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

On Jul 30, 7:00 am, " > wrote:
> 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.

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

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

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.

On Jul 30, 10:02 pm, "MikeWhy" > wrote:
> "proehling" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "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.
>
> 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.

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

"Turby" > wrote

> > 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.

MikeWhy wrote:
>
> 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.

Sounds like gun control.

"HeyBub" > wrote in message
...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Sounds like gun control.

Wat? The flambeau isn't hot enough for your taste? OK, I'm game. Which side
would you like to argue?

Gun control laws are without question the epitome of special case rules. And
yeah, the proposed special media coverage limit in an airspace is as stupid,
arbitrary, contrived, and contorted as gun control laws. Or as nearly as
inexperienced, junior legislators can make it.

Case in point: earlier this year, a grandmotherly visitor to the Sears Tower
in Chicago had her concealed handgun confiscated by the security screeners.
The licensed weapon was shipped to her home to allow her to continue her
sightseeing.

Discuss.

On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "MikeWhy" > wrote:
> "HeyBub" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > MikeWhy wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Sounds like gun control.
>
> Wat? The flambeau isn't hot enough for your taste? OK, I'm game. Which side
> would you like to argue?
>
> Gun control laws are without question the epitome of special case rules. And
> yeah, the proposed special media coverage limit in an airspace is as stupid,
> arbitrary, contrived, and contorted as gun control laws. Or as nearly as
> inexperienced, junior legislators can make it.
>
> Case in point: earlier this year, a grandmotherly visitor to the Sears Tower
> in Chicago had her concealed handgun confiscated by the security screeners.
> The licensed weapon was shipped to her home to allow her to continue her
> sightseeing.
>
> Discuss.


If all aircraft were armed with guns, it would be a good
deterrent to keep others from straying too close to them.

An armed airspace is a polite airspace.

"Rob Kleinschmidt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 31, 4:44 pm, "MikeWhy" > wrote:
>> "HeyBub" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> > Sounds like gun control.
>>
>> Wat? The flambeau isn't hot enough for your taste? OK, I'm game. Which
>> side
>> would you like to argue?
>>
>> Gun control laws are without question the epitome of special case rules.
>> And
>> yeah, the proposed special media coverage limit in an airspace is as
>> stupid,
>> arbitrary, contrived, and contorted as gun control laws. Or as nearly as
>> inexperienced, junior legislators can make it.
>>
>> Case in point: earlier this year, a grandmotherly visitor to the Sears
>> Tower
>> in Chicago had her concealed handgun confiscated by the security
>> screeners.
>> The licensed weapon was shipped to her home to allow her to continue her
>> sightseeing.
>>
>> Discuss.
>
>
> If all aircraft were armed with guns, it would be a good
> deterrent to keep others from straying too close to them.
>
> An armed airspace is a polite airspace.

Mutual Assured Destruction did not seem adequate incentive to watch one's
own actions. Southern California comes to the rescue with legislated buffer
zones for the attention impaired.

MikeWhy wrote:
> "HeyBub" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like gun control.
>
>
> Wat? The flambeau isn't hot enough for your taste? OK, I'm game. Which
> side would you like to argue?
>
> Gun control laws are without question the epitome of special case rules.
> And yeah, the proposed special media coverage limit in an airspace is as
> stupid, arbitrary, contrived, and contorted as gun control laws. Or as
> nearly as inexperienced, junior legislators can make it.
>
> Case in point: earlier this year, a grandmotherly visitor to the Sears
> Tower in Chicago had her concealed handgun confiscated by the security
> screeners. The licensed weapon was shipped to her home to allow her to
> continue her sightseeing.
>
> Discuss.
>
>
Fine. Seems to me the owner's of the Sears Tower have a right to decide
whether or not to allow handguns on the premises. Enjoy!