T-bone, video, etc

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by .p.jm on February 19, 2008, 1:18 am
 
please rate
this thread

http://www.local6.com/news/15335634/detail.html

TITUSVILLE, Fla. -- Police in Titusville, Fla., are searching for a
hit-and-run driver who T-boned a motorcycle rider, launching the
driver 30 feet into the air and nearly killing him.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

Posted by David T. Ashley on February 19, 2008, 2:15 am
 
The video was awful.

My only reaction is that some of the statements against the driver of the
vehicle aren't rational.

Yes, he struck a motorcycle and yes, it could have been somebody's family.
But given the fact that masive quantities of drugs were apparently in the
car, fleeing was understandable.  It is unrealistic to expect someone
running drugs to stop for the police.  Not that that is right (because it
isn't), but that is the human reality.

I don't think that he wanted to hurt anybody.  He just wanted not to go to
jail.

Also, the driver fleeing the scene doesn't imply a lack of concern for the
motorcycle rider.  Since there was a police officer that witnessed it, the
rider was going to get prompt attention.  There is nothing additional
helpful the car driver could have done by stopping.

Lack of concern would be when you hit a rider in the middle of the night in
a remote area and don't help.

Realistically, if they want to stop this kind of thing from happening, the
only way to do it is to change the payoff matrix for the criminal so that he
doesn't have incentive to flee.  Since at the time a traffic stop starts it
is hard to get away, the right approach would be to have a policy that if
you voluntarily stop while running drugs, the drugs get confiscated but
there will be no criminal charges (that is even better than the average
outcome if one fails to stop).

Naturally, this is felonious behavior by the driver, but the accident was
caused by a larger set of circumstances.

Expecting someone running drugs to stop for the police is very unrealistic.


Posted by laughing man on February 19, 2008, 9:51 pm
 SNIP

To your previous statements...

You are acting like some moron cager..you know an IDIOT.


Excuses, excuses...


Maybe but one can hope.

For morons like you I've no hope and little pity.
--
Keith S

Posted by David White on February 19, 2008, 11:34 pm
 

It does not matter if he wanted to hurt somebody, or not.
He showed zero concern or caring by his actions of running. The only thing
he cared about was not going to jail.


It most certainly implies a total lack of concern on his part. It does not
matter who else is at the scene of the wreck. By running, he show a total
lack of concern. or remorse.

  Since there was a police officer that witnessed it, the

That statement has now taken the #1 slot on my list of the most moronic and
stupid things I have read on this newsgroup.

The accident was caused by someone committing multipule felonies and for no
other reason.


Posted by David T. Ashley on February 19, 2008, 11:52 pm
 
Could you make a better suggestion that would have prevented this particular
situation?

The individual involved is going to do what gives him the best average
payoff.  If somebody is doing something _seriously_ wrong, they are going to
flee because if they get voluntarily stopped they have a 95% chance of going
to prison for 20 years for trafficing, but if they flee they might have a
10% chance of staying out of jail for another day.

It seems to me that the only ways to prevent this would have been to:

a)Already have the individual in custody (i.e. maybe he should have been in
jail already).

b)Have some technology to immediately immobilize cars.

c)Change the payoff so that the criminal has more to lose by fleeing than by
surrendering.

(c) seems to be the only one that is practical at this time.

How else would you have prevented the tragedy shown on the video?


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap