11 time DUI kills 2 teens - gets 38 years in prison

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:52:02 -0700, "Billzz"
> wrote:

>Almost always, in these cases, there is an implication that the police
>suspected drunk driving, and probably turned on the lights or siren, which
>panicked the man (he *was* drunk - and he knew that he had a prior history.)
>So what is the most dangerous course of action? Chase him, so he speeds and
>crashes. This same scene is repeated where I live almost every weekend.
>Why don't they *not* turn on the lights and siren but quietly get a cordon
>of cars around him. Then everybody just stops. It's the old "flee" or

Cause most cops are stupid, brain dead jocks who miss their glory days
of hitting smaller players on the football field?

"Jim Yanik" > wrote
> "Floyd Rogers" > wrote

> OK,now explain how they get the strip in front of a car they suspect may
> flee during an attempted traffic stop.

How do they get spike strips down in front of fleeing cars? They
seem to be able to do that. Don't be such an ass.

FloydR

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Billzz" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Billzz" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Old Wolf" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> Billzz wrote:
>>>>>> Almost always, in these cases, there is an implication that the
>>>>>> police suspected drunk driving, and probably turned on the lights
>>>>>> or siren, which
>>>>>> panicked the man (he *was* drunk - and he knew that he had a prior
>>>>>> history.)
>>>>>> So what is the most dangerous course of action? Chase him, so he
>>>>>> speeds and
>>>>>> crashes. This same scene is repeated where I live almost every
>>>>>> weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh god, not this politically correct crap again. Where is the
>>>>> personal responsibility? This driver CHOSE to flee police, and
>>>>> what's more, he knew full well that it was an illegal, immoral,
>>>>> and dangerous choice to make.
>>>>>
>>>>> People like you are continually trying to shift the blame from the
>>>>> offenders to the victims or anybody else who happens to be
>>>>> nearby, and I'm frankly quite sick of it.
>>>>
>>>> Politics has nothing to do with it. He *WAS* drunk and did what
>>>> drunks do. He *CHOSE* nothing - just *reacted* blindly. The police
>>>> protocol does not help the situation. If they had a protocol of
>>>> disabling, instead of inciting, a chase, more innocent people would
>>>> be alive. Incidentally, I'm a retired army colonel and not given to
>>>> politically correct statements. You can take your gun out and shoot
>>>> him, as far as I am concerned. It's the innocent people, killed in
>>>> the chase, that we are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>>> The police immediately go into the "fight" mode, and the perp
>>>>>> immediately goes into the "flee" mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, is the driver a simulacrum?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am all for electronic jamming that would disable a fleeing car.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think this could be done without causing the fleeing car to
>>>>> leave the road and get into a mangled wreck?
>>>>
>>>> Electronic jamming (although I do not know if this is developed for
>>>> police work) affects the vehicle's computer, and causes the engine
>>>> to stop running. There is no reason for the car to run off the road.
>>>> Of course, since it is a drunk driver we are talking about, he's
>>>> liable to run it off the road, anyway. The idea is to disable the
>>>> vehicle *before* he flees. No lights, no siren, just push the
>>>> button.
>>>
>>> Does any such device exist? I've never heard of any.
>>> (that didn't require "Big-Brother" add-on mods to *everyone's*
>>> vehicles)
>>>
>>> I have heard of a device tested in some Scandinavian country(and
>>> discarded)that sent a small device under a fleeing vehicle and used
>>> high voltage arcs to the chassis to disrupt the car's
>>> electronics,killing the motor.
>>> Considering that auto electronics is shielded from the extremely
>>> noisy automotive environment,I doubt any "jammer" would work,without
>>> also disrupting or destroying other electronic devices in a wide
>>> radius around the "jammer",causing all sorts of chaos and recoverable
>>> monetary damages to
>>> people's property.(think major lawsuits)
>>>
>>> (and it still would not affect older,non-electronic autos still on
>>> the roads!)
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO,you have a DREAM.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Yanik
>>> jyanik
>>> at
>>> kua.net
>>
>> Well, I agree with you that it would not affect older cars, but that
>> is a geriatric problem. Drunk drivers are probably not going to be
>> driving my old 57 XK-140 Jaguar, or a Reo, and the problem would seem
>> to dissipate over time.
>>
>> Anyway, in my second career, I became a technical staff member at
>> Rockwell, was a visiting researcher at their science center, worked on
>> the KE-ASAT and mobile MX, all cancelled when we "won" the cold war,
>> then became the programs manager for network programs, and then
>> Rockwell sold its defense business to Boeing. End of my brilliant
>> career.
>>
>> Anyway (again) you can see why I cannot provide a cite, but the field
>> of non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse radiation is appropriate.
>
> Not really,as any EMP pulse would destroy or damage most other
> electronics(surely less well shielded from electrical noise than
> automotive
> electronics) in the vicinity of the intended target.People would be suing
> for losses and damages.Then,just generating the EMP would be comparable to
> setting off a grenade. I'm sure that would go over well in residential
> neighborhoods.(not!)
>
> Again,you're just dreaming;Wishful thinking.
>
>>
>> That was just a post script as to the main point of my contribution,
>> which was, why, oh why, do police see a potential drunk driver, then
>> immediately screetch up behind him (it's always a *him* isn't it?)
>
> No,women have done it too.
> In fact,I know a young lady who was recently cited for "attempting to
> elude".(drunk and driving naked!!)
>
>> and
>> hit the lights and the siren, and so - since the perp is DRUNK - which
>> they already know
>
> No,they may -suspect-,but not -know-. It could also be a medical problem.
> Also,not all fleeing vehicles are DUIs,some are stolen cars,drug
> possession
> cases,wanted felons,......etc.
>
>
>
>> - he panics and hits the gas and gets into a chase
>> and crashes - they always crash -
>
> Again,not always.
>
>> and in this case kill innocent
>> people.
>>
>> So why cannot the police protocol be one that does NOT incite a chase?
>> How about just silently following the perp until he parks, then
>> arrest him? How about getting another car to get in front then slowly
>> block him in?
>
> why don't you become a police officer and show them how it's done?
> Some of your suggestions get used;it depends on the individual situation.
>>
>> How about *anything* that does not incite a chase that will, almost
>> always, result in death.
>>
>
> "almost always";no. injury and property damage,yes.
>
> for some "technical staff member" you make a lot of unfounded assumptions.

