Why you need a Hummer

[john_childs]

Sweet! :D

Business Owner Chases, Runs Over Robbery Suspects In Hummer (http://www.local6.com/news/2272794/detail.html)

[jagur]

although,it sucks to be robbed,i voted yes on that poll.wreckless endangerment is also a crime,and the chances of killing innocent bistandards while doing what Peter did isnt worth the it.

Peter should have been glad the crimminals left him alive and called the law for God sake.

dont take the law into your own hands there are to many people at risk!

[john_childs]

Originally posted by jagur
although,it sucks to be robbed,i voted yes on that poll.wreckless endangerment is also a crime,and the chances of killing innocent bistandards while doing what Peter did isnt worth the it.
Agreed. I found the results amusing (a Hummer driving over a car), but the cause of the situation is not amusing. He's going to be in serious legal trouble, and he deserves to be. What he did was very dangerous to the public and to the low life criminals in the car. You can't be going around chasing criminals like that, that's what the police are for. He should have tailed them at a safe speed and called in their location to the police. He has a Hummer, so I'm sure he has a cell phone.

[Borges]

There's only 11% who'd like to get Peter off the streets. :confused:

It'd been cool if Peter was chasing terrorists in an action movie.
But he wasn't.


Movie quote
"I remember the last two I backed over with my car. Luckily they turned out to be drug dealers"



Morten

[jagur]

i'll give you that,in a perfect world it is amusing.

i just want to know when the TV movie comes out :D

for some reason this thread seems like somthing GILD would comment on.

[john_childs]

At least we know that it was not a high speed chase. A Hummer isn't a fast car and if he was able to catch up to them and drive over them well, the speeds could not have been that high. The Hummer has a top speed of about 80 mph and does not have good acceleration.

[nosabe332]

i don't even think the matter warrants a response from GILD. The matter is simple. He broke the law. He might've had a reason to, but he still did. America has become obsessed with the break-the-law-but-for-a-good-reason ideology so glamourized in the movies..

which reminds me..

in psychology i learned about a child's developing sense of morals. we are given this scenario:

A man's wife has fallen ill, and he has spent much money paying for doctor's to cure her. None of them produce results. A local pharmacist creates a drug that can cure her, but he charges $2000. The man can only get $1000, and he tries to persuade the pharmacist for leniency, but the pharmacist refuses. In desperation, the man breaks into the pharmacy to give the medicine to his wife and it makes her well.

The dilemma is obvious. The solution and the rationale? What do you think? the question is open to any opinion you have. Should the man have stolen the medicine?

[GILD]

Originally posted by jagur
for some reason this thread seems like somthing GILD would comment on.

and just exactly would that reason be?
;)

have i in some unknown way cultivated the image of some kind of vigilante?
and yes, let it be said, we all secretly think that vigilanteeism isn't so bad
after all, the bad guys got their due
this is the main reason why our 'urban legends' flourish
they are our modern faery tales and almost allways shows the 'bad guys' getting their come-uppance

Originally posted by nosabe332
i don't even think the matter warrants a response from GILD.

how this reflects on me and my standing in this online community, i dont even want to think about


;)

ps. the FORD company had a tag line to their advertising,"Have u driven a FORD today?"
some commically minded bumper-sticker artist changed this slightly and came up with a sticker that proved to be very popular with the 4wheel drive brigade
"have u driven over a FORD today?
would look good on the back of that hummer!)

[U-Turn]

I personally don't have a lot of sympathy for an armed robber. One can only assume that he intends to use his weapon if he brings it with him. I.e., "Give me your money or I will kill you with this weapon."

Steal the medicine; pay the penalty; it's worth it.

[joe]

Talking of newspaper stories, I found this.

I searched 'Phil Himsworth + unicycle' on google, and just look at what he has been doing lately!

Click Here To See Artical! (http://www.whitleybaycitizen.co.uk/interactive.aspx?mode=myos&id=1&view=127003388075794848&storyID=126997145591856250)

Joe,

[sendhair]

The mystifying thing about the poll results to me is, ... they robbed an insurance brokerage, for Pete's sake!

Ocean's Eleven was a popular flick (twice), right?
Clever bandits make off with the casino's money.

Just how are insurance companies and casinos different?

OK, except for the part about the government makes you buy insurance, but it doesn't force you to dump your money in a casino.

Oh, and the part about the government doesn't help the casinos not pay you when the casino loses the bet .

All right... and the insurance companies don't have showgirls... but other that that...

"Peter's" retaliation was mere vehicular barbarianism, but not really all that unusual or surprising.

[johnfoss]

Originally posted by nosabe332
The dilemma is obvious. The solution and the rationale? What do you think? the question is open to any opinion you have. Should the man have stolen the medicine? That boils down to $2000 vs. the life of his wife. Stealing the drug is illegal, but it doesn't kill anyone. Steal the drug, do the time. Everybody's happy. That's an easy one.

By no means should the man go unpunished. He took what is not his. But I find stealing to be an acceptable moral choice in his situation, of course much more so if he then turns himself in.

The news article John originally posted looks a little fishy. Is the photo supposed to be from that incident? How did the Hummer get on top of the robbers' car? That looks like a (bad) picture from some unrelated event. The car underneath looks totally smashed, not just run over. I did a quick search on Google to see if I could find any other accounts of this story, and didn't find any.

I was surprised by the results of the poll. The robbers were not reported to have hurt anybody. Presumably the money from an insurance company is "insured," is it not? The punishment, dolled out by a self-appointed judge and jury, was excessive, and no doubt endangered the public along the route of the chase. He went above and beyond his "rights" as a citizen.

If Mr. Hummer had simply caught the guys, or assisted in their capture, he would be a hero. Instead, he is a criminal, probably facing worse charges than the robbers. Possibly attempted murder.

We have a legal process in this country, and though it's not perfect, it's better than Mr. Hummer, or any other system I've heard of. I hope Mr. Hummer is not a typical example of Hummer owners.

The robbers were armed. But what does this mean? There's a difference between armed robbery and regular robbery. There is also a middle ground. Consider the case on which my wife just finished being a member of the jury. A man robbed three gas station mini-marts. With a gun. His lawyer's entire defense was an extensive explanation of how the gun he used was a BB gun, and not a real one. Because the difference in the penalty is a big one.

Unfortunately, that was the whole defense. Nothing about where he was when the robberies occurred, no supporting witnesses for his (non) alibi, nothing. With video and other evidence, he was found guilty, after over a day of deliberations My wife was the jury foreperson, and very stressed out by the process, and her time away from her company. Everybody agreed, based on witness testimony, that the gun fit the description of a real-looking BB gun (red tip). But the three robberies amounted to three felonies. In California, the three strikes law means he goes to jail for a long, long time. He didn't physically harm anybody, but he was guilty. That's what should have happened to the insurance robbers. It still will, I guess, but there will also be criminal proceedings against Mr. Hummer.

[john_childs]

Originally posted by johnfoss
The news article John originally posted looks a little fishy. Is the photo supposed to be from that incident? How did the Hummer get on top of the robbers' car? That looks like a (bad) picture from some unrelated event. The car underneath looks totally smashed, not just run over. I did a quick search on Google to see if I could find any other accounts of this story, and didn't find any.
I saw the story on the local Seattle TV news last night. Then I did a search on news.google.com (http://news.google.com/) to find the online version of the story. Search news.google.com for "Phoenix Hummer" and you'll find the story.

I do find it interesting how my initial reaction was "cool, the bad guys got what they deserved". The story has the qualities that would make for a good urban legend. It's also going to be interesting to see if the driver of the Hummer is charged with a crime or faces any civil charges, but we're not likely to hear about that side of the story.

[bugman]

Well after some thought on this, and after reading all the responses I have to say I think what this Hummer driver did was the only logical option. Since the police are only there to right the report after the crime takes place, and not really there to protect as they so boldly state on the side of their cars, the only logical option is to protect ourselves.

Now I am sure there are those who would say he was no longer in danger since they had already left the scene. I would say he and everyone else was in more danger than before they entered the building. Who knows how this robbery would have emboldened the criminal(armed) and what the outcome of the next crime he perpetrated would be? He did society a favor, pressing charges against him, and clogging the court system with a case against him is not justice.

