Driving automobiles

Re: Was pursuit suspect at root of Phoenix Helicopter Collision an ILLEGAL ALIEN?

On Jul 27, 7:41 pm, MURS radios <horsesh…@yahoo.com> wrote:

- — -

> Was pursuit suspect at root of Phoenix Helicopter Collision an ILLEGAL
> ALIEN?  Why else is LE and the Media going out of their way to cover
> up his identity?

> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0727crashchase27-ON.html#comments

> – Stewart (San Diego Minutemen)

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

24 Responses to “Re: Was pursuit suspect at root of Phoenix Helicopter Collision an ILLEGAL ALIEN?”

  1. admin says:

    "Ted" <tedor…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

    news:1185623335.641287.127600@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Jul 27, 7:41 pm, MURS radios <horsesh…@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> Was pursuit suspect at root of Phoenix Helicopter Collision an ILLEGAL
    >> ALIEN?  Why else is LE and the Media going out of their way to cover
    >> up his identity?

    >> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0727crashchase27-ON.html#comments

    >> – Stewart (San Diego Minutemen)

    >That is only a vaguely salient point. The whole thing rests on pilot error,
    >if my facts are correct. It would be another thing if the suspect had shot
    >down the aircraft.

  2. admin says:

    On Jul 28, 6:58 am, "Long Ranger" <worpyl…@mindspring.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "Ted" <tedor…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

    > news:1185623335.641287.127600@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com…

    > > On Jul 27, 7:41 pm, MURS radios <horsesh…@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> Was pursuit suspect at root of Phoenix Helicopter Collision an ILLEGAL
    > >> ALIEN?  Why else is LE and the Media going out of their way to cover
    > >> up his identity?

    > >>http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0727crashchase27-ON.html#comments

    > >> – Stewart (San Diego Minutemen)

    > >That is only a vaguely salient point. The whole thing rests on pilot error,
    > >if my facts are correct. It would be another thing if the suspect had shot
    > >down the aircraft.- Hide quoted text –

    > – Show quoted text –

    More imporantly, if bored idiots didn’t keep watching such things,
    would those four people still be alive?

    How many cars are stolen and end up in a chase becuse the thief sees a
    chance for fun and his five minutes of
    "glory."
    (Of course, if I had been fourteen, I might have been either in the
    car or in front of the TV.)

  3. admin says:

     Studemania:

    << reply limited to r.a.d >>

    > How many cars are stolen and end up in a chase becuse the thief sees a
    > chance for fun and his five minutes of "glory."

    Or his fifteen minutes of fame……

    Just curious, will the driver in this case be charged for the deaths of
    the vultures in the choppers.


    "Mc Gruff the Crime Dog has been missing for about two weeks, now.
     He was last seen sniffing around Michael Vick’s House…"
                                      –Jay Leno

  4. admin says:

    On Jul 28, 2:17 pm, necromancer

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> wrote:
    >  Studemania:

    > << reply limited to r.a.d >>

    > > How many cars are stolen and end up in a chase becuse the thief sees a
    > > chance for fun and his five minutes of "glory."

    > Or his fifteen minutes of fame……

    > Just curious, will the driver in this case be charged for the deaths of
    > the vultures in the choppers.

    > —
    > "Mc Gruff the Crime Dog has been missing for about two weeks, now.
    >  He was last seen sniffing around Michael Vick’s House…"
    >                                   –Jay Leno

    Police Chief Jack Harris suggested he could be charged in connection
    with the collision.  "I believe you will want to talk to
    investigators, but I think he will be held responsible for any of the
    the deaths fom this tragedy." Harris told reporters.

    Harry K

  5. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Studemania wrote:
    > On Jul 28, 6:58 am, "Long Ranger" <worpyl…@mindspring.com> wrote:
    >> "Ted" <tedor…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

    >> news:1185623335.641287.127600@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com…

    >>> On Jul 27, 7:41 pm, MURS radios <horsesh…@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>> Was pursuit suspect at root of Phoenix Helicopter Collision an ILLEGAL
    >>>> ALIEN?  Why else is LE and the Media going out of their way to cover
    >>>> up his identity?
    >>>> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0727crashchase27-ON.html#comments
    >>>> – Stewart (San Diego Minutemen)
    >>> That is only a vaguely salient point. The whole thing rests on pilot error,
    >>> if my facts are correct. It would be another thing if the suspect had shot
    >>> down the aircraft.- Hide quoted text –
    >> – Show quoted text –

    > More imporantly, if bored idiots didn’t keep watching such things,
    > would those four people still be alive?

