helicopter collision phoenix

[Gattman[_2_]]

This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+



Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)

Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while covering a
police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and were on fire. There
was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gattman wrote:
> This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
>
>
> Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
> Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while
> covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and
> were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.

When I was with a TV station that had a helicopter (I only worked in the
helicopter on one story) there was an agreement that one station would do
this sort of stuff at x altitude, the other would be at x-200 and x+200. I
think the police were even in on this little agreement and they stayed at
their altitude.

When they had to leave the set altitude radio calls were made and eyes were
looking even more than normal.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 27, 4:53 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Gattman wrote:
> > This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
> > Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
> > Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while
> > covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and
> > were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.
>
> When I was with a TV station that had a helicopter (I only worked in the
> helicopter on one story) there was an agreement that one station would do
> this sort of stuff at x altitude, the other would be at x-200 and x+200. I
> think the police were even in on this little agreement and they stayed at
> their altitude.
>
> When they had to leave the set altitude radio calls were made and eyes were
> looking even more than normal.

I was reading one of the stories and it said the reporter was the
pilot? I would think that would make it even MORE difficult to "see
and avoid..."

[Blueskies]

"Gattman" > wrote in message ...
> This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
>
>
> Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
> Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went
> down in a park and were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.
>

Pilot and cameraman on each, all died. Someone caught a snapshot; looked one was inverted and the other was rolled over
90° going in...

Not good...

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-27 13:14:02 -0700, "Gattman" > said:

> This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
>
>
> Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
> Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while covering a
> police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and were on fire. There
> was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.

Video here:

http://video.ap.org/v/Default.aspx?g=323c575a-e952-4cff-a230-216c0ba51ef3&f&partner=en-ap

http://tinyurl.com/2llx9h

It

is raw video listed under "Most Watched." There is voice on the video,
a pilot who saw the collision occur.

All four people on both helicopters were killed.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-27 13:14:02 -0700, "Gattman" > said:

> This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+

Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
deaths of the people killed in the crash. I am not sure how they would
get a conviction, though.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> On 2007-07-27 13:14:02 -0700, "Gattman" > said:

> > This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+

> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
> deaths of the people killed in the crash. I am not sure how they would
> get a conviction, though.

Most states have laws that essentially say any death due or related to
the commision of a crime is chargable as murder.

Making the connection between the helicopters being there because of
the crime is a no-brainer and the perp probably can't afford a lawyer
clever enough to avoid the conviction.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
> This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
>
>
> Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
> Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while covering a
> police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and were on fire. There
> was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.

It is FAR past time for the media to stop covering these chases by chasing and
filming them in their helicopters. The public can do without it. It does no
good to stop the criminal behavior.

As a matter of fact, there is good evidence that some of the chases happen, so
the runner will have a chance to get on TV.

Don't get me wrong. I feel for the people and friends of those that crashed.

This is one circus we can do without. There is no benefit, only risk; needless
risk - it was bound to happen sooner or later. Media and police need to make an
agreement that they will not film these chases anymore.

<soapbox off>
--
Jim in NC

[James Robinson]

"Morgans" > wrote:
>
> It is FAR past time for the media to stop covering these chases by
> chasing and filming them in their helicopters. The public can do
> without it. It does no good to stop the criminal behavior.

The entertainment value seems to be far too great for this to happen. In
this case, the two helicopters involved in the incident were being joined
by three other media helicopters, plus there was reportedly a police
helicopter in the vicinity for a total of six flitting around in the same
airspace.

The thing that gave me chills was that it appears the pilot also provides
the commentary, so he not only has to maintain separation and handle the
radio, but also has to watch the chase on the ground, glance at the
monitors to see what is being videoed, and has to have the presence of mind
with all that's going on to make intelligent comments to the viewers all at
the same time. Talk about multi-tasking. And they say that cell phones
when driving are a distraction.

You'd at least think the various stations could agree to accept feeds from
their competitors to keep the number of choppers over a chase to some sane
limit.

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Jul 28, 1:44 am, James Robinson > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > It is FAR past time for the media to stop covering these chases by
> > chasing and filming them in their helicopters. The public can do
> > without it. It does no good to stop the criminal behavior.
>
> The entertainment value seems to be far too great for this to happen. In
> this case, the two helicopters involved in the incident were being joined
> by three other media helicopters, plus there was reportedly a police
> helicopter in the vicinity for a total of six flitting around in the same
> airspace.

