hit & run

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

I submit that is partially your fault as a paid
enforcer of our laws for not prosecuting them more diligently.

Zoot, we've covered this ground before. I don't prosecute any crime. That's not
within my power. I simply investigate, build a case, and refer it to
prosecutors. IOW, I just catch them and clean them. Someone else cooks them.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I understand your point, Bob, but:

I think it's undeniable that operating a car has a negative effect on
many, or most, people's behavior, judgement, civility, etc.

Examples are legion. But I think about the pleasant young woman who
lives a few doors down. She smiles and waves at passers-by when she
walks her little poodle. Very friendly...

... except the day she was driving down the street behind a little old
lady. The lady was doing 20 in a 25 zone, by my estimate. And the
young woman, with her driver's window down, was tailgating, yelling and
cussing up a storm! Why? For five miles per hour??

People, anonymous in their cars, will be incredibly rude to people
they'd treat nicely on foot. People in cars will risk others' lives to
save small amounts of time. People in cars will flagrantly disobey
laws, and will even leave someone they've injured to possibly die - so
they won't lose their ability to be "people in cars!"

It is, indeed, the people, not the cars, doing all these things. But it
seems certain to me that the cars are bringing out and abetting the
worst - the literal worst - in people.

In response to that, it's not unreasonable to say "cars suck."

Unreasonable from an emotional standpoint? No, but a more logical response
would be, "Some people suck."
Alcohol also brings out and abets the worst in people. I'd guess that well over
half of the violent crimes that occur here in the US and in Canada involve
people that are drunk. I'd also guess that at one time or another at least half
the regulars in this NG have ingested alcohol. I hear, "Drunk drivers suck",
from time to time but I can't recall ever reading a post here that said,
"Alcohol sucks". On the contrary, I've read many posts extolling the virtues of
this or that alcoholic beverage. Heck, I've written a few. So have you. So has
Zoot. That seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

22 Sep 2004 07:12:35 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

I submit that is partially your fault as a paid
enforcer of our laws for not prosecuting them more diligently.

Zoot, we've covered this ground before. I don't prosecute any crime.

Yeah, and that's the problem as I see it.

I used "prosecute" in the sense of: To pursue until completion.
--
zk

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I understand your point, Bob, but:

I think it's undeniable that operating a car has a negative effect on
many, or most, people's behavior, judgement, civility, etc.

Examples are legion. But I think about the pleasant young woman who
lives a few doors down. She smiles and waves at passers-by when she
walks her little poodle. Very friendly...

... except the day she was driving down the street behind a little old
lady. The lady was doing 20 in a 25 zone, by my estimate. And the
young woman, with her driver's window down, was tailgating, yelling and
cussing up a storm! Why? For five miles per hour??

People, anonymous in their cars, will be incredibly rude to people
they'd treat nicely on foot. People in cars will risk others' lives to
save small amounts of time. People in cars will flagrantly disobey
laws, and will even leave someone they've injured to possibly die - so
they won't lose their ability to be "people in cars!"

It is, indeed, the people, not the cars, doing all these things. But it
seems certain to me that the cars are bringing out and abetting the
worst - the literal worst - in people.

In response to that, it's not unreasonable to say "cars suck."

Unreasonable from an emotional standpoint? No, but a more logical
response
would be, "Some people suck."
Alcohol also brings out and abets the worst in people. I'd guess that
well over
half of the violent crimes that occur here in the US and in Canada
involve
people that are drunk. I'd also guess that at one time or another at
least half
the regulars in this NG have ingested alcohol. I hear, "Drunk drivers
suck",
from time to time but I can't recall ever reading a post here that said,
"Alcohol sucks". On the contrary, I've read many posts extolling the
virtues of
this or that alcoholic beverage. Heck, I've written a few. So have you.
So has
Zoot. That seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Gee Bob, I agree with you, drunk drivers suck. Now if I light up a bowl
of weed I have no desire to drive either a car or a bike but the fridge
is in serious danger.
Oh yeah, it is against the law, too bad about that, lives would be saved.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I understand your point, Bob, but:

I think it's undeniable that operating a car has a negative effect on
many, or most, people's behavior, judgement, civility, etc.

Examples are legion. But I think about the pleasant young woman who
lives a few doors down. She smiles and waves at passers-by when she
walks her little poodle. Very friendly...

... except the day she was driving down the street behind a little old
lady. The lady was doing 20 in a 25 zone, by my estimate. And the
young woman, with her driver's window down, was tailgating, yelling and
cussing up a storm! Why? For five miles per hour??

People, anonymous in their cars, will be incredibly rude to people
they'd treat nicely on foot. People in cars will risk others' lives to
save small amounts of time. People in cars will flagrantly disobey
laws, and will even leave someone they've injured to possibly die - so
they won't lose their ability to be "people in cars!"