The police get upset when someone tries doing what they are suposed to be doing, but have no intention of doing.

[Borges]

Who knows how this robbery would have emboldened the criminal(armed) and what the outcome of the next crime he perpetrated would be?

Unfortunately justice can only deal with the crimes which are committed and not with the ones which will committed.

(btw. maybe I should rent "Minority Report" it's supposed to be good)

I don't think the question here is "Is Peter legally guilty of a crime?" because the answer is obviously yes.
The interesting question (IMHO) is "Was it OK to run over that car in that situation?"

Since we're in an imperfect society, to a certain extend I see bugman's (sorry, I don't know your real name) point, but I think the self-protection argument is streached too thin in this case.

If there's no justice system to protect you I can see the logic in "you hit me so I hit you back", but not "you steal my money and might hurt someone later so I run you over with my car". That's taking it too far.

Morten

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by Borges
Unfortunately justice can only deal with the crimes which are committed and not with the ones which will committed.Why unfortunately?

This story is odd, only because it is so sensational yet seems not to have been picked up anywhere besides this local6.com source. I did a search on this story in Factiva which has in excess of 7500 local, national and international sources and it was not there. Also, it is weird that the business owner is identified only as Peter; on the Internet such lack of specificity is a classic sign of a hoax and this man is clearly an adult who privacy need not be protected in a case like this (this last part is a statement of fact regarding police and media behavior, not an opinion, by the way). On the side of this case being real, a search on Switchboard.com (http://www.switchboard.com) does turn up a Mr Insurance in Phoenix, Arizona.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[Borges]

Originally posted by JJuggle
[B]Why unfortunately?

I haven't thought deeply about the philosophy of this. What I mean is that it would be convenient for police to be able to act before a crime and the damage is done. I know there are questions of free will and determinism etc to complicate matters

This story is odd, only because it is so sensational yet seems not to have been picked up anywhere besides this local6.com source. I did a search on this story in Factiva which has in excess of 7500 local, national and international sources and it was not there.

I've found the story in 3 places, but they don't agree on the number of robbers.

Even if the story is a hoax, this debate is still interesting.

[john_childs]

The story made it to CNN Headline News too.

You can shoot at an intruder or robber if they are in your home. But you cannot grab your gun and chase the robber down the street after they have left your home. That same principle would apply here with the Hummer. He could have run them over with his Hummer while they were on his business property and in the process of burgling him. But once they left and he was no longer in danger he can't start chasing them down the street in his Hummer.

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by Borges
What I mean is that it would be convenient for police to be able to act before a crime and the damage is done.The police and for that matter society at large, including our leaders are perfectly capable of acting before (much) crime and its subsequent damage occur. It is well known what some of the leading causes of crime are: poverty, drug addiction, and lack of education. If preventing crime is really a priority those are some places to start. Build schools instead of prisons. Offer drug treatment instead of prison time. Provide safe, affordable housing, jobs and job training, and health insurance rather than giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest.

I'm not sure how one prevents Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc type crime. Those people really boggle the mind.

Of course, I'm a left wing nut, so what do I know? ;)

And, of course, I know almost nothing about Denmark except that Copenhagen is the capital, EJC is there this year and I can't go, and that place Legoland, so I'm not in any way commenting about your country or you, Borges. Just following through on this thought. :)

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[Borges]

Originally posted by JJuggle
Build schools instead of prisons. Offer drug treatment instead of prison time. Provide safe, affordable housing, jobs and job training, and health insurance rather than giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest.

