Drunk driver kills jewish couple, flees scene, baby delivered

[IlarMeilyr]

I hear now that the baby did not survive.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's not that liberals have no morals, but if they are thinking "relativistically"
then the moral principle being discussed or analyzed has to
(a) both apply to that person "personally" where it makes sense in their terms
(not just imposed from outside by some external source or influence)
(b) and also be "universal" for all people at the same time if you are going to argue
all people should follow it


It takes longer or more contextual backgrounds to explain and establish
a rule of law as "universal" to someone taking a relativistic approach, where the goal
is to be universal and specific at the same time, to accommodate diversity yet still
have unity without compromising one for the other.

The GOOD news is that once an understanding and agreement is reached, then that same
person will share that knowledge in a "relativistic way" with people of diverse backgrounds.

I go through this process all the time, because I relate to liberals
and have invested a lot of effort translating between conservative
principles and explaining them in liberal contexts to people who think outside the box.

It takes me longer to assimilate and align with people, but once we make those connections, then we can communicate and work across cultural political and religious lines so it is worth the extra effort it took to build to that point!

I find that I often am able to play devil's advocate on many issues. I can see why liberals might think relativistically about some issues. What bothers me is the apparent hypocrisy they bring with those opinions.
Case in point: because the couple who died in this horrible accident had chosen a different lifestyle, a path that some (in this case, Noomi) might not choose, their child is assumed to be raised in an unhappy environment. Hasidim are a close-knit cultural/religious group, and they adhere pretty strictly to a very (biblically) moral code. Some people who have eschewed religiously-driven moral codes reject, out-of-hand, anything or anyone that do not. Yet, the very same people who would condemn one group of people for their beliefs are the loudest, most obnoxious when they feel their beliefs have been trammeled.

Sorry GW, but taking the personal shortsightedness of one person and extrapolating it to an entire side of the political spectrum is absurd.

If this was just one person's view, it would not disturb as deeply. Morality is subjective. Both sides, of course, claim the objective moral high ground. There are extremes on both sides of most polarized issues.

 

[novasteve]

Nypd seeks Julio Acevedo, the driver of the bmw

(no link)

How do they know who the driver was if they don't have him?

But I guess this is progress; now we can say "WASP police seek Hispanic Driver who Killed Jewish Couple".

Btw "BMW" is an acronym. So is NYPD.

Police Identify Julio Acevedo As Brooklyn Hit-And-Run Suspect That Killed Brooklyn Couple, Newborn Baby

 

[Pogo]

Nypd seeks Julio Acevedo, the driver of the bmw

(no link)

How do they know who the driver was if they don't have him?

But I guess this is progress; now we can say "WASP police seek Hispanic Driver who Killed Jewish Couple".

Btw "BMW" is an acronym. So is NYPD.

Police Identify Julio Acevedo As Brooklyn Hit-And-Run Suspect That Killed Brooklyn Couple, Newborn Baby

Now wtf was so hard about that?

 

[novasteve]

Why did you need a link? Did you think I was lying?


There's a Learjet making an emergency landing in stl now, is it untrue without a link?

 

[Pogo]

Why did you need a link? Did you think I was lying?


There's a Learjet making an emergency landing in stl now, is it untrue without a link?

Yeah, it is. It's hearsay. There's also a big city-eating monster shaped like a purple cloud coming your way.

Just break a brain sweat once in a while. You haven't exactly established yourself as a reliable source if you know what I mean.

 

[novasteve]

This is neither a court nor evidence so how could there be hearsay or do you not know what hearsay is?

 

[novasteve]

The suspect who fled, Julio Acevedo, has served 8 years for manslaughter in the past

 

[Rozman]

I wonder if he is an undocumented American....

They used to be called illegal aliens.

 

[Pogo]

This is neither a court nor evidence so how could there be hearsay or do you not know what hearsay is?

How do you not know what reporting is?

Again, looking at the way you framed the OP, nobody's going to take an unlinked hearsay from you as in any way reliable. Everybody needs to document; you more than most.

 

[novasteve]

Julio Acevedo, Alleged Driver In Fatal WIlliamsburg Hit-And-Run, Sought By NYPD (PHOTO)

He went to prison for manslaughter and was just a couple a weeks ago busted for drunk driving.