It is, indeed, the people, not the cars, doing all these things. But it
seems certain to me that the cars are bringing out and abetting the
worst - the literal worst - in people.

In response to that, it's not unreasonable to say "cars suck."

Unreasonable from an emotional standpoint? No, but a more logical
response
would be, "Some people suck."
Alcohol also brings out and abets the worst in people. I'd guess that
well over
half of the violent crimes that occur here in the US and in Canada
involve
people that are drunk. I'd also guess that at one time or another at
least half
the regulars in this NG have ingested alcohol. I hear, "Drunk drivers
suck",
from time to time but I can't recall ever reading a post here that said,
"Alcohol sucks". On the contrary, I've read many posts extolling the
virtues of
this or that alcoholic beverage. Heck, I've written a few. So have you.
So has
Zoot. That seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Gee Bob, I agree with you, drunk drivers suck. Now if I light up a bowl
of weed I have no desire to drive either a car or a bike but the fridge
is in serious danger.
Oh yeah, it is against the law, too bad about that, lives would be saved.
Bill Baka

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

I don't want to believe that 20% of these drivers are heartless
killers but that's what the numbers say.

I think you may be inferring motive based more on your personal opinion than on
the numbers. Some hit/run drivers may indeed be heartless killers but by far
the majority of felony hit/run drivers I've dealt with fall into one or more of
four other categories. In descending order of frequency:
1- drunks
2- unlicensed or suspended drivers
3- people that habitually refuse to take responsibility for their own actions
4- criminals fleeing other, usually less serious, crimes
IME being a heartless killer is way down on the list of why people flee.
As an aside, the majority of misdemeanor hit/run drivers I've dealt with fall
into one of three categories:
1- drunks
2- unlicensed or suspended drivers
(notice the pattern?)
3- ordinary people that are not where they are supposed to be or with someone
they don't want others to know about.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

I submit that is partially your fault as a paid
enforcer of our laws for not prosecuting them more diligently.

Zoot, we've covered this ground before. I don't prosecute any crime.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, and that's the problem as I see it.

I used "prosecute" in the sense of: To pursue until completion.

I can only interpret your post in one of two ways. Either you are referring to
police in general or me in particular.
I'd be shocked if it were the former because the only way police could pursue
every case to successful completion would be if we investigated, tried,
convicted, and punished every offender without pesky things like lawyers,
judges, and juries interfering and you've never struck me as a big booster of
unbridled police power.
In the case of the latter and since you can have absolutely no idea what my
clearance by arrest rate is, this is simply a baseless personal attack. Of
course if you're a bonafide psychic and actually *do* know what that rate is
then either you don't value the truth or you're one that believes that all
crimes are prosecutable. In a perfect world they would be but then in a perfect
world there'd be no crime of any kind, right?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

22 Sep 2004 07:33:14 GMT,
<[email hidden]>,

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

In response to that, it's not unreasonable to say "cars suck."

Unreasonable from an emotional standpoint? No, but a more logical response
would be, "Some people suck."

From a purely technical standpoint, all cars with normally aspirated
engines do, in fact, suck.

Quoted message said:

Alcohol also brings out and abets the worst in people. I'd guess that well over
half of the violent crimes that occur here in the US and in Canada involve
people that are drunk. I'd also guess that at one time or another at least half
the regulars in this NG have ingested alcohol. I hear, "Drunk drivers suck",
from time to time but I can't recall ever reading a post here that said,
"Alcohol sucks". On the contrary, I've read many posts extolling the virtues of
this or that alcoholic beverage. Heck, I've written a few. So have you. So has
Zoot. That seems a bit of a double standard to me.

It's a good analogy.
Both auto manufacturers and booze makers spend huge amounts of
advertising dollars promoting their products with fantasy. Lately
though it seems we've managed to get the booze industry to temper
their ads with sobering reminders to use their products responsibly.
Shall we guess when auto makers will be legislated to provide the same
advisory with their products?

Both auto and cigarette companies have to know their products cause
thousands of premature deaths every year. Why aren't cars labelled
with similar strident warnings as cigarettes? Certainly they're the
bigger problem when comparing both the volume and composition of their
noxious by products.

Neither cigarettes or booze have required us to displace populations
and spend billions creating facilities for their users.
A boisterous drunk or habitual smoker can make things unpleasant for
other people in their immediate proximity whereas drivers think it's
their right to bring their filthy noisey deadly stench to your
doorstep.

CARS SUCK!
--
zk

23 Sep 2004 02:17:04 GMT,
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Hunrobe) wants to dance:

Quoted message said:

I think you may be inferring motive based more on your personal opinion than on
the numbers.