Entertainment value has nothing to do with it.

The ability to get on top of, and stay on top of a breaking story
<insert your own worthy definition here> is the coal that fires the
sales department. Wanting to be top dog and be able to proclaim that
"When News Breaks, We Fix It..! *" equates to more advertising
dollars. Cash is King.

Unfortunately, there is a rampant sense of "If It Bleeds, It Leads" in
many newsrooms now days and the Phoenix market (being relatively close
to Los Angeles both physically and in attitude) tends to follow that
trend to a fault.

>The thing that gave me chills was that it appears the pilot also provides the commentary, so he not only has to maintain separation and handle the radio, but also >has to watch the chase on the ground, glance at the monitors to see what is being videoed, and has to have the presence of mind with all that's going on to make >intelligent comments to the viewers all at the same time. Talk about multi-tasking. And they say that cell phones when driving are a distraction.

IMO, in most markets, you can thank the union/management relationship
for this deal. News departments (like any other business) look for
ways to cut costs and the ability to send out a helo with only a pilot/
reporter and one camera operator (either hand held on the shoulder or
<if they can afford such> a gyro-mount of some kind) means they aren't
paying a big bucks, terrestrial reporter and/or producer to go up as
well.

> You'd at least think the various stations could agree to accept feeds from their competitors to keep the number of choppers over a chase to some sane limit.

There isn't a News Director on the planet (who wants to keep his/her
job) that would be willing to do this. The phrase, "Live, Local,
BORROWED" just doesn't have the same catchy ring to it.

(* Personally, I prefer the phrase: If It Happens Around Town, It's
News To Us! This used to be our inside joke back in the day at WDTN
in Dayton, OH.)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
("Veteran" of the Broadcast Wars Since 1982)

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> I was reading one of the stories and it said the reporter was the
> pilot? I would think that would make it even MORE difficult to "see
> and avoid..."

There was a crew of two in each aircraft, pilot and journalist. However, some
news helicopter pilots do double as journalists; I don't know to what extent
that may have been true here. Clearly, the pilots were not spending enough
time on the piloting task in any case.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
> deaths of the people killed in the crash.

Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at fault.

> I am not sure how they would get a conviction, though.

By using the same irrational emotional basis for a verdict in the trial that
was used to file the charges in the first place.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> Entertainment value has nothing to do with it.

Entertainment has everything to do with the news today.

> The ability to get on top of, and stay on top of a breaking story
> <insert your own worthy definition here> is the coal that fires the
> sales department. Wanting to be top dog and be able to proclaim that
> "When News Breaks, We Fix It..! *" equates to more advertising
> dollars. Cash is King.

Same thing. See above.

> Unfortunately, there is a rampant sense of "If It Bleeds, It Leads" in
> many newsrooms now days and the Phoenix market (being relatively close
> to Los Angeles both physically and in attitude) tends to follow that
> trend to a fault.

It has been a vice of the news media since time immemorial, or at least since
they had to to depend on circulation or viewership to generate revenue.

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> It is FAR past time for the media to stop covering these chases by chasing and filming them in their helicopters. The
> public can do without it. It does no good to stop the criminal behavior.
>
> As a matter of fact, there is good evidence that some of the chases happen, so the runner will have a chance to get on
> TV.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I feel for the people and friends of those that crashed.
>
> This is one circus we can do without. There is no benefit, only risk; needless risk - it was bound to happen sooner
> or later. Media and police need to make an agreement that they will not film these chases anymore.
>
> <soapbox off>
> --
> Jim in NC

So I suppose you could say the same thing about the P-51 accident at OSH. Why did they do a formation landing? Any
number of things could happen that could lead to a similar accident. The formation landing was only for expediency,
showmanship, and entertainment value.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
>> deaths of the people killed in the crash.
>
> Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at fault.


The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

--------------------------------------------
DW

[Darkwing]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It is FAR past time for the media to stop covering these chases by
>> chasing and filming them in their helicopters. The public can do without
>> it. It does no good to stop the criminal behavior.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, there is good evidence that some of the chases
>> happen, so the runner will have a chance to get on TV.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I feel for the people and friends of those that
>> crashed.
>>
>> This is one circus we can do without. There is no benefit, only risk;
>> needless risk - it was bound to happen sooner or later. Media and police
>> need to make an agreement that they will not film these chases anymore.
>>
>> <soapbox off>
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> So I suppose you could say the same thing about the P-51 accident at OSH.
> Why did they do a formation landing? Any number of things could happen
> that could lead to a similar accident. The formation landing was only for
> expediency, showmanship, and entertainment value.
>
>

The very reason people go to OSH.

