected in Midland all by itself. -- Ed Huntress |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Why are they both walking around loose? That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody. -- Ed Huntress |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:22:50 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything. Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed. Apparently not. Questioned about it by several news sources, neither the DA's office nor the police dept. could explain why the box for "charges" was left empty. Um, OK. I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this, if those most closely involved didn't press charges. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
... On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:22:50 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: "Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... Good. Then you know she ran a stop sign at 8:00 PM on a clear night and a dry road, killed a 17-year-old kid, but was never charged with anything. Apparently the DA knows more about it than you do, Ed. Apparently not. Questioned about it by several news sources, neither the DA's office nor the police dept. could explain why the box for "charges" was left empty. Um, OK. I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this, if those most closely involved didn't press charges. Family friends with the Welches, the father of the boy who was killed was in the car right behind him at the time. Some journalists have tried to dig deeper but everybody clams up. There is a swarm of speculation surrounding the case but it looks like something the families handled between themselves. Elder editors from local news sources said that's the way a lot of things were done in Midland at the time. It was all a matter of connections, and the well-connected stayed out of jail and mostly out of the news. -- Ed Huntress |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to themselves and others on the road, by driving above the speed limit. You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological influence. Running a red light, (if by "running" you mean "ignore and go through without looking") is unsafe for anyone, equally. No. I *always* look both ways before going through a red light. That makes me a super-safe driver, so I should be allowed to do that. Only the poor drivers don't look both ways, and crash when they go through red lights. We should make stopping at red lights optional, but only punish the bad drivers who crash when doing so. Don't ticket the act of passing through a red light, only ticket actual poor driving as demonstrated by crashing. This is exactly the same as your view of cell phone use as far as I can determine. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Feb 2005 12:27:42 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... I think I should be allowed to disregard the posted speed limits. It's only unskilled drivers who pose a danger to themselves and others on the road, by driving above the speed limit. You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological influence. Running a red light, (if by "running" you mean "ignore and go through without looking") is unsafe for anyone, equally. No. I *always* look both ways before going through a red light. That makes me a super-safe driver, so I should be allowed to do that. That's not "running a red light" in any defintion I can think of, but whatever. Only the poor drivers don't look both ways, and crash when they go through red lights. Anyone not stopping and looking both ways at a red light is subjecting themselves and others to the same risk - who it is doesn't matter, it's what they do. That's an example of an unsafe act, which is already illegal. We should make stopping at red lights optional, but only punish the bad drivers who crash when doing so. You're, once again, equating an inherently unsafe act with talking on the cellphone, which sometimes coincides with people doing inherently unsafe acts. Don't ticket the act of passing through a red light, only ticket actual poor driving as demonstrated by crashing. This is exactly the same as your view of cell phone use as far as I can determine. What is this, national "Mis-state Dave's point" day? |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
Anyone not stopping and looking both ways at a red light is subjecting themselves and others to the same risk - who it is doesn't matter, it's what they do. That's an example of an unsafe act, which is already illegal. It is *not* legal to stop, look both ways, and then proceed on through, even if there is no cross traffic. It's illegal if you sail on through without looking, it's also illegal if you stop, look both ways to be sure it's clear, and then go on through. This is an example of a 'bright line rule' that police can use to issue tickets to offenders. There is no need for the cop to watch and see if the driver is passing the intersection safely or not. The light's red, the car went through, he gets a ticket. End of story. GOING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WITH A RED LIGHT OVER IT IS NOT AN INHERENTLY UNSAFE ACT. It's the societal convention which says folks go on green and stop on red, punishable by law, that implies one is a raving mad dog lunatic if one does not stop at red lights. Society has decided that passing through red light intersections often coincides with inherently unsafe acts, namely two cars crashing into each other. But they decided to make it easy for all citizens to understand, they decided to take the option of individual evaluation of each separate intersection by each individual driver. You're, once again, equating an inherently unsafe act with talking on the cellphone, which sometimes coincides with people doing inherently unsafe acts. The state in this case has done the same thing with hand-held cell phones. The statistical probability of performing an unsafe act is so high that they've made using them illegal. Not an individual choice. Because using them is sufficiently distracting that on average it is a 'bad idea.' In the same way that a driver deciding on his own, if a red light means 'stop' or not, is a bad idea. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... You are continuing to miss the point. You keep coming up with examples that are unsafe for anyone, equally. Alcohol can't NOT make you a worse driver. It's a biological influence. Sure? What if you are a very nervous, highly strung, tense driver (stone-cold sober) who typically over-reacts to normal stimuli (horns, backfires etc)? One or two drinks (depressants) could calm you down sufficiently to control this nervous over-reaction. Bring you back down to the community norm. No more than one or two, mind. Result: Improved driving. Talking on a cellphone is only unsafe for people who are unsafe drivers. Maybe. But: Talking on a cellphone requires the driver's attention. Maybe only a small fraction of that attention, but it does take some of the sum total of the driver's cognitive skills away from the road. Especially when answering a call (picking up), dialling (deity forbid) or hanging up. You can't NOT be distracted by using a cellphone. Ok Ok You and I have done it without incident hundreds of times. But the next time? There ain't no absolutes when dealing with human critters. Infinite shades of grey. -- Jeff R. (light grey, tending to mid-light grey) |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:36:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:39:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . But then..you do so love Emperor King Teddy the First dontcha? I never could stomach that manatee-in-a-suit. On the other hand, you seem awfully quick to defend Laura the Highway Killer. Why the hell is she walking around loose, anyway? She should still be in prison. Why are they both walking around loose? That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody. If it works for the Kennedys and the Kerrys, its good enough for everyone else. Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody. Apples and oranges. Leaving the scene and not reporting the accident until the next day would leave you or me in a bigger pickle than running a stop sign and killing someone. Assuming she wasn't intoxicated and there was a cover up about that. Pretty safe assumption old Ted was liquored up. But even if he wasn't, he would face all the charges Laura should have faced plus a bunch more. It's pretty rare that someone will recieve a long jail term for running a stop sign in a fatal accident. It's a given in a failure to report / leaving the scene fatality scenario. Dan Let’s swim to the moon Let’s climb through the tide You reach your hand to hold me But I can’t be your guide Easy, I to love you As I watch you glide Falling through wet forests On our moonlight drive Moonlight drive Moonlight drive Come on, baby, gonna take a little ride Goin’ down by the ocean side Get real close Get real tight Baby gonna drown tonight Goin’ down, down, down, down - Jim Morrison Teddy, I think I'm pregnant. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it Mary Jo. - Anon. |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody. Apples and oranges. Leaving the scene and not reporting the accident until the next day would leave you or me in a bigger pickle than running a stop sign and killing someone. Assuming she wasn't intoxicated and there was a cover up about that. Pretty safe assumption old Ted was liquored up. But even if he wasn't, he would face all the charges Laura should have faced plus a bunch more. It's pretty rare that someone will recieve a long jail term for running a stop sign in a fatal accident. And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill someone, and not even get a traffic ticket? Do you have facts on this? -- Ed Huntress |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... If it works for the Kennedys and the Kerrys, its good enough for everyone else. Or the Welches. -- Ed Huntress |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: "Dan Murphy" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : That's a good question. I guess they're both good examples that having the right connections can keep you out of jail even if you kill somebody. Apples and oranges. Leaving the scene and not reporting the accident until the next day would leave you or me in a bigger pickle than running a stop sign and killing someone. Assuming she wasn't intoxicated and there was a cover up about that. Pretty safe assumption old Ted was liquored up. But even if he wasn't, he would face all the charges Laura should have faced plus a bunch more. It's pretty rare that someone will recieve a long jail term for running a stop sign in a fatal accident. And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill someone, and not even get a traffic ticket? Not very. You missed the point. Do you have facts on this? Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense. Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation, unless you're drunk or racing. Dan -- Ed Huntress |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : "Dan Murphy" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill someone, and not even get a traffic ticket? Not very. You missed the point. No, Dan, I think you did. My question was my point. The issue here is that she ran a stop sign and killed a 17-year-old boy, and wound up with no charges at all. I've never heard of such a thing. That's what I was asking about. Do you have facts on this? Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense. Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation, unless you're drunk or racing. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how likely it is that you or I, for example, could run a stop sign, kill someone, and not even get a ticket. The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors. But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did not. That's the point. -- Ed Huntress |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : "Dan Murphy" wrote in message . 4... "Ed Huntress" wrote in : And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill someone, and not even get a traffic ticket? Not very. You missed the point. No, Dan, I think you did. My question was my point. The issue here is that she ran a stop sign and killed a 17-year-old boy, and wound up with no charges at all. I've never heard of such a thing. That's what I was asking about. Do you have facts on this? Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense. Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation, unless you're drunk or racing. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how likely it is that you or I, for example, could run a stop sign, kill someone, and not even get a ticket. The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors. But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did not. That's the point. -- Ed Huntress Manslaughter, not homicide. Homicide requires (implies) intent. Including prior Disregard, such as intoxication Or knowledge of unsafe(?} equipment. I think... |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: "Dan Murphy" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : "Dan Murphy" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : And how common is it that someone will run a stop sign and kill someone, and not even get a traffic ticket? Not very. You missed the point. No, Dan, I think you did. My question was my point. The issue here is that she ran a stop sign and killed a 17-year-old boy, and wound up with no charges at all. I've never heard of such a thing. That's what I was asking about. Do you have facts on this? Read the paper. Google "sentenced fatal car crash". Use common sense. Leaving the scene and failing to report an accident involving a fatality usually results in a long sentence. A fatal accident, even one involving reckless driving usually results in a suspended sentence and probation, unless you're drunk or racing. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning how likely it is that you or I, for example, could run a stop sign, kill someone, and not even get a ticket. The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors. But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did not. That's the point. Sorry, but I thought that it was a given that we would be strung up by our thumbs, while they walk away. I happen to think Teddy's exploits are far more serious than Laura's based on what's known. Equating the two is apples and oranges in my book. I've seen cases like hers where charges were dropped, not filed, or the defendant was granted some sort of "first offense" status where the conviction is removed from their record after a probationary period. That's not going to happen in a case where you flee the scene of a fatality and don't report it. Dan |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors. But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did not. That's the point. Sorry, but I thought that it was a given that we would be strung up by our thumbs, while they walk away. I happen to think Teddy's exploits are far more serious than Laura's based on what's known. Equating the two is apples and oranges in my book. I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a political affront. g Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about conservatives, I was making a comment about how well-connected people are treated under the law. She was handy because nearly everyone has heard of this case. The thread got twisted, as usual. g I've seen cases like hers where charges were dropped, not filed, or the defendant was granted some sort of "first offense" status where the conviction is removed from their record after a probationary period. That's not going to happen in a case where you flee the scene of a fatality and don't report it. Well, I haven't seen such cases. I can't imagine that someone in any normal circumstances could violate a traffic law, kill another driver as a result, and not be charged with anything at all. She didn't even get a ticket for running a stop sign, fer chrissake. -- Ed Huntress |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
