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

On 12 Sep 2006 14:31:08 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:

>> 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.

Diabetics also look like drunks in many cases.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:54:33 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:

>The best solution is to lock up DUIs forever. Maybe not after one
>offense but after 3 makes sense. Stop coddling these killers.

Are you locked up forever, or just until you're safe to be in society
again?
I asked this before, but you didn't answer. Won't they tell you?
It's Tuesday! House is on tonight. Do they let you watch medical
dramas, or do they feel they might make you worse, considering the
fact that you're in a mental health facility?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Jim Yanik" > wrote
> "Billzz" > wrote >>> kua.net
>> 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.

Jim, it's actually a reality - some more development to be done.
They're talking about a device that would be deployable like a
spike strip that would be tripped when the perp drove over it.
Range would be only 10-20 feet, so only the bad guy's car would
be affected. The military is talking about "directed energy" weapons
that would be housed in a missile that would take out wider areas,
about 100 yards (meters) in diameter.

FloydR

"Bill Funk" > wrote
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:39:58 -0700, "Billzz" wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Can't be confined to just one vehicle - there's no way to target the
> one car that's to be stopped.

Wrong, see my other post.
Floyd

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:52:02 -0700, "Billzz"
> > wrote:
>
> >"My Land of Misery" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>
> >> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >>> This psycho should have been locked up long ago. Interesting that his
> >>> GF got 6 months for lending him the car.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.tribune-chronicle.com/New...articleID=8461
> >>>
> >> (big snip...)
> >>
> >> GF got coddled...accomplice to murder. Should have gotten 2-5 years.
> >
> >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
> >"fight" mode. The police immediately go into the "fight" mode, and the perp
> >immediately goes into the "flee" mode. The best course of action is to get
> >the perp off the road without a chase - which seems to always end in a
> >crash, killing the innocent and maybe the perp. I am all for electronic
> >jamming that would disable a fleeing car. It would save many thousands of
> >innocent victims.
> >
>
> The best solution is to lock up DUIs forever. Maybe not after one
> offense but after 3 makes sense. Stop coddling these killers.

Now I get it -- you're a CCA stockholder. Or are you an employee?

http://www.correctionscorp.com/

It's incredible, it's almost like that stock never goes down.

Can you give me a contact name in UNICOR? That's how you guys pay for
all this construction, right?

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
:

> "Bill Funk" > wrote
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:39:58 -0700, "Billzz" wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Can't be confined to just one vehicle - there's no way to target the
>> one car that's to be stopped.
>
> Wrong, see my other post.
> Floyd
>
>
>

How do you get the "destructo strip" in front of their car before you know
they're going to flee? Especially if it's a patrol car tailing the suspect
vehicle driving erratically.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote
>> "Billzz" > wrote >>> kua.net
>>> 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.
>
> Jim, it's actually a reality - some more development to be done.
> They're talking about a device that would be deployable like a
> spike strip that would be tripped when the perp drove over it.
> Range would be only 10-20 feet, so only the bad guy's car would
> be affected. The military is talking about "directed energy" weapons
> that would be housed in a missile that would take out wider areas,
> about 100 yards (meters) in diameter.
>
> FloydR
>
>

"actually a reality",then you say "they're TALKING ABOUT" a device that
"WOULD BE" deployable,"would be housed",yada,yada,yada.
You have not convinced me that any such device EXISTS now.


IOW;
VAPORWARE. Just dreaming.

(BTW,the MILITARY using an EMP device in a MISSILE is FAR different than
use of one in an urban civilian environment.The military is not so
concerned with collateral damage or detonating explosives.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:03:48 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
> wrote:

>"Bill Funk" > wrote
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:39:58 -0700, "Billzz" wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Can't be confined to just one vehicle - there's no way to target the
>> one car that's to be stopped.
>
>Wrong, see my other post.
>Floyd
>
If you mean the one like a spike strip, there's still the other
problem of losing control, and the lawesuits that would follow.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Jim Yanik" > wrote
> "Floyd Rogers" > wrote
>> Jim, it's actually a reality - some more development to be done.
>> They're talking about a device that would be deployable like a
>> spike strip that would be tripped when the perp drove over it.
>> Range would be only 10-20 feet, so only the bad guy's car would
>> be affected. The military is talking about "directed energy" weapons
>> that would be housed in a missile that would take out wider areas,
>> about 100 yards (meters) in diameter.
>
> "actually a reality",then you say "they're TALKING ABOUT" a device that
> "WOULD BE" deployable,"would be housed",yada,yada,yada.
> You have not convinced me that any such device EXISTS now.

Actually, I saw a demo on TV of an experimental one; can't remember
the channel/program (NGC, Discovery?) I agree that it doesn't exist
in police inventories NOW, but I'm guessing 5 years.

FloydR

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote
>> "Floyd Rogers" > wrote
>>> Jim, it's actually a reality - some more development to be done.
>>> They're talking about a device that would be deployable like a
>>> spike strip that would be tripped when the perp drove over it.
>>> Range would be only 10-20 feet, so only the bad guy's car would
>>> be affected. The military is talking about "directed energy" weapons
>>> that would be housed in a missile that would take out wider areas,
>>> about 100 yards (meters) in diameter.
>>
>> "actually a reality",then you say "they're TALKING ABOUT" a device that
>> "WOULD BE" deployable,"would be housed",yada,yada,yada.
>> You have not convinced me that any such device EXISTS now.
>
> Actually, I saw a demo on TV of an experimental one; can't remember
> the channel/program (NGC, Discovery?) I agree that it doesn't exist
> in police inventories NOW, but I'm guessing 5 years.
>
> FloydR
>
>
>

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



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net