    > How many cars are stolen and end up in a chase becuse the thief sees a
    > chance for fun and his five minutes of
    > "glory."
    > (Of course, if I had been fourteen, I might have been either in the
    > car or in front of the TV.)

    People like to watch that sort of thing, and that’s what gave the folks
    in those helicopters their jobs.  It isn’t the fault of the "bored
    idiots" those choppers crashed, it’s the fault of the pilots who
    apparently weren’t paying attention.

    Jeff DeWitt

  6. admin says:

    "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeW…@nc.rr.com> wrote

    > People like to watch that sort of thing, and that’s what gave the folks in
    > those helicopters their jobs.  It isn’t the fault of the "bored idiots"
    > those choppers crashed, it’s the fault of the pilots who apparently
    > weren’t paying attention.

    Ah, but paying attention to *what* should be the question.

    There two (2) people in each helicopter; the pilot and the cameraman.

    The camera man holds the camera and directs it towards wherever the pilot
    and the ground-based director tell him to. That’s a full-time job.

    The pilot, on the other hand, must (1) fly the helicopter, (2) provide
    on-air commentary, (3) watch out for other air traffic, and lastly (4) must
    remain in constant radio contact with (a) the ground-based director, (b) the
    on-air anchorman or men, (c) air-traffic control, and (d) other pilots in
    the area.

    Now: we’ve all seen distracted drivers doing incredibly stupid things in
    traffic while speaking on their cell phones, so it should be no wonder that
    multi-tasking coupled with information overload finally caught up with
    one -or more- of these pilots and caused a mid-air collision.

    The solution, of course, is to only let one or maybe two media helicopters
    cover stories from the air in a given area, and have the stations pool the
    video coverage. With only a few aircraft in the immediate area of sky
    instead of six, as was the case in the Arizona collision, the chances of
    another mid-air would be cut down *considerably*!

  7. admin says:

    proehling wrote:
    > The solution, of course, is to only let one or maybe two media helicopters
    > cover stories from the air in a given area, and have the stations pool the
    > video coverage. With only a few aircraft in the immediate area of sky
    > instead of six, as was the case in the Arizona collision, the chances of
    > another mid-air would be cut down *considerably*!

    i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    manslaughter are rather asinine.

  8. admin says:

    BiffB wrote:

    > i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    > manslaughter are rather asinine.

    In determining culpability for a crime, often the question is: "If not
    for…"

    As in "If not for the keys being left in the car, the juvenile would not
    have stolen it."

  9. admin says:

    "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    > i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    > manslaughter are rather asinine.

    Shrug.

    In quite a few jurisdictions manslaughter applies to the one who’s
    committing a crime that leads to a death or deaths. That’s just as true in
    this case as it would be had the perp run down a group of nuns who were
    crossing the street during his attempted escape.

    The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit that
    *you* initiated.

  10. admin says:

    In article <13apu7vjj3bi…@news.supernews.com>,

    HeyBub <heybubNOS…@gmail.com> wrote:
    >BiffB wrote:

    >> i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    >> manslaughter are rather asinine.

    >In determining culpability for a crime, often the question is: "If not
    >for…"

    That is an truly asinine way of determining culpability.

      There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
      result in a fully-depreciated one.

  11. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    proehling wrote:
    > "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    >>i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    >>manslaughter are rather asinine.

    > Shrug.

    > In quite a few jurisdictions manslaughter applies to the one who’s
    > committing a crime that leads to a death or deaths. That’s just as true in
    > this case as it would be had the perp run down a group of nuns who were
    > crossing the street during his attempted escape.

    > The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    > charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit that
    > *you* initiated.

    i still think it’s asinine, the helicopters didn’t need to be there. now
    if dude had run into someone, sure, because that person wasn’t intending
    to place themselves in harm’s way.

  12. admin says:

    On Jul 29, 10:27 pm, BiffB <u…@domain.invalid> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > proehling wrote:
    > > "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    > >>i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    > >>manslaughter are rather asinine.

    > > Shrug.