-------------------------------------------------
DW

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blueskies"> wrote

> So I suppose you could say the same thing about the P-51 accident at OSH.
> Why did they do a formation landing? Any number of things could happen
> that could lead to a similar accident. The formation landing was only for
> expediency, showmanship, and entertainment value.

You know, I thought it was very strange, when I heard it happened in a
formation landing.

I can't recall ever seeing a formation landing, of ANY type of plane at OSH,
the 5 years I have been there.

Unnecessary risk? Yep, I think so. Look what happened. In BOTH cases. At
least at OSH, there is showmanship happening. The only thing show in
covering a car chase is showing how stupid a perp. can be.

It would need to come down as a moral agreement among the stations in a
market, saying, "we will not cover car chases."

A similar type of thing is the governments stand that they will not
negotiate with kidnapers or terrorists.

You just have to decide it is wrong, and say no.
--
Jim in NC

[El Maximo]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>C J Campbell writes:
>>
>>> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
>>> deaths of the people killed in the crash.
>>
>> Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at
>> fault.
>
>
> The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
> running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

I see his legal knowledge equals his aviation knowledge.

[James Robinson]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
>> deaths of the people killed in the crash.
>
> Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at
> fault.
>
>> I am not sure how they would get a conviction, though.
>
> By using the same irrational emotional basis for a verdict in the
> trial that was used to file the charges in the first place.

Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death of
any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the person
intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in it.

As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled in a
car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit a tree,
resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the rest of the
group were charged with murder even though only one was driving, and even
though the person who died was one of their accomplices.

In another case, two people drove to a house with the intention of
robbing it. One stayed in the car, while the other entered the house. A
struggle ensued with the occupant of the house, who died in the struggle.
The person who remained in the car was charged with murder, even though
he did not have a hand in it, did not have a weapon, and was not
expecting that there would be violence.

Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and likely
be convicted.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jul 27, 7:35 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:53 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gattman wrote:
> > > This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
> > > Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
> > > Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while
> > > covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and
> > > were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.
>
> > When I was with a TV station that had a helicopter (I only worked in the
> > helicopter on one story) there was an agreement that one station would do
> > this sort of stuff at x altitude, the other would be at x-200 and x+200. I
> > think the police were even in on this little agreement and they stayed at
> > their altitude.
>
> > When they had to leave the set altitude radio calls were made and eyes were
> > looking even more than normal.
>
> I was reading one of the stories and it said the reporter was the
> pilot? I would think that would make it even MORE difficult to "see
> and avoid..."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The pilot/reporter gig is pretty typical. In the 80's it was mostly
reporters with pilots (and camera crew/s) but the trend started to be
to have someone who could fly, talk and do PR...I dont know what the
mix is now, but by the time I left grad school in ATL...all the tv
chopper people were "Action reporter/pilot" nonesense. And that
seemed to be the industry trend.

Robert

[[email protected]]

Luke Skywalker > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 7:35 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 4:53 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Gattman wrote:
> > > > This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
> >
> > > > Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
> >
> > > > Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while
> > > > covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and
> > > > were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.
> >
> > > When I was with a TV station that had a helicopter (I only worked in the
> > > helicopter on one story) there was an agreement that one station would do
> > > this sort of stuff at x altitude, the other would be at x-200 and x+200. I
> > > think the police were even in on this little agreement and they stayed at
> > > their altitude.
> >
> > > When they had to leave the set altitude radio calls were made and eyes were
> > > looking even more than normal.
> >
> > I was reading one of the stories and it said the reporter was the
> > pilot? I would think that would make it even MORE difficult to "see
> > and avoid..."- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

> The pilot/reporter gig is pretty typical. In the 80's it was mostly
> reporters with pilots (and camera crew/s) but the trend started to be
> to have someone who could fly, talk and do PR...I dont know what the
> mix is now, but by the time I left grad school in ATL...all the tv
> chopper people were "Action reporter/pilot" nonesense. And that
> seemed to be the industry trend.

Of course.