: "Dan Murphy" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in : The point is, it appears she got very, very special treatment. She should have a felony record for vehicular homicide -- or she might have had such a record as a minor, which could, feasibly, now be expunged. I don't know how Texas law treats minors. But she never even got that. You would and I would. But Laura Welch Bush did not. That's the point. Sorry, but I thought that it was a given that we would be strung up by our thumbs, while they walk away. I happen to think Teddy's exploits are far more serious than Laura's based on what's known. Equating the two is apples and oranges in my book. I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a political affront. g Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about conservatives, I was making a comment about how well-connected people are treated under the law. She was handy because nearly everyone has heard of this case. The thread got twisted, as usual. g Well it's prolly my fault too. I've been marking this thread read for the most part. Teddy's name caught my eye. I've seen cases like hers where charges were dropped, not filed, or the defendant was granted some sort of "first offense" status where the conviction is removed from their record after a probationary period. That's not going to happen in a case where you flee the scene of a fatality and don't report it. Well, I haven't seen such cases. I can't imagine that someone in any normal circumstances could violate a traffic law, kill another driver as a result, and not be charged with anything at all. She didn't even get a ticket for running a stop sign, fer chrissake. There was a case out here recently, where no charges were filed. I can't remember the particulars, but it was a high school kid that ran a light or something. I tried to Google "no charges filed fatal car crash" and got a bunch of hits, but not the case I'm thinking of. As far as Laura Bush's case it's not clear that no charges were filed. IIRC, the files remain sealed due to the fact that all involved were minors. The accident report which is available doesn't list ant charges or tickets. But that in itself is not unusual when all involved are injured. Wasn't the kid that was killed driving a Corvair convertable and not wearing a seatbelt? Not that he deserved to be T-boned by a ditzy 17 year old girl, but that could also enter into the decision on whether or not to file criminal charges. Also 1963 in rural Texas puts the story in a whole different context than looking at it through "todays" eyes. Dan |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ed Huntress says...
I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a political affront. g Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about conservatives, ... You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have their "mandate." Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a political affront. g Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about conservatives, ... You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have their "mandate." It's making me jumpy, too. d8-) Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones? The question I always have about those guys is whether being a turd makes them want to get into politics, or whether being a politician makes them into a turd. I can't decide. -- Ed Huntress |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. . There was a case out here recently, where no charges were filed. I can't remember the particulars, but it was a high school kid that ran a light or something. I tried to Google "no charges filed fatal car crash" and got a bunch of hits, but not the case I'm thinking of. As far as Laura Bush's case it's not clear that no charges were filed. IIRC, the files remain sealed due to the fact that all involved were minors. Well, both the police dept. and the D.A.'s office have said in interviews, since the accident report was released a few years ago, that no charges were filed. I assume they were quoted correctly but I couldn't swear to it. The accident report which is available doesn't list ant charges or tickets. But that in itself is not unusual when all involved are injured. Wasn't the kid that was killed driving a Corvair convertable and not wearing a seatbelt? It was a '62 Corvair. Whether it was a convertible, or whether he was wearing a seatbelt, I don't know. I haven't read the stories for a long time. I remember the '62 Corvair because I had a '63. Not that he deserved to be T-boned by a ditzy 17 year old girl, but that could also enter into the decision on whether or not to file criminal charges. Also 1963 in rural Texas puts the story in a whole different context than looking at it through "todays" eyes. Local newsmen, some old-timers, have made a big point of that. -- Ed Huntress |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Feb 2005 09:32:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Ed Huntress says... I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a political affront. g Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about conservatives, ... You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have their "mandate." Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones? Jim then there is Carl Rowan.... Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Feb 2005 14:12:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... Anyone not stopping and looking both ways at a red light is subjecting themselves and others to the same risk - who it is doesn't matter, it's what they do. That's an example of an unsafe act, which is already illegal. It is *not* legal to stop, look both ways, and then proceed on through, even if there is no cross traffic. In some cases, Jim, it is. I have done it on many occassions. Before you hyperventilate, these times have been in an emergency vehicle. It's illegal if you sail on through without looking, it's also illegal if you stop, look both ways to be sure it's clear, and then go on through. Unless you are operating an emergency vehicle, yes. This is an example of a 'bright line rule' that police can use to issue tickets to offenders. There is no need for the cop to watch and see if the driver is passing the intersection safely or not. The light's red, the car went through, he gets a ticket. End of story. So then why don't you agree about the other inherently unsafe acts? They're equally observe-able. GOING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WITH