 

[novasteve]

This is neither a court nor evidence so how could there be hearsay or do you not know what hearsay is?

How do you not know what reporting is?

Again, looking at the way you framed the OP, nobody's going to take an unlinked hearsay from you as in any way reliable. Everybody needs to document; you more than most.

That's funny, because how I framed it turns out to be correct. Who else flees the scene of a car accident in the early morning unless you are already committing a crime? The guy has killed people in the past, and he was busted for drunk driving just 2 weeks ago.

 

[Pogo]

This is neither a court nor evidence so how could there be hearsay or do you not know what hearsay is?

How do you not know what reporting is?

Again, looking at the way you framed the OP, nobody's going to take an unlinked hearsay from you as in any way reliable. Everybody needs to document; you more than most.

That's funny, because how I framed it turns out to be correct. Who else flees the scene of a car accident in the early morning unless you are already committing a crime? The guy has killed people in the past, and he was busted for drunk driving just 2 weeks ago.

No, you still don't get to make up and plug in your own facts.

He may well have been drunk, but without evidence you can't say that and expect any credibility. Just as the couple who were killed were not killed because they were Jewish, just as BMW drivers are not automatically drunks, all of which were inferences, fabrications or flat out lies you posted up there with no basis.

That's why you of all people need links -- because you already have a history of making shit up. I don't know what's complex about this.

 

[emilynghiem]

I find that I often am able to play devil's advocate on many issues. I can see why liberals might think relativistically about some issues. What bothers me is the apparent hypocrisy they bring with those opinions.
Case in point: because the couple who died in this horrible accident had chosen a different lifestyle, a path that some (in this case, Noomi) might not choose, their child is assumed to be raised in an unhappy environment. Hasidim are a close-knit cultural/religious group, and they adhere pretty strictly to a very (biblically) moral code. Some people who have eschewed religiously-driven moral codes reject, out-of-hand, anything or anyone that do not. Yet, the very same people who would condemn one group of people for their beliefs are the loudest, most obnoxious when they feel their beliefs have been trammeled.

Dear GW I am glad you make the effort to try to see both sides. We all have our biases and preferences, so we do the best we can knowing we are going to project a little.

What I find causes this imbalance of forgiving things in one instance but hammering in another (what I call "selective forgiveness" and most obvious when used for political convenience to defend one's arguments or viewpoints) is in general NOT forgiving or resolving some past issue in one's own life such as with family or personal relations.

Then anything with politics or religion that "reminds" each person of some past injustice or BS conflict that never got fixed, gets "projected" onto THAT group of people or anyone who appears to represent THAT issue, group or stereotype. I've seen things that boiled down to basic "mommy and daddy issues," or past control issues with other people, repeating over and over. And that biases our perception of who is causing the problem or most to blame, and gets projected from there onto groups.

[from your viewpoint, you may be able to see the liberal bias more clearly than the people you are looking at as hypocritical; but the same can be said for them, too. some areas where I have caught conservatives being hypocritical include: (a1) pushing for religious freedom for Christianity, but when it comes to Constitutional protections of Islam suddenly it's okay to push for banning mosques and pre-emptive laws against shariah which has broader meaning and is problematic to enforce without infringing on charitable practice. (a2) another variation: blaming Muslims even innocent ones for somehow enabling or tolerating extremists Jihadist who abuse religion to commit violent attacks; but when it comes to "ALL corporations" being blamed for abusing power, suddenly there is a DISTINCTION made between good companies having the freedom to protect themselves from liability and the bad companies that "may be abusive" for which the good companies claim no responsibility (just like Muslims who claim no affiliation with Jihadists)
(b1) pushing for pro-life legislation against free choice of individuals, because saving lives is more important than freedom, but when it comes to mandates on health care to save lives, then suddenly prolife people want free choice also independent of govt regulation; and (b2) a variation of this is opposing any regulation on gun control since banning guns won't stop the problem causing the abuse, while pushing regulations on abortion, despite the same argument that banning it won't stop the cause of the problems.]

When I look at these forums I see a bunch of people thrown into group therapy together, not always aware what is going on, and in different stages of grief or anger, denial or bargaining/resolution, trying to sort things out by comparing notes and perceptions.