\whack a list of apologist drivel.

As Frank pointed out, cars enable them to be anonymous so they flee.
That makes them gutless as well as heartless. And if their victims
die, they're killers.

We pay you to catch them.
If you've no interest in prosecuting your job you're wasting our
money. Hit-and-run killers are almost scummier than cops who won't do
their jobs.
--
zk

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you may be inferring motive based more on your personal opinion than

on

Quoted message said:

the numbers.

\whack a list of apologist drivel.

---snip---

Quoted message said:

We pay you to catch them.
If you've no interest in prosecuting your job you're wasting our
money. Hit-and-run killers are almost scummier than cops who won't do
their jobs

What you term "apologist drivel" was not in the least apologizing for anyone's
behavior as anyone that read it can plainly see.
I've tried hard to be civil to you but enough is enough.
Kiss my ass, [censored]. I *do* my job, probably one hell of a lot better than
you do yours whatever that job may be. I do not get paid "to catch them" as you
put it. I get paid to do what is humanly possible within the framework of the
law to investigate crimes, identify and arrest the offenders, and build
prosecutable cases against them. I do that. Besides wearing a dinosaur costume
occasionally what do you do to make a difference? How many lives did that
dinosaur costume save anyway?

Zoot Katz said:

23 Sep 2004 02:17:04 GMT,
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Hunrobe) wants to dance:

Quoted message said:

I think you may be inferring motive based more on your personal opinion than on
the numbers.

\whack a list of apologist drivel.

It wasn't apologist drivel. It was merely pointing out the reasons why people do
not hang around.

Quoted message said:

We pay you to catch them.
If you've no interest in prosecuting your job you're wasting our
money. Hit-and-run killers are almost scummier than cops who won't do
their jobs.

There are only so many hours in a cops day.

Same number as for the rest of us.

They obviously have to prioritize, the same as anyone else.

Zoot Katz said:

22 Sep 2004 07:33:14 GMT,
<[email hidden]>,

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

In response to that, it's not unreasonable to say "cars suck."

Unreasonable from an emotional standpoint? No, but a more logical response
would be, "Some people suck."

From a purely technical standpoint, all cars with normally aspirated
engines do, in fact, suck.

Doesn't matter how they are aspirated. They all suck somewhere, otherwise they
would never get the amount of air they need.

Zoot Katz said:

22 Sep 2004 07:33:14 GMT,
<[email hidden]>,

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

In response to that, it's not unreasonable to say "cars suck."

Unreasonable from an emotional standpoint? No, but a more logical response
would be, "Some people suck."

From a purely technical standpoint, all cars with normally aspirated
engines do, in fact, suck.

Doesn't matter how they are aspirated. They all suck somewhere, otherwise they
would never get the amount of air they need.

23 Sep 2004 07:48:00 GMT,
<[email hidden]>,

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

We pay you to catch them.
If you've no interest in prosecuting your job you're wasting our
money. Hit-and-run killers are almost scummier than cops who won't do
their jobs

What you term "apologist drivel" was not in the least apologizing for anyone's
behavior as anyone that read it can plainly see.
I've tried hard to be civil to you but enough is enough.
Kiss my ass, [censored]. I *do* my job, probably one hell of a lot better than
you do yours whatever that job may be. I do not get paid "to catch them" as you
put it. I get paid to do what is humanly possible within the framework of the
law to investigate crimes, identify and arrest the offenders, and build
prosecutable cases against them. I do that.

You listed excuses for _fewer than half the hit-and-run killers_,
those who were aprehended or turned themselves in. The leading excuses
used were criminal acts before those drivers even hit anything.
Drunk unlicensed drivers.

I conclude you, the collective you, aren't doing your job as the
number of hit-and-run incidents has increased and with that increase
there remains an ever growing number of unsolved hit-and-runs.

Why? Maybe because these criminal scud jockeys figure the odds are in
their favour.
--
zk

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

You listed excuses for _fewer than half the hit-and-run killers_,
those who were aprehended or turned themselves in. The leading excuses
used were criminal acts before those drivers even hit anything.
Drunk unlicensed drivers.

---snip---

Read what you've written. You have an odd sense of right and wrong if you
believe performing one criminal act functions as an "excuse" for performing a
second. You have an even odder opinion of police officers if you honestly think
that *we* believe that.

Quoted message said:

I conclude you, the collective you, aren't doing your job as the
number of hit-and-run incidents has increased and with that increase
there remains an ever growing number of unsolved hit-and-runs.

Why? Maybe because these criminal scud jockeys figure the odds are in
their favour.