Oh, I missed this. I *was* a technical staff member (operations
research/systems analysis) and a visiting researcher at the Rockwell Science
Center and I never made any unfounded assumptions. But then I became
projects manager for network programs and us projects managers *always* make
unfounded assumptions. Then we make the technical staff members make them
true. Insert smiley here.

I've worked with many police departments. You know the communications in
the average patrol car costs more than the car? Anyway, I know that the
patrolman does not get to set the policy or protocol, so my comments are not
aimed at the people, just the policy. Anyway, we have probably beat this
subject to death, so I am going to leave it, and wish you and yours, a
pleasant good night.

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote
>> "Floyd Rogers" > wrote
>
>> OK,now explain how they get the strip in front of a car they suspect may
>> flee during an attempted traffic stop.
>
> How do they get spike strips down in front of fleeing cars? They
> seem to be able to do that. Don't be such an ass.

You either didn't READ the sentence,or comprehend it; I said "suspect MAY
FLEE". Retract your "ass" comment.

>
> FloydR
>
>
>

The original situation was to keep the car from fleeing BEFORE they flee.
That's what the other dreamer wanted to do;use some EMP-bomb to kill the
car's electronics so they could -not flee-,once the patrol car decided to
stop them.


Besides,it takes some time,a LOT of squad cars,and a lengthy car chase
before police can get -any- spikestrip or other device into position to
stop a fleeing car.

Often,the tragic,costly crash happens before that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" > wrote
> The original situation was to keep the car from fleeing BEFORE they flee.
> That's what the other dreamer wanted to do;use some EMP-bomb to kill the
> car's electronics so they could -not flee-,once the patrol car decided to
> stop them.

"Billzz"'s statements are so fractured and un-structured I can't tell what
he's saying. Certainly many of his posts refer to "fleeing car".

FloydR

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote
>> The original situation was to keep the car from fleeing BEFORE they
>> flee. That's what the other dreamer wanted to do;use some EMP-bomb to
>> kill the car's electronics so they could -not flee-,once the patrol
>> car decided to stop them.
>
> "Billzz"'s statements are so fractured and un-structured I can't tell
> what he's saying. Certainly many of his posts refer to "fleeing car".
>
> FloydR
>
>

That's reasonable.

BTW,several police officers have been harmed when fleeing suspects avoided
the conventional spikesticks.They could do the same with a short-ranged EMP
device activated by driving over it.Also,Boxing-in the available route may
place their own patrol cars in the same jeopardy of electronic destruction.
(police often use their squad cars as barriers to direct the flee-er to
drive where they've placed a spikestick.)

I'd rather they just used a RPG. ;-)
Or a Gatling on a helicopter,like "Blue Thunder". B-)

That would drastically reduce the number of attempts to elude,after a few
examples.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net