And the lessons learned are that you get back what you give.
if you project blame onto others while denying your part of the responsibility,
guess what, other people see you the same way.
if you blame someone as representing a group, you get that same treatment in return.

so if we don't like people making generalizations about us, guess what,
we eventually learn not to make generatizations about others that put people
on the defensive where this game STARTS of "excusing one and accusing the other"

someday when we tire of these finger-pointing festivals
we will think up some new games that may be more challenging but fun

such as how can we work together in teams, to get the best ideas from all parties
and correct the worst faults, so we can actually make the most of our resources
and freedoms we have as Americans that we take for granted and waste by fighting?

how can we convert our ailing prisons and mental health systems
to reinvest those wasted resources into funding medical education with public health programs run by interns and residencies under supervised training to cut the costs of both?

how can we pay back debts from misspending by assessing the cost of developing sustainable jobs and education, and investing capital loans there lent against past debts while holding wrongdoers responsible for paying back illicit profits at taxpayers' expense?

heck, if we are going to throw proverbial mud back and forth, why not set up food fights or jello throwing competitions to raise money to pay for the solutions to problems we disagree on so much. At least set things up to be fun and raise money toward the actual CAUSES, instead of wasting billions on campaign funds fighting and not getting anywhere but in debt!

 

[novasteve]

How do you not know what reporting is?

Again, looking at the way you framed the OP, nobody's going to take an unlinked hearsay from you as in any way reliable. Everybody needs to document; you more than most.

That's funny, because how I framed it turns out to be correct. Who else flees the scene of a car accident in the early morning unless you are already committing a crime? The guy has killed people in the past, and he was busted for drunk driving just 2 weeks ago.

No, you still don't get to make up and plug in your own facts.

He may well have been drunk, but without evidence you can't say that and expect any credibility. Just as the couple who were killed were not killed because they were Jewish, just as BMW drivers are not automatically drunks, all of which were inferences, fabrications or flat out lies you posted up there with no basis.

That's why you of all people need links -- because you already have a history of making shit up. I don't know what's complex about this.

Hey dickbreath, I reported the news. At least I didn't say they deserved to die based upon on how they dressed like that horrific antisemite on her said.

 

[novasteve]

Given the police know everything about him, where he lives, and they don't have him, isn't it possible he's being aided and hidden and probably trying to escape somewhere?

 

[Pogo]

That's funny, because how I framed it turns out to be correct. Who else flees the scene of a car accident in the early morning unless you are already committing a crime? The guy has killed people in the past, and he was busted for drunk driving just 2 weeks ago.

No, you still don't get to make up and plug in your own facts.

He may well have been drunk, but without evidence you can't say that and expect any credibility. Just as the couple who were killed were not killed because they were Jewish, just as BMW drivers are not automatically drunks, all of which were inferences, fabrications or flat out lies you posted up there with no basis.

That's why you of all people need links -- because you already have a history of making shit up. I don't know what's complex about this.

Hey dickbreath, I reported the news. At least I didn't say they deserved to die based upon on how they dressed like that horrific antisemite on her said.

That's a tu quoque fallacy (plus ad hominem) which makes the post worthless.
The fact is you reported some of the news and made the rest up. There's no excuse for that.

 

[novasteve]

No, you still don't get to make up and plug in your own facts.

He may well have been drunk, but without evidence you can't say that and expect any credibility. Just as the couple who were killed were not killed because they were Jewish, just as BMW drivers are not automatically drunks, all of which were inferences, fabrications or flat out lies you posted up there with no basis.

That's why you of all people need links -- because you already have a history of making shit up. I don't know what's complex about this.

Hey dickbreath, I reported the news. At least I didn't say they deserved to die based upon on how they dressed like that horrific antisemite on her said.

That's a tu quoque fallacy (plus ad hominem) which makes the post worthless.
The fact is you reported some of the news and made the rest up. There's no excuse for that.

What did I make up exactly? I said a drink driver killed a jewish couple, then fled the scene.

Did that not happen? Okay, there's a slight chance he might not have been drunk, but given his past and his actions, I think it's overwhelmingly likely he was AND in addition, I will say that he's being aided to hide or even escape to some place else.