Of course, I'm a left wing nut, so what do I know? ;)


I think left wing nuts have some good points.
Somebody once called me a "moderate anti extremist", I don't know if that disqualifies me in discussions ;)


And, of course, I know almost nothing about Denmark except that Copenhagen is the capital, EJC is there this year and I can't go, and that place Legoland, so I'm not in any way commenting about your country or you, Borges. Just following through on this thought. :)


Comment all you like! After all I'm not holding back on comments on the US. Commenting is what forums are for. Right? :)

Morten

[bugman]

Originally posted by JJuggle
The police and for that matter society at large, including our leaders are perfectly capable of acting before (much) crime and its subsequent damage occur. It is well known what some of the leading causes of crime are: poverty, drug addiction, and lack of education. If preventing crime is really a priority those are some places to start. Build schools instead of prisons. Offer drug treatment instead of prison time. Provide safe, affordable housing, jobs and job training, and health insurance rather than giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest.

I'm not sure how one prevents Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc type crime. Those people really boggle the mind.

Of course, I'm a left wing nut, so what do I know? ;)

And, of course, I know almost nothing about Denmark except that Copenhagen is the capital, EJC is there this year and I can't go, and that place Legoland, so I'm not in any way commenting about your country or you, Borges. Just following through on this thought. :)

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ


I am sure that you are aware of the blairing contradiction in this line of thought. Education just makes some better criminals.

I think you have a chicken/egg argument brewing. Do uneducated people become criminals, or do criminals shun education.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I think there are those in our society that think getting an education is dishonorable, and stealing is "gettin mine" and justified. Forcing these people into schools they don't want to go to isn't going to change that. Couple that with a complete breakdown of the family unit(which was precipitated by welfare) and no support from friends or family no matter how many schools you build will change the outcome. What is the solution? Heck if I know, but government programs has been creating them so I doubt more will solve them.

Maybe when an education is an honor, something you have to earn, it will have value to those who have been offered it for free.

[GILD]

Originally posted by bugman
I am sure that you are aware of the blairing contradiction in this line of thought. Education just makes some better criminals.


yikes mate! u're out on a limb on this one...
if education makes better criminals, why don't u c more college grads doing hard time?
(or are they so much better that they dont get caught?;) )

that u will allways have people who do not/cannot fit into a social order and fullfill their role there is a fact
invariably these are individuals with deeprooted problems of a psychiatric nature
a vast majority of criminals simply ran out of options and a life of crime was the one option left to them
by providing education, u r providing options
it is the reborn hippy in me who chooses to believe that a majority of people are 'good' and, if given the opportunity, will settle down to productive, happy lives
this is the basis of my personal world-view and just about the only thng still keeping me vaguely sane, so don't mess with it (too much)
:)

[phil]

Originally posted by GILD
if education makes better criminals, why don't u c more college grads doing hard time?
Give the RIAA time, they're working on it...

Phil

[bugman]

Originally posted by GILD


yikes mate! u're out on a limb on this one...
if education makes better criminals, why don't u c more college grads doing hard time?
(or are they so much better that they dont get caught?;) )

that u will always have people who do not/cannot fit into a social order and fulfill their role there is a fact
invariably these are individuals with deeprooted problems of a psychiatric nature
a vast majority of criminals simply ran out of options and a life of crime was the one option left to them
by providing education, u r providing options
it is the reborn hippy in me who chooses to believe that a majority of people are 'good' and, if given the opportunity, will settle down to productive, happy lives
this is the basis of my personal world-view and just about the only thing still keeping me vaguely sane, so don't mess with it (too much)
:)

Since you work in radio, I am going to lump you in with the media. You took my statement out of context.

I am not saying schools make criminals, I am saying that education makes criminals smarter. The majority of people are not good, they are just afraid of getting caught. In that same vain, I think it explains the Enron phenomenon. These men and women lost there fear thinking they could do whatever they wanted w/o consequence.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of good people, I would venture to say more of them on this board than most places, but there are a lot of people who just don't share your world view. I think some people have to know that there is an ultimate answering for their actions or they have no reason to be good. Survival of the fittest.

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by bugman
Couple that with a complete breakdown of the family unit(which was precipitated by welfare)Could you be specific about who, in your opinion, has suffered from a "complete breakdown of the family unit", please?

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[Eublapharis13]

Just about every family in america....family's never do anything together anymore...the parents both go off and work and the kids are left alone all day with nothing to do but get in trouble.....Mothers are really the backbone of the country and if they don't raise their kids, then the kids get in trouble and become criminals.