My own conclusion is a little different. I blame any increase in the raw number
of hit/runs on the ever increasing numbers of cars on the road and the
attendant rise in crashes overall.
I have to wonder if you've really given any thought to the most obvious
implication of your reasoning. If things are worse now than they were say
thirty years ago and it's the fault of the police, then policing must have been
better thirty years ago. The biggest difference between policing now and
policing then is thirty years ago when a cop told someone to do something and
they didn't do it immediately they got cracked. Now we have to negotiate
because we have to be sensitive and not hurt anyone's feelings plus the powers
that be are scared silly of lawsuits. I never thought I'd hear you of all
people wanting to return to "the good old days".

Bob Hunt

23 Sep 2004 18:42:48 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

You listed excuses for _fewer than half the hit-and-run killers_,
those who were aprehended or turned themselves in. The leading excuses
used were criminal acts before those drivers even hit anything.
Drunk unlicensed drivers.

---snip---

Read what you've written. You have an odd sense of right and wrong if you
believe performing one criminal act functions as an "excuse" for performing a
second. You have an even odder opinion of police officers if you honestly think
that *we* believe that.

You presented them as excuses for why I shouldn't consider these
despicable scumbags "heartless" or "killers". They're just drunks and
other stupid [censored] driving without valid licenses.
AFAIK, driving drunk or without a valid license is a crime. They
didn't have to hit anybody for that to be true.
The chances of it being a preventable crime would improve if it
weren't for the crippling dependancy on cars in car-centric cultures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I conclude you, the collective you, aren't doing your job as the
number of hit-and-run incidents has increased and with that increase
there remains an ever growing number of unsolved hit-and-runs.

Why? Maybe because these criminal scud jockeys figure the odds are in
their favour.

My own conclusion is a little different. I blame any increase in the raw number
of hit/runs on the ever increasing numbers of cars on the road and the
attendant rise in crashes overall.

Sure, that's a valid metric if the number of cars has increased at the
same or greater rate as the hit-and-run incidents. Most hit-and-runs
are cheesey assed property crimes anyway. I'll even venture to say the
percentage of solved cases is greater for that category of crime.
After all, somebody hit their precious car!

Why are victims' of fatal hit-and-runs families having to hire private
investigators and psychics in their search for answers that will help
bring closure to their ordeal? Because unless the killers walk into
the doughnut shop and confess, their apprehension is statistically
unlikely. And for every doughnut consumed the likelihood of their
capture diminishes.

Quoted message said:

I have to wonder if you've really given any thought to the most obvious
implication of your reasoning. If things are worse now than they were say
thirty years ago and it's the fault of the police, then policing must have been
better thirty years ago. The biggest difference between policing now and
policing then is thirty years ago when a cop told someone to do something and
they didn't do it immediately they got cracked. Now we have to negotiate
because we have to be sensitive and not hurt anyone's feelings plus the powers
that be are scared silly of lawsuits. I never thought I'd hear you of all
people wanting to return to "the good old days".

The biggest difference is it now costs more for less effective
policing. Innocent people still get, killed, harrassed, brutalised and
have their rights violated by police with appalling regularity.
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" wrote so many outrageous things it's hard to know where to
begin. So I'll just say this: I want to voice my support for Huntrobe's
position, which seems pretty reasonable to me, especially in light of how he
is being criticized.

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

You presented them as excuses for why I shouldn't consider these
despicable scumbags "heartless" or "killers".

You described those who flee from a fatal crash as "heartless killers". There
was no "or" involved. I offered my own personal observations about those that
flee fatal crashes based on having dealt one on one and in depth with somewhere
around 40 such persons. I found many to be weak, dishonest, frightened, and/or
selfish. I've dealt with at least twice that number of individuals that
intentionally killed or tried to kill others. I'd describe more than a few of
*those* as heartless killers.
As for your continued copbaiting, there's no need or use in my responding. I'll
simply refer you to my earlier reply on that subject.

Bob Hunt

24 Sep 2004 03:27:04 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
(Hunrobe) wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

You presented them as excuses for why I shouldn't consider these
despicable scumbags "heartless" or "killers".

You described those who flee from a fatal crash as "heartless killers". There
was no "or" involved. I offered my own personal observations about those that
flee fatal crashes based on having dealt one on one and in depth with somewhere
around 40 such persons. I found many to be weak, dishonest, frightened, and/or
selfish.

Police only deal with a pathetic minority of hit/run drivers - those
who are actually ever arrested. That's my gripe.

The distinctions you made regarding felony or misdemeanour hit/run
shared a common factor. They were driving drunk and/or driving without
a valid license in the greater number of cases.
Both of those practices are premeditated crimes.

You'll not get any help preventing those crimes in a society whose
mores and values are thoroughly corrupted by its dependency on cars.
--
zk