 

[Pogo]

I find that I often am able to play devil's advocate on many issues. I can see why liberals might think relativistically about some issues. What bothers me is the apparent hypocrisy they bring with those opinions.
Case in point: because the couple who died in this horrible accident had chosen a different lifestyle, a path that some (in this case, Noomi) might not choose, their child is assumed to be raised in an unhappy environment. Hasidim are a close-knit cultural/religious group, and they adhere pretty strictly to a very (biblically) moral code. Some people who have eschewed religiously-driven moral codes reject, out-of-hand, anything or anyone that do not. Yet, the very same people who would condemn one group of people for their beliefs are the loudest, most obnoxious when they feel their beliefs have been trammeled.

Dear GW I am glad you make the effort to try to see both sides. We all have our biases and preferences, so we do the best we can knowing we are going to project a little.

What I find causes this imbalance of forgiving things in one instance but hammering in another (what I call "selective forgiveness" and most obvious when used for political convenience to defend one's arguments or viewpoints) is in general NOT forgiving or resolving some past issue in one's own life such as with family or personal relations.

Then anything with politics or religion that "reminds" each person of some past injustice or BS conflict that never got fixed, gets "projected" onto THAT group of people or anyone who appears to represent THAT issue, group or stereotype. I've seen things that boiled down to basic "mommy and daddy issues," or past control issues with other people, repeating over and over. And that biases our perception of who is causing the problem or most to blame, and gets projected from there onto groups.

[from your viewpoint, you may be able to see the liberal bias more clearly than the people you are looking at as hypocritical; but the same can be said for them, too. some areas where I have caught conservatives being hypocritical include: (a1) pushing for religious freedom for Christianity, but when it comes to Constitutional protections of Islam suddenly it's okay to push for banning mosques and pre-emptive laws against shariah which has broader meaning and is problematic to enforce without infringing on charitable practice. (a2) another variation: blaming Muslims even innocent ones for somehow enabling or tolerating extremists Jihadist who abuse religion to commit violent attacks; but when it comes to "ALL corporations" being blamed for abusing power, suddenly there is a DISTINCTION made between good companies having the freedom to protect themselves from liability and the bad companies that "may be abusive" for which the good companies claim no responsibility (just like Muslims who claim no affiliation with Jihadists)
(b1) pushing for pro-life legislation against free choice of individuals, because saving lives is more important than freedom, but when it comes to mandates on health care to save lives, then suddenly prolife people want free choice also independent of govt regulation; and (b2) a variation of this is opposing any regulation on gun control since banning guns won't stop the problem causing the abuse, while pushing regulations on abortion, despite the same argument that banning it won't stop the cause of the problems.]

When I look at these forums I see a bunch of people thrown into group therapy together, not always aware what is going on, and in different stages of grief or anger, denial or bargaining/resolution, trying to sort things out by comparing notes and perceptions.

And the lessons learned are that you get back what you give.
if you project blame onto others while denying your part of the responsibility,
guess what, other people see you the same way.
if you blame someone as representing a group, you get that same treatment in return.

so if we don't like people making generalizations about us, guess what,
we eventually learn not to make generatizations about others that put people
on the defensive where this game STARTS of "excusing one and accusing the other"

someday when we tire of these finger-pointing festivals
we will think up some new games that may be more challenging but fun

such as how can we work together in teams, to get the best ideas from all parties
and correct the worst faults, so we can actually make the most of our resources
and freedoms we have as Americans that we take for granted and waste by fighting?

how can we convert our ailing prisons and mental health systems
to reinvest those wasted resources into funding medical education with public health programs run by interns and residencies under supervised training to cut the costs of both?

how can we pay back debts from misspending by assessing the cost of developing sustainable jobs and education, and investing capital loans there lent against past debts while holding wrongdoers responsible for paying back illicit profits at taxpayers' expense?

heck, if we are going to throw proverbial mud back and forth, why not set up food fights or jello throwing competitions to raise money to pay for the solutions to problems we disagree on so much. At least set things up to be fun and raise money toward the actual CAUSES, instead of wasting billions on campaign funds fighting and not getting anywhere but in debt!

Damn, Emily -- you are one smart cookie.
I regret that I have but one rep to give for what you've brought here today.

 

[Noomi]

According to the reports in this mornings paper, the women was thrown from the car. Thrown. In other words, she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. She was on the way to hospital, and not once did she consider buckling in to protect her life, and the life of her unborn baby.

If she had been wearing a seatbelt, there is a high chance she would be alive today. I have no sympathy for those who get into a car and refuse to do the right thing and put a damn seat belt on.