    > > In quite a few jurisdictions manslaughter applies to the one who’s
    > > committing a crime that leads to a death or deaths. That’s just as true in
    > > this case as it would be had the perp run down a group of nuns who were
    > > crossing the street during his attempted escape.

    > > The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    > > charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit that
    > > *you* initiated.

    > i still think it’s asinine, the helicopters didn’t need to be there. now
    > if dude had run into someone, sure, because that person wasn’t intending
    > to place themselves in harm’s way.- Hide quoted text –

    > – Show quoted text –

    Boobs like to watch that crap
    so
    your TV station supply it
    which needs
    the copters in the air so that the competition
    (Rah Rah US way)
    doesn’t pull viewers away from your station, which would put your job
    in danger.
    I fill out TV logs occasionally, but don’t list any crap shows, like
    these, I might have watched.

    (I put down PBS, even though I might have dropped by FOX to watch if
    their silliness level was as high as usual.)

    Plus, when I watch a TV chase of an 18 wheeler a few months ago, the
    driver didn’t even know that he was being tailed!  That was a feed
    from a LA station for 45 minutes, while I read a newspaper. I guess
    the driver didn’t have his TV on.

  13. admin says:

    "proehling" <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote in message

    news:13apok3pognupc5@corp.supernews.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > The pilot, on the other hand, must (1) fly the helicopter, (2) provide
    > on-air commentary, (3) watch out for other air traffic, and lastly (4)
    > must remain in constant radio contact with (a) the ground-based director,
    > (b) the on-air anchorman or men, (c) air-traffic control, and (d) other
    > pilots in the area.

    > Now: we’ve all seen distracted drivers doing incredibly stupid things in
    > traffic while speaking on their cell phones, so it should be no wonder
    > that multi-tasking coupled with information overload finally caught up
    > with one -or more- of these pilots and caused a mid-air collision.

    > The solution, of course, is to only let one or maybe two media helicopters
    > cover stories from the air in a given area, and have the stations pool the
    > video coverage. With only a few aircraft in the immediate area of sky
    > instead of six, as was the case in the Arizona collision, the chances of
    > another mid-air would be cut down *considerably*!

    That’s a particularly braindead "solution". By extension, we should build
    more roads, to alleviate traffic and congestion, so you can talk safely on
    your cellphone while driving. Right. :-/ Other stations put a third person
    onboard to do the gum flapping. The pilot flies the aircraft; the cameraman
    works the camera; someone else does the yapping. Wouldn’t it be just too
    damn *crazy* to presume that operating a camera requires more attention than
    flying in close proximity to other aircraft?

  14. admin says:

    "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    >> The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    >> charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit
    >> that *you* initiated.
    > i still think it’s asinine,

    It figures.

  15. admin says:

    "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos…@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> The solution, of course, is to only let one or maybe two media
    >> helicopters cover stories from the air in a given area, and have the
    >> stations pool the video coverage. With only a few aircraft in the
    >> immediate area of sky instead of six, as was the case in the Arizona
    >> collision, the chances of another mid-air would be cut down
    >> *considerably*!

    > That’s a particularly braindead "solution".

    Odd you should think so; it turns out the southern California news media
    have already been thinking about limiting the number of aircraft over crime
    scenes and working out a pooled coverage plan. And since I heard that just
    Friday evening from a member of the southern California media, I tend to
    believe it.

    > By extension, we should build more roads, to alleviate traffic and
    > congestion, so you can talk safely on your cellphone while driving. Right.
    > :-/

    Boy, do your analogies suck!. Ya see, the Feds already have a large number
    of rules on the books that are intended to prevent accidents exactly like
    the Arizona collision. They’re going to be very surprised to find that
    they’ve actually been encouraging the building of more highways all of these
    years, and not creating safer skys by requiring certain distances between
    aircraft…..

    > Other stations put a third person onboard to do the gum flapping. The
    > pilot flies the aircraft; the cameraman works the camera; someone else
    > does the yapping. Wouldn’t it be just too damn *crazy* to presume that
    > operating a camera requires more attention than flying in close proximity
    > to other aircraft?

    Only one problem there, doofus: like any other business, TV stations like to
    save money wherever they can, and small helicopters that can only carry two
    crewmembers plus the video equipment are much cheaper to buy and operate
    than larger choppers that can carry three or more. But even if you legislate
    that every media chopper carry a third crew member, you will *still* have
    the problem of too many aircraft confined in too small an airspace under
    high-pressure conditions.