I would wager the salary of a pilot/reporter is greater than either
a pilot or a reporter, but less that of a pilot plus a reporter, and
cerainly if you throw in labor taxes and benefits if they are employees.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
> running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because they are
criminal acts.

[Mxsmanic]

James Robinson writes:

> Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
> allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death of
> any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the person
> intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in it.

How far does the "result of a crime" extend? It's a slippery slope.

> As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled in a
> car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit a tree,
> resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the rest of the
> group were charged with murder even though only one was driving, and even
> though the person who died was one of their accomplices.

But in this case the bad guys were not in a helicopter. The accident occurred
because of pilot error, and could have occurred under any circumstances.

> Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and likely
> be convicted.

If the helicopters had collided while following a rescue operation, which way
would the emotional knee-jerk reaction turn in search of scapegoats then?

Be careful what you wish for.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> > The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't been
> > running, but typical MX non-medicated response.

> Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because they are
> criminal acts.

Irrelevant and a **** poor arguement.

Criminal acts in progress are newsworthy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> James Robinson writes:

> > Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
> > allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death of
> > any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the person
> > intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in it.

> How far does the "result of a crime" extend? It's a slippery slope.

It certainly is.

The lesson there is don't commit even a minor crime or the consequences
for you may be much higher than you expected.

> > As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled in a
> > car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit a tree,
> > resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the rest of the
> > group were charged with murder even though only one was driving, and even
> > though the person who died was one of their accomplices.

> But in this case the bad guys were not in a helicopter. The accident occurred
> because of pilot error, and could have occurred under any circumstances.

> > Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and likely
> > be convicted.

> If the helicopters had collided while following a rescue operation, which way
> would the emotional knee-jerk reaction turn in search of scapegoats then?

Which part of the laws say while committing a crime are you struggling
to understand?

> Be careful what you wish for.

What in holy hell are you talking about? Such laws have been in existence
for a long time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[James Robinson]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> James Robinson writes:
>
>> Nothing emotional or irrational about it. Most states have laws that
>> allow people who commit crimes to be charged with murder, if a death
>> of any kind is a result of the crime. It doesn't matter if the
>> person intended to cause death, or even if they had a direct hand in
>> it.
>
> How far does the "result of a crime" extend? It's a slippery slope.

These laws have existed for decades, and the jursiprudence is well
established.

>> As examples, a group of men committed a robbery in Florida, and fled
>> in a car. The police chased the car, which ran off the road and hit
>> a tree, resulting in the death of one of the occupants. All of the
>> rest of the group were charged with murder even though only one was
>> driving, and even though the person who died was one of their
>> accomplices.
>
> But in this case the bad guys were not in a helicopter. The accident
> occurred because of pilot error, and could have occurred under any
> circumstances.

I simply gave an example of where people who didn't have the intention of
killing people and who didn't even directly cause the death were still
charged with murder.

The helicopter accident wouldn't have occurred if the chase hadn't been
on, since the helicopters wouldn't have been flying the way they were.

A number of states have laws that say a person is automatically at fault
for any accidents in a car if they are driving without a license, even if
they would not have been at fault if they did have a valid license. The
argument is that had then not been driving, then the accident would not
have happened. By extension, if the person hadn't been fleeing the law,
then the helicopter collision wouldn't have happened.

>> Thus, expect to see the person in Phoenix charged with murder, and
>> likely be convicted.
>
> If the helicopters had collided while following a rescue operation,
> which way would the emotional knee-jerk reaction turn in search of
> scapegoats then?
>
> Be careful what you wish for.

If they collided while following a rescue, it would have simply been
pilot error.

The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional deterrent to
doing things like fleeing the police.

[george]

On Jul 28, 1:33 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-07-27 13:14:02 -0700, "Gattman" > said:
>
> > This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
> deaths of the people killed in the crash. I am not sure how they would
> get a conviction, though.

One way to further make the law a laughing stock !

I'm expecting that one day the pursued are going to down the
helicopter.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It certainly is.
>
> The lesson there is don't commit even a minor crime or the consequences
> for you may be much higher than you expected.

I wasn't talking about consequences for criminals. I was talking about the
effect on litigation in general. Perverting justice just to achieve emotional
satisfaction is a dangerous path to follow.

[Mxsmanic]

James Robinson writes:

> The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional deterrent to
> doing things like fleeing the police.

So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't mean
it's a good idea.