A RED LIGHT OVER IT IS NOT AN INHERENTLY UNSAFE ACT. Agreed. It's the societal convention which says folks go on green and stop on red, punishable by law, that implies one is a raving mad dog lunatic if one does not stop at red lights. I think this point was made about 4 posts ago. You're, once again, equating an inherently unsafe act with talking on the cellphone, which sometimes coincides with people doing inherently unsafe acts. The state in this case has done the same thing with hand-held cell phones. The statistical probability of performing an unsafe act is so high that they've made using them illegal. Not an individual choice. Because using them is sufficiently distracting that on average it is a 'bad idea.' Yes, well, the state of California has also found that certain solvents cause cancer. Does that mean they do? Of course not, it just means that if you want to buy Polyurethane in California, you get to read the label that tells you it's dangerous. Odd that it doesn't cause cancer in other states. It doesn't mean it's true, it just means that some special interest group convinced a group of people who don't understand math, logic, and technology (that would be, a state legislature) that they're right. Doesn't reflect fact, just reflects that their story was better than the one based on facts and logic. In the same way that a driver deciding on his own, if a red light means 'stop' or not, is a bad idea. Apples and oranges. Again, running a red light is bad for anyone, equally. Bad drivers with cellphones are bad drivers. |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:53:45 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On 20 Feb 2005 09:32:46 -0800, jim rozen wrote: In article , Ed Huntress says... I don't disagree. I wasn't comparing the two. I made a comment about the penalties for running traffic lights or stop signs, in a message to Jim, and Gunner brought up Ted Kennedy because he sees almost everything as a political affront. g Laura Bush wasn't Laura Bush then. She was Laura Welch. She didn't even meet George Bush until 13 years later. I wasn't making a comment about conservatives, ... You need to be more politically sensitive Ed. Anything that might even be possibly, remotely, indirectly construed as a disrespectful comment about republicans has to be muzzled now that they have their "mandate." Is the fact that Rep Janklow got away nearly scott-free after killing another motorist a directly result of his being one of the mandated republicans? Or is he just another political turd who thinks he can drive as fast as he wants, ignoring any and all traffic laws, because he's one of the chosen ones? Jim then there is Carl Rowan.... Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park bench. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hinz says...
then there is Carl Rowan.... Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park bench. You sir have just dated yourself rather severely. You would not have known about that unless you were... Rats. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... then there is Carl Rowan.... Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park bench. You sir have just dated yourself rather severely. Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess you know what I'm here after..." You would not have known about that unless you were... Er, Old? Rats. Yup. Dave Hinz |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking : On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote: In article , Dave Hinz says... then there is Carl Rowan.... Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park bench. You sir have just dated yourself rather severely. Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess you know what I'm here after..." You would not have known about that unless you were... Er, Old? Yes, old. Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments. It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav, but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'" Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn". tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich. as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with." |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:19:04 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking : On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote: In article , Dave Hinz says... You sir have just dated yourself rather severely. Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess you know what I'm here after..." You would not have known about that unless you were... Er, Old? Yes, old. Ouch. That's harsh, you know that? Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments. Does it help to mention I first watched 'em as reruns? That's not entirely true, I remember as a young kid watching them with my folks and not laughing at the same times or (apparently) for the same reasons as my parents were laughing. It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav, but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'" Right, he was the announcer guy, right? Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn". Ah, the fourth member of the trio. Is that like the Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy (all 5 books)? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
««««««NEW AND UNLOCKED CELL PHONES FOR ONLY US$40»»»»»»» | Electronics | |||
Are there any REALLY good cordless phones out there? | Electronics Repair | |||
Headsets for cordless phones | Electronics Repair | |||
Cell Phone Jammer | Electronics Repair | |||
Chasing computer wiring (Cat-5) into plaster over brick wall | UK diy |