  16. admin says:

    On Jul 29, 7:57 pm, "proehling" <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote:

    > "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    > > i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    > > manslaughter are rather asinine.

    > Shrug.

    > In quite a few jurisdictions manslaughter applies to the one who’s
    > committing a crime that leads to a death or deaths. That’s just as true in
    > this case as it would be had the perp run down a group of nuns who were
    > crossing the street during his attempted escape.

    > The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    > charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit that
    > *you* initiated.

    That is ridiculous.  You should be liable for any death that YOU are
    responsible for.  If this guy hit someone, fine.  If he ran a red
    light causing a vehicle with the ROW to crash, you might have a case.
    He has, however, NO responsibility for the people in the helicopters
    that crashed.  He was not in the air.  They put a better picture above
    handling their aircraft safely, and that’s their mistake and their
    problem.

    Let’s say I’ve got a reasonably quick, stable & seaworthy boat.  I
    check the weather, and decide it’s a good day for wave-hopping
    offshore.  Someone on a small jet-ski or jet-boat sees me going out,
    and decides to follow.  Their boat or boat handling skills are not up
    for the conditions, and they capsize.  Am I liable?  If course not.
    They made the wrong call, got outside of their safety zone and paid
    the price.

    The pilots here did the same thing.  They made the decision to chase
    the cars.  They did not have due regard for each other’s aircraft and
    airspace.  They violated each other’s airspace.  They crashed.  That’s
    on them.  If anything, a local air controller may be able to detect
    which aircraft violated the airspace and right of way of the other.
    If one aircraft violated the airspace/ROW of the other, that pilot is
    at fault for the crash.  If both were at fault, both pilots were at
    fault.

    In no way, however, is someone driving a vehicle on the ground
    responsible for two aircraft colliding in the air.  I find the
    suggestion of such responsibility both bothersome and comical, which
    is an interesting conflict.

  17. admin says:

    proehling wrote:
    > "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    >>>The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    >>>charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit
    >>>that *you* initiated.

    >>i still think it’s asinine,

    > It figures.

    It would.

  18. admin says:

    "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    >>>>The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    >>>>charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit
    >>>>that *you* initiated.

    >>>i still think it’s asinine,

    >> It figures.
    > It would.

    And it will continue to. Welcome to reality.

  19. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    proehling wrote:
    > "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    >>>>>The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    >>>>>charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit
    >>>>>that *you* initiated.

    >>>>i still think it’s asinine,

    >>>It figures.

    >>It would.

    > And it will continue to. Welcome to reality.

    Apparently we have different opinions on what is reality.

  20. admin says:

    On Jul 30, 7:00 am, "DanK…@gmail.com" <DanK…@gmail.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Jul 29, 7:57 pm, "proehling" <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote:

    > > "BiffB" <u…@domain.invalid> wrote

    > > > i agree. i also think their attempts to charge the suspect with
    > > > manslaughter are rather asinine.

    > > Shrug.

    > > In quite a few jurisdictions manslaughter applies to the one who’s
    > > committing a crime that leads to a death or deaths. That’s just as true in
    > > this case as it would be had the perp run down a group of nuns who were
    > > crossing the street during his attempted escape.

    > > The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    > > charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit that
    > > *you* initiated.

    > That is ridiculous.  You should be liable for any death that YOU are
    > responsible for.  If this guy hit someone, fine.  If he ran a red
    > light causing a vehicle with the ROW to crash, you might have a case.
    > He has, however, NO responsibility for the people in the helicopters
    > that crashed.  He was not in the air.  They put a better picture above
    > handling their aircraft safely, and that’s their mistake and their
    > problem.

    > Let’s say I’ve got a reasonably quick, stable & seaworthy boat.  I
    > check the weather, and decide it’s a good day for wave-hopping
    > offshore.  Someone on a small jet-ski or jet-boat sees me going out,
    > and decides to follow.  Their boat or boat handling skills are not up
    > for the conditions, and they capsize.  Am I liable?  If course not.
    > They made the wrong call, got outside of their safety zone and paid
    > the price.

    > The pilots here did the same thing.  They made the decision to chase
    > the cars.  They did not have due regard for each other’s aircraft and
    > airspace.  They violated each other’s airspace.  They crashed.  That’s
    > on them.  If anything, a local air controller may be able to detect
    > which aircraft violated the airspace and right of way of the other.
    > If one aircraft violated the airspace/ROW of the other, that pilot is
    > at fault for the crash.  If both were at fault, both pilots were at
    > fault.

    > In no way, however, is someone driving a vehicle on the ground
    > responsible for two aircraft colliding in the air.  I find the
    > suggestion of such responsibility both bothersome and comical, which
    > is an interesting conflict.

    I find it a bit of a stretch also.  I think the PA will have a hard
    time making the charge stick but then I am no longer surprised at what
    the law…or rather lawyers… can get out of a seeemingly simple
    situation.

    Harry K

  21. admin says:

    "proehling" <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote in message

    news:13ar46j5qco4938@corp.supernews.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos…@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>> The solution, of course, is to only let one or maybe two media
    >>> helicopters cover stories from the air in a given area, and have the
    >>> stations pool the video coverage. With only a few aircraft in the
    >>> immediate area of sky instead of six, as was the case in the Arizona
    >>> collision, the chances of another mid-air would be cut down
    >>> *considerably*!

    >> That’s a particularly braindead "solution".

    > Odd you should think so; it turns out the southern California news media
    > have already been thinking about limiting the number of aircraft over
    > crime scenes and working out a pooled coverage plan. And since I heard
    > that just Friday evening from a member of the southern California media, I
    > tend to believe it.

    Well, there you have it. No airplanes, no airplane accidents. Fewer
    airplanes, fewer airplane accidents. See? They’re already moving in the
    right direction. What was I thinking? Oh yeah. No distracted drivers, fewer
    accidents. Pilots flying and and not busy yapping, fewer accidents.

    Special rules are stupid, chief among them the kind you wrote about. There
    are already rules requiring pilots to maintain visual separation. If they
    can’t do that, they shouldn’t be flying. Was there another identifiable
    cause for the two helicopters to crash? How smart does that make you feel?
    Tell me again, what was the root cause of those 4 folks dying that day?

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    >> By extension, we should build more roads, to alleviate traffic and
    >> congestion, so you can talk safely on your cellphone while driving.
    >> Right. :-/

    > Boy, do your analogies suck!. Ya see, the Feds already have a large number
    > of rules on the books that are intended to prevent accidents exactly like
    > the Arizona collision. They’re going to be very surprised to find that
    > they’ve actually been encouraging the building of more highways all of
    > these years, and not creating safer skys by requiring certain distances
    > between aircraft…..

    >> Other stations put a third person onboard to do the gum flapping. The
    >> pilot flies the aircraft; the cameraman works the camera; someone else
    >> does the yapping. Wouldn’t it be just too damn *crazy* to presume that
    >> operating a camera requires more attention than flying in close proximity
    >> to other aircraft?

    > Only one problem there, doofus: like any other business, TV stations like
    > to save money wherever they can, and small helicopters that can only carry
    > two crewmembers plus the video equipment are much cheaper to buy and
    > operate than larger choppers that can carry three or more. But even if you
    > legislate that every media chopper carry a third crew member, you will
    > *still* have the problem of too many aircraft confined in too small an
    > airspace under high-pressure conditions.

    So, they really *are* doing the responsible thing. Flying smaller, fewer
    helicopters, and *still* bringing me the news. Commonsense can wait for
    SoCal-style legislation to give it teeth and meaning. And I’d completely
    forgotten, until you mentioned it, just how important the TV station’s
    bottomline is to me personally. Thanks for the reminder and insight. Doofus.

  22. admin says:

    On Jul 30, 10:02 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "proehling" <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote in message

    > news:13ar46j5qco4938@corp.supernews.com…

    > > "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos…@yahoo.com> wrote

    > >>> The solution, of course, is to only let one or maybe two media
    > >>> helicopters cover stories from the air in a given area, and have the
    > >>> stations pool the video coverage. With only a few aircraft in the
    > >>> immediate area of sky instead of six, as was the case in the Arizona
    > >>> collision, the chances of another mid-air would be cut down
    > >>> *considerably*!

    > >> That’s a particularly braindead "solution".

    > > Odd you should think so; it turns out the southern California news media
    > > have already been thinking about limiting the number of aircraft over
    > > crime scenes and working out a pooled coverage plan. And since I heard
    > > that just Friday evening from a member of the southern California media, I
    > > tend to believe it.