[James Robinson]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> James Robinson writes:
>
>> The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional
>> deterrent to doing things like fleeing the police.
>
> So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't
> mean it's a good idea.

It's not throwing people in jail with charge, it's a perfectly valid
charge, and it is commonly made.

The two approaches to defending against the charge in court are typically
self-defense, or what is called supervening cause. That would be something
like the person wouldn't have died if the ambulance personnel hadn't made a
mistake.

Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > It certainly is.
> >
> > The lesson there is don't commit even a minor crime or the consequences
> > for you may be much higher than you expected.

> I wasn't talking about consequences for criminals. I was talking about the
> effect on litigation in general. Perverting justice just to achieve emotional
> satisfaction is a dangerous path to follow.

Meaningless blather; such laws have been in existance for a very long
time and are well tested.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> James Robinson writes:
>
>> The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional
>> deterrent to doing things like fleeing the police.
>
> So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't
> mean it's a good idea.
>

You just can't resist putting your foot in it can you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> It certainly is.
>>
>> The lesson there is don't commit even a minor crime or the
>> consequences for you may be much higher than you expected.
>
> I wasn't talking about consequences for criminals. I was talking
> about the effect on litigation in general. Perverting justice just to
> achieve emotional satisfaction is a dangerous path to follow.
>













As if anyone cared what you though.

About anything


Bertie















like

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> > The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he
>> > hadn't been running, but typical MX non-medicated response.
>
>> Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because
>> they are criminal acts.
>
> Irrelevant and a **** poor arguement.
>
> Criminal acts in progress are newsworthy.
>

you're an idiot


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The helicoptors wouldn't have been following the asshole if he hadn't
>> been running, but typical MX non-medicated response.
>
> Helicopters follow things because they are newsworthy, not because
> they are criminal acts.
>

You're an idiot

Nobody cares what you think.

And you'l never fly a helicopter, either



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Beckman writes:
>
>> Entertainment value has nothing to do with it.
>
> Entertainment has everything to do with the news today.
>
>> The ability to get on top of, and stay on top of a breaking story
>> <insert your own worthy definition here> is the coal that fires the
>> sales department. Wanting to be top dog and be able to proclaim
>> that "When News Breaks, We Fix It..! *" equates to more advertising
>> dollars. Cash is King.
>
> Same thing. See above.
>
>> Unfortunately, there is a rampant sense of "If It Bleeds, It Leads"
>> in many newsrooms now days and the Phoenix market (being relatively
>> close to Los Angeles both physically and in attitude) tends to follow
>> that trend to a fault.
>
> It has been a vice of the news media since time immemorial, or at
> least since they had to to depend on circulation or viewership to
> generate revenue.
>



You're just jealous


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

James Robinson writes:

> The two approaches to defending against the charge in court are typically
> self-defense, or what is called supervening cause. That would be something
> like the person wouldn't have died if the ambulance personnel hadn't made a
> mistake.

Nobody would have died if the pilot had not screwed up.

> Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
> that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.

The notion of pilot as sole in command would also be eroded by this.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> You just can't resist putting your foot in it can you?

Just like I can't resist putting my little dick in little boys' butts.

[Mxsmanic]

James Robinson > wrote:

> Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
> that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.

So you're saying that if I molest some young boy, he goes home and tells
his father who then comes and kills me, I'm guilty of my own murder? Or
would that be classified as suicide?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in news:Xns997C28BEFB9DCibtrolling@
194.177.96.26:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> You just can't resist putting your foot in it can you?
>
> Just like I can't resist putting my little dick in little boys' butts.
>

Well, what can one say?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> James Robinson writes:
>
>> The two approaches to defending against the charge in court are
>> typically self-defense, or what is called supervening cause. That
>> would be something like the person wouldn't have died if the
>> ambulance personnel hadn't made a mistake.
>
> Nobody would have died if the pilot had not screwed up.
>
>> Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any
>> cause that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in
>> trouble.
>
> The notion of pilot as sole in command would also be eroded by this.
>

Wrong again, idiot boi


bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> James Robinson > wrote:

> > Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
> > that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.

> So you're saying that if I molest some young boy, he goes home and tells
> his father who then comes and kills me, I'm guilty of my own murder? Or
> would that be classified as suicide?

No, that would be classified as news.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > James Robinson > wrote:
>
> > > Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
> > > that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.
>
> > So you're saying that if I molest some young boy, he goes home and tells
> > his father who then comes and kills me, I'm guilty of my own murder? Or
> > would that be classified as suicide?
>
> No, that would be classified as news.