[bugman]

Originally posted by JJuggle
Could you be specific about who, in your opinion, has suffered from a "complete breakdown of the family unit", please?

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

Anybody who is a second generation welfare recipient. If women are rewarded for having children out of wedlock, then there is only one logical outcome. Go to any area with government housing, and you will see women with many children and no father. Unfortunately too many believe it takes a village to raise a child, I am more partial to a loving mother and father being enlisted for the job.

I come from a broken home, and a mother who accepted welfare for a few years after her second divorce. I was ashamed and swore I would work 5 jobs if I had to to avoid that. Many others don't feel that way and actually are proud that they are "getting theirs" w/o doing a thing to earn it. How about the non taxpayers that are getting the child tax credit that should be going to those who did pay? Just another example of Income redistribution.

[Rockey]

Hummers are disgusting, excessive vehicles of destruction. How many miles per gallon? like 9? Anyone that feels the need to own something that unnecessarily huge just to flaunt their wealth has some problems. There's tons of them in my town now, and my friends and I give hell to them.

[iunicycle]

I like the old Hummer. The new design sucks.

I took a test drive in one right after it came out, the dealer said: "It doesn't have an airbag. If you run into something, a light comes on to let you know."

Maybe the photo is an old Hummer on top of the new one, and maybe that is what caused the rage in the old Hummer owner: seeing some idiot driving around in that ugly beast.

[bugman]

Originally posted by Rockey
Hummers are disgusting, excessive vehicles of destruction. How many miles per gallon? like 9? Anyone that feels the need to own something that unnecessarily huge just to flaunt their wealth has some problems. There's tons of them in my town now, and my friends and I give hell to them.

"Intelligent athletic anti-capitalist" is another way to say "unemployed and not living up to your potential."

Why do people find it necessary to worry about what other people do with their money. If you earn $100,000 a year or more and want to buy an H2 good for you. I don't think it is anymore appropriate for people to chastise someone because they ride around on a Uni. If you want to be a true "Liberal" be open minded and see many sides of an issue. Otherwise your being no different than the Capitalists that you make fun of. I am a Jeep person myself, I'd rather have 2 of them than one H2. That is my choice, if someone else makes a different one, good for them. There are a lot of average, blue collar americans that depend on people buying H2's to keep their jobs, so I hope to see more of them on the road. I am sure the guys that build H2's are proud that people are spending money to buy a product they built. I am sure as the H2 roles down the assembly line, they are not thinking "I wonder what rich a-hole is going to flaunt his money and buy this piece of crap?" Maybe we should all quit buying nice things and put millions of americans out of work. O yea that is already happening... Maybe we should all start buying nice things and get our economy going again.

I remember recently there was a youngster on this board who sid he didn't need any fancy stuff his cheap little Uni was just fine. Now he is upgrading his little Uni and saving to buy another. Time and experience change a lot of things... like perspective.

[/RANT OFF]

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by bugman
Anybody who is a second generation welfare recipient. If women are rewarded for having children out of wedlock, then there is only one logical outcome. Go to any area with government housing, and you will see women with many children and no father. Unfortunately too many believe it takes a village to raise a child, I am more partial to a loving mother and father being enlisted for the job.

I come from a broken home, and a mother who accepted welfare for a few years after her second divorce. I was ashamed and swore I would work 5 jobs if I had to to avoid that. Many others don't feel that way and actually are proud that they are "getting theirs" w/o doing a thing to earn it. How about the non taxpayers that are getting the child tax credit that should be going to those who did pay? Just another example of Income redistribution. This conversation is becoming somewhat disjointed with various points flying around and frankly has gotten to the point where some hard statistics are needed, stats I don't have the time or energy to track down, but...

As for the comment that "Just about every family in america" (by Eublapharis13) is a broken one, that may or may not be true, but if so, has no bearing on the welfare issue.

As for welfare itself, I understand and appreciate your personal feelings about it, bugman. Nevertheless, I stil feel it is important for the government to provide protection for the poor and needy. It is my understanding that historically only a small percentage of welfare recipients receive it on a long term basis and that most use this important program to survive difficult periods on a temporary basis.

Americans have this bullshit rugged individualist mythology that attaches a huge stigma to needing help. There's nothing wrong, of course, with making it on your own, but neither is there anything wrong with running into trouble and needing help.

As for welfare cheats, yep, they're out there. But if there's any lesson to be learned from the Enron-type scandals it's that there are dishonest people in all economic strata. You wouldn't dismantle the system of private corporate ownership because of a Kenneth Lay, Martha Stewart, Bernie Ebbers, or Dennis Kozlowski, would you? So why do the same for welfare because of a few who take advantage of the system? Kenneth Lay managed to wipe out the futures for thousands of identifiable families; welfare cheats cost taxpayers a few dollars each on an annual basis.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[bugman]

Originally posted by JJuggle
As for welfare itself, I understand and appreciate your personal feelings about it, bugman. Nevertheless, I stil feel it is important for the government to provide protection for the poor and needy. It is my understanding that historically only a small percentage of welfare recipients receive it on a long term basis and that most use this important program to survive difficult periods on a temporary basis.

Americans are one of the most generous groups of people on earth. I include myself in that group. We just differ on the delivery system for that assistance. You believe it should be done by the government through force, I believe it should be done through family, friends, neighbors, churches, non profits through the generosity of those that choose to be. I just don't think government is all that efficient at dealing with it, and is basically using welfare as a way of creating jobs.

Americans have this bullshit rugged individualist mythology that attaches a huge stigma to needing help. There's nothing wrong, of course, with making it on your own, but neither is there anything wrong with running into trouble and needing help.
Life is full of choices. Some would say you are were you are because that is where you chose to be. I don't make just good decisions. I have made bad ones as well. I recently(currently) had to pay $30,000 over 5 years to someone as the result of an accident. The person that I hit in this accident thought I was under-insured and wanted more than my insurance would cover. I made a poor choice having limits that only provided this person $50,000 from the insurance. It won't happen again, I have enough insurance now that I feel confident just about any accident would be covered. I was pulling a trailer, and on a downhill it pushed my jeep across the line totaling both his car and my jeep in the process. I hadn't been drinking or talking on a phone, just inexperienced in trailer pulling. I won't pull a trailer ever again with a Jeep.

As for welfare cheats, yep, they're out there. But if there's any lesson to be learned from the Enron-type scandals it's that there are dishonest people in all economic strata. You wouldn't dismantle the system of private corporate ownership because of a Kenneth Lay, Martha Stewart, Bernie Ebbers, or Dennis Kozlowski, would you? So why do the same for welfare because of a few who take advantage of the system? Kenneth Lay managed to wipe out the futures for thousands of identifiable families; welfare cheats cost taxpayers a few dollars each on an annual basis.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

I know there are welfare cheats, but I don't think the majority of people are trying to cheat the system, I think they are dependants of the system. They don't know any different. The system fails on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Ultimately I just think it is wrong for the government to act in a way that would be illegal if you or I did it. They take money from me, you, our kids and give it to others who make different choices than we have. If those same people came directly to me w/o the force of government behind them to take an equal amount of my hard earned money they would get the "Go to Jail" card. That doesn't even include all the people who get the "earned income credit" How can it be earned or a credit, if they didn't earn enough to pay taxes in the first place? Government is supposed to protect our inalienable rights, not protect us from ourselves.

I like you don't really want to spend a ton of time looking up facts and figures to "prove" my point. I agree with you that there are times when people need help, and I do what I can, of course with the help of government I have done more than I could.


PS These are just opinions, and may be wrong.:D

[Borges]

Personally I'm still living off insurance, but if my jobsituation doesn't improve I might go on wellfare.
I'm writing this to use myself as an example of how you can't choose to be a winner all the time.

My choices where concidered good when I made them, but there are no guarantees.

Sometimes you're just out of luck.

I realise the system is alot diffrent in the US and I don't know that much about it.
It just gets to me when it is automaticly assumed that people are only on wellfare because they choose to be.

If you're out of options I guess wellfare cheating it is better than armed robbery, but those people are responisble for making the system as ineffective as it is.

Morten