    > Well, there you have it. No airplanes, no airplane accidents. Fewer
    > airplanes, fewer airplane accidents. See? They’re already moving in the
    > right direction. What was I thinking? Oh yeah. No distracted drivers, fewer
    > accidents. Pilots flying and and not busy yapping, fewer accidents.

    > Special rules are stupid, chief among them the kind you wrote about. There
    > are already rules requiring pilots to maintain visual separation. If they
    > can’t do that, they shouldn’t be flying. Was there another identifiable
    > cause for the two helicopters to crash? How smart does that make you feel?
    > Tell me again, what was the root cause of those 4 folks dying that day?

    > >> By extension, we should build more roads, to alleviate traffic and
    > >> congestion, so you can talk safely on your cellphone while driving.
    > >> Right. :-/

    > > Boy, do your analogies suck!. Ya see, the Feds already have a large number
    > > of rules on the books that are intended to prevent accidents exactly like
    > > the Arizona collision. They’re going to be very surprised to find that
    > > they’ve actually been encouraging the building of more highways all of
    > > these years, and not creating safer skys by requiring certain distances
    > > between aircraft…..

    > >> Other stations put a third person onboard to do the gum flapping. The
    > >> pilot flies the aircraft; the cameraman works the camera; someone else
    > >> does the yapping. Wouldn’t it be just too damn *crazy* to presume that
    > >> operating a camera requires more attention than flying in close proximity
    > >> to other aircraft?

    > > Only one problem there, doofus: like any other business, TV stations like
    > > to save money wherever they can, and small helicopters that can only carry
    > > two crewmembers plus the video equipment are much cheaper to buy and
    > > operate than larger choppers that can carry three or more. But even if you
    > > legislate that every media chopper carry a third crew member, you will
    > > *still* have the problem of too many aircraft confined in too small an
    > > airspace under high-pressure conditions.

    > So, they really *are* doing the responsible thing. Flying smaller, fewer
    > helicopters, and *still* bringing me the news. Commonsense can wait for
    > SoCal-style legislation to give it teeth and meaning. And I’d completely
    > forgotten, until you mentioned it, just how important the TV station’s
    > bottomline is to me personally. Thanks for the reminder and insight. Doofus.- Hide quoted text –

    > – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text –

    > – Show quoted text –

    If no one watched these silly chases, there would be only the police
    ‘copters involved. That’s the best solution.

    I did an experiment a few months ago. I watched the local and national
    news for an hour, total.
    The next day I read the local (SD) paper for an hour.
    I got THIRTY TIMES as much news that intersted or was imoportant to
    me, from the paper.

  23. admin says:

    On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:57:23 -0700, "proehling"

    <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote:
    >The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    >charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit that
    >*you* initiated.

    One problem with that, (& I’m not arguing that it isn’t true – there
    have been too many cases that verify it,) is that in this case, for
    example, if one of the pilots actually made an egregious error that
    would normally have been actionable, his insurance company can now
    claim they don’t have to pay compensation. It’s up to the criminal,
    who doesn’t have insurance. (Not that I’m a lawyer of know anything
    about that kinda stuff, of course.)


    Turby the Turbosurfer

  24. admin says:

    "Turby" <turbosur…@beach.comber> wrote

    > <peter_roehl…@eee.org> wrote:

    >>The moral to the story is; don’t run from the cops unless you want to be
    >>charged with the death of anyone who’s killed as a result of a pursuit
    >>that
    >>*you* initiated.

    > One problem with that, (& I’m not arguing that it isn’t true – there
    > have been too many cases that verify it,) is that in this case, for
    > example, if one of the pilots actually made an egregious error that
    > would normally have been actionable, his insurance company can now
    > claim they don’t have to pay compensation. It’s up to the criminal,
    > who doesn’t have insurance. (Not that I’m a lawyer of know anything
    > about that kinda stuff, of course.)

    Ah, but insurance companies are well-known for thier tendancy to refuse
    payment to their policy-holders, even in cases where there’s no real
    question of their liability. They figure  -all too correctly in some cases-
    that if they string things out in court long enough, the policy-holder  -or
    his survivors-  will give up and settle for far less than that to which they
    are rightly entitled.

    But since I’m not a lawyer myself  -thank gawd-  I’m not sure whether you
    have a viable point or not.