How about "public service?"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Doug Semler wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:53 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Gattman wrote:
>>> This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>>
>>> Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>>
>>> Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while
>>> covering a police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and
>>> were on fire. There was no immediate word on the fate of those
>>> aboard.
>>
>> When I was with a TV station that had a helicopter (I only worked in
>> the helicopter on one story) there was an agreement that one station
>> would do this sort of stuff at x altitude, the other would be at x-
>> 200 and x+200. I think the police were even in on this little
>> agreement and they stayed at their altitude.
>>
>> When they had to leave the set altitude radio calls were made and
>> eyes were looking even more than normal.
>
> I was reading one of the stories and it said the reporter was the
> pilot? I would think that would make it even MORE difficult to "see
> and avoid..."

I read that as well this weekend and I was shocked. I was in a smaller
market than Phoenix and that would have been completely unacceptable
practice.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
>> deaths of the people killed in the crash.
>
> Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at
> fault.
>
>> I am not sure how they would get a conviction, though.
>
> By using the same irrational emotional basis for a verdict in the
> trial that was used to file the charges in the first place.

It called Felony Murder. It can and has been used Badguy A when a cop shoots
and kills Badguy B.

I very good friend of mine's father was killed when an fleeing robbery
suspect crashed into the Taxi both my friend and his father were in. THey
charged and easily covicted the robber of felony murder.

[John Theune]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> C J Campbell writes:
>>
>>> Some news reports are saying the carjacker will be charged with the
>>> deaths of the people killed in the crash.
>> Typical emotional overreaction. The pilots were the only people at
>> fault.
>>
>>> I am not sure how they would get a conviction, though.
>> By using the same irrational emotional basis for a verdict in the
>> trial that was used to file the charges in the first place.
>
> It called Felony Murder. It can and has been used Badguy A when a cop shoots
> and kills Badguy B.
>
> I very good friend of mine's father was killed when an fleeing robbery
> suspect crashed into the Taxi both my friend and his father were in. THey
> charged and easily covicted the robber of felony murder.
>
>
But in that case the robber actually had a direct interaction with the
victim. In this case the 2 helo pilots did not have a direct
interaction with the perp. Using the same logic you could charge the
perp because someone heard the report on the radio and had a accident
because they were not watching where they were going.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Theune wrote:

> But in that case the robber actually had a direct interaction with the
> victim. In this case the 2 helo pilots did not have a direct
> interaction with the perp. Using the same logic you could charge the
> perp because someone heard the report on the radio and had a accident
> because they were not watching where they were going.

Oh, I didn't say that the case was a slam-dunk but there is enough there to
make the charge.

[El Maximo]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...


> I very good friend of mine's father was killed when an fleeing robbery
> suspect crashed into the Taxi both my friend and his father were in. THey
> charged and easily covicted the robber of felony murder.

I went to school with a kid with a bad temper. About twenty years ago, he
got into a fight with someone over a drug deal. He ended up killing the
other guy. Because it happened in conjunction with a felony, he was charged
with, and convicted of, first degree murder.

He got life with no parole.

[Al G[_2_]]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> James Robinson writes:
>>
>>> The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional
>>> deterrent to doing things like fleeing the police.
>>
>> So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't
>> mean it's a good idea.
>
> It's not throwing people in jail with charge, it's a perfectly valid
> charge, and it is commonly made.
>
> The two approaches to defending against the charge in court are typically
> self-defense, or what is called supervening cause. That would be
> something
> like the person wouldn't have died if the ambulance personnel hadn't made
> a
> mistake.
>
> Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
> that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.

Ok, so a drunk celebrity is driving home(again). Two photographers get into
a scuffle
going for the best shot, and one of them steps off a curb and breaks a foot.
The "Drunk"
is responsible, right?

How about a kid who steps off the curb 2 miles away to watch the smoke from
the crashed helicopter, and gets hit by an Ice cream truck. Involuntary
homicide right?

Where does this line get drawn?

