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

In article >,
HeyBub > 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.

proehling wrote:
> "BiffB" > 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.

On Jul 29, 10:27 pm, BiffB > wrote:
> proehling wrote:
> > "BiffB" > 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.

"proehling" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

"BiffB" > 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.

"MikeWhy" > 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.

On Jul 29, 7:57 pm, "proehling" > wrote:
> "BiffB" > 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.

proehling wrote:
> "BiffB" > 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.

"BiffB" > 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.

proehling wrote:
> "BiffB" > 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.