Al G


Al

[[email protected]]

Al G > wrote:

> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> >> James Robinson writes:
> >>
> >>> The law connecting murders to crimes is simply an additional
> >>> deterrent to doing things like fleeing the police.
> >>
> >> So is throwing people in jail without charging them, but that doesn't
> >> mean it's a good idea.
> >
> > It's not throwing people in jail with charge, it's a perfectly valid
> > charge, and it is commonly made.
> >
> > The two approaches to defending against the charge in court are typically
> > self-defense, or what is called supervening cause. That would be
> > something
> > like the person wouldn't have died if the ambulance personnel hadn't made
> > a
> > mistake.
> >
> > Other than that, if you commit a crime, and somebody dies for any cause
> > that can be remotely connected to the crime, you are in trouble.

> Ok, so a drunk celebrity is driving home(again). Two photographers get into
> a scuffle
> going for the best shot, and one of them steps off a curb and breaks a foot.
> The "Drunk"
> is responsible, right?

> How about a kid who steps off the curb 2 miles away to watch the smoke from
> the crashed helicopter, and gets hit by an Ice cream truck. Involuntary
> homicide right?

> Where does this line get drawn?

By the jury.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[sillysteve]

On Jul 30, 5:25 pm, wrote:
> > Where does this line get drawn?
>
> By the jury.

The chances that a jury will even hear these charges are close to
zero. What will almost certainly happen is that the carjacker's
lawyer will arrange a plea bargain. The carjacker will plead guilty
to something, but as part of the deal the helicopter death charges
will be dropped.

That sort of scenario happens all the time; a prosecutor will charge
somebody with a whole smorgasbord of things, fully intending to drop
the weaker charges as part of the plea negotiation.

[[email protected]]

sillysteve > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 5:25 pm, wrote:
> > > Where does this line get drawn?
> >
> > By the jury.

> The chances that a jury will even hear these charges are close to
> zero. What will almost certainly happen is that the carjacker's
> lawyer will arrange a plea bargain. The carjacker will plead guilty
> to something, but as part of the deal the helicopter death charges
> will be dropped.

> That sort of scenario happens all the time; a prosecutor will charge
> somebody with a whole smorgasbord of things, fully intending to drop
> the weaker charges as part of the plea negotiation.

More than likely, but the question was who draws the line in a death
by tenuous association with a crime.

In this particular case, if the carjacker is offered the bargain, he
would be insane not to go for it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[OMFG via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>I wasn't talking about consequences for criminals. I was talking about the
>effect on litigation in general. Perverting justice just to achieve emotional
>satisfaction is a dangerous path to follow.
Oh Christ !!!
You are a F**KING IDIOT!!

looking forward to the day you shut-up!!!

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

El Maximo wrote:
> Because it happened in conjunction with a felony, he was charged
>with, and convicted of, first degree murder.
>
>He got life with no parole.

Excellent.
The system works.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:14:02 -0700, "Gattman"
> wrote in
>:

>This sucks. Bad guy 2, police 0, media -2+
>
>
>
>Jul 27 04:03 PM US/Eastern (AP)
>
>Two television news helicopters collided Friday and crashed while covering a
>police pursuit. Both helicopters went down in a park and were on fire. There
>was no immediate word on the fate of those aboard.
>


PILOTS PROPOSE ANTI-COLLISION DEVICE FOR FORMATION FLYING
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/956-full.html#196164)
Two pilots have filed a patent for a device that they say could
help to prevent mid-air collisions like the one

(http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/07/23/daily40.html?jst=b_ln_hl)
that killed two helicopter pilots and two videographers in
Phoenix, Ariz., in July. The crews were covering a police pursuit
for television news. Inventors Chris Morrison and Ralph Gannarelli
knew two of the men who died and said the crash convinced them to
move forward with their efforts. "We both were deeply affected by
the crash, and thought there could be a better way for news pilots
to see where each helicopter is located in relation to one another
while so many are in the air at one time," Morrison told the East
Valley Tribune (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/97541). The
two have developed a wireless GPS device that could issue voice
announcements to keep pilots apprised of the location of other
aircraft within a one-mile radius. The system would also sound a
warning if another helicopter comes within 300 feet.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/956-full.html#196164

While this proposed technologic fix may be useful, I would prefer to
see a third crew member added to news helicopter operations: a
dedicated pilot who does nothing but pilot the helicopter. Expecting
a pilot/journalist to observe the news making event and report what he
sees over the radio, in addition to piloting his aircraft is unsafe.
The hazard is way beyond that of text messaging while driving.

This accident raises the question of whether it appropriate for news
reporters to intrude on a crime in progress, being pursued by police
authorities, at all.