Drunk driver kills jewish couple, flees scene, baby delivered

[Pogo]

SMH.... Noomi your logic is as bad as the OP when it made assumptions about drunks.

I don't see any indication that the husband was thrown from the car, and he's dead too. Shall we conclude then that he was wearing a seat belt? And if so, what good did it do him? Did you see the photos of the taxi after impact? Judging from that, since we're going on assumptions, I'd rather be thrown from that car than be crushed inside it.

Again -- seat belts do not necessarily equate to saving lives, especially when it's not a head-on collision. This taxi was T-boned.

I guess no one will know either way whether she would have lived or not. I just find it sad that in her final hours, she didn't think to buckle up.

I'm sorry if I sound nasty and hateful toward the victim. That is not my intention. I have my reasons for harping on about the seatbelt, I feel strongly about their use.

OH, yeah, I'm pretty damned sure that she had no clue that those were to be her final hours.

And remember too she was on her way to the hospital with some kind of medical issue. For all we know that issue could be related to the midsection where a seat belt would have made her worse. Even without that it's reasonable for a very pregnant woman to be protective of her unborn to the point where you wouldn't want a seat belt on for fear of even a sudden stop -- which is far more likely than an accident.

We don't know these thngs. Events in the real world do not happen in black and white where one rule fits all.

 

[Noomi]

SMH.... Noomi your logic is as bad as the OP when it made assumptions about drunks.

I don't see any indication that the husband was thrown from the car, and he's dead too. Shall we conclude then that he was wearing a seat belt? And if so, what good did it do him? Did you see the photos of the taxi after impact? Judging from that, since we're going on assumptions, I'd rather be thrown from that car than be crushed inside it.

Again -- seat belts do not necessarily equate to saving lives, especially when it's not a head-on collision. This taxi was T-boned.

I guess no one will know either way whether she would have lived or not. I just find it sad that in her final hours, she didn't think to buckle up.

I'm sorry if I sound nasty and hateful toward the victim. That is not my intention. I have my reasons for harping on about the seatbelt, I feel strongly about their use.

Very well but none of us know what she thought about the seat belt, whether it would fit, whether it's a wise idea for a very pregnant woman to wear it, or whether the cab even had a working seat belt where she was sitting. Just as I said to the OP, we can't just plug in our own facts based on assumption.

The cab should have had a working seat belt, it should be illegal for them to operate unless all safety features are working.
But yes, we cannot know why she chose not to wear one.

SMH.... Noomi your logic is as bad as the OP when it made assumptions about drunks.

I don't see any indication that the husband was thrown from the car, and he's dead too. Shall we conclude then that he was wearing a seat belt? And if so, what good did it do him? Did you see the photos of the taxi after impact? Judging from that, since we're going on assumptions, I'd rather be thrown from that car than be crushed inside it.

Again -- seat belts do not necessarily equate to saving lives, especially when it's not a head-on collision. This taxi was T-boned.

I guess no one will know either way whether she would have lived or not. I just find it sad that in her final hours, she didn't think to buckle up.

I'm sorry if I sound nasty and hateful toward the victim. That is not my intention. I have my reasons for harping on about the seatbelt, I feel strongly about their use.

OH, yeah, I'm pretty damned sure that she had no clue that those were to be her final hours.

I know. She expected to deliver a baby, and instead, she and her little family are taken from her. It is sad.

 

[hoosier88]

I think it's that whole morals thing that bothers libs the most.

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.

(My bold)

Nah, not "biblically" - predating that, Torah? Pentateuch? I'm not sure of the right noun, but it's certainly NOT a bible. The contents of the Christian bible weren't worked out - well, mostly - there's still some disagreement about certain books - until around 200CE. The Old Testament was lifted wholesale from Judaism, but there's disagreement about the Apocrypha & some others.

 

[Papageorgio]

What are you asking? That I know seat belts save lives? Or that she wasn't wearing one? She was thrown from the car. What does that tell you?

SMH.... Noomi your logic is as bad as the OP when it made assumptions about drunks.

I don't see any indication that the husband was thrown from the car, and he's dead too. Shall we conclude then that he was wearing a seat belt? And if so, what good did it do him? Did you see the photos of the taxi after impact? Judging from that, since we're going on assumptions, I'd rather be thrown from that car than be crushed inside it.

Again -- seat belts do not necessarily equate to saving lives, especially when it's not a head-on collision. This taxi was T-boned.

I guess no one will know either way whether she would have lived or not. I just find it sad that in her final hours, she didn't think to buckle up.

I'm sorry if I sound nasty and hateful toward the victim. That is not my intention. I have my reasons for harping on about the seatbelt, I feel strongly about their use.

T-bones are some of the worst accidents to wear a seat belt, according to safety data. They may or may not survive.

 

[Papageorgio]

The couple who were killed were a bunch of weirdo freaks who belonged on Little House On The Prairie. No one dresses like they are stuck in the 19th century, at least not normal people.

At least the kid will have a normal life - hopefully.

And there is no evidence as yet that the driver was drunk, it could have been someone speeding.

So dislike people that look different than you, interesting. I guess you can call it liberal bigotry.

I guess we can call this post ^^ mental retardation.

So by commenting on a persons bigotry, it is mental retardation?

She dissed them as not being normal because of their clothes.

Interesting.

 

[Pogo]

So dislike people that look different than you, interesting. I guess you can call it liberal bigotry.

I guess we can call this post ^^ mental retardation.

So by commenting on a persons bigotry, it is mental retardation?

She dissed them as not being normal because of their clothes.

Interesting.

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

 

[Connery]

No excuse for no seat belt due to pregnancy.

"According to a recent study by the University of Michigan, if all pregnant women wore a car seatbelt, approximately 200 fetuses could be saved each year and an estimated 370 fetuses die as a result of car crashes each year in the United States...the Tummy Shield is designed to be worn around the thighs, therefore protecting the abdomen from trauma resulting from a car collision."

 

[Papageorgio]

I guess we can call this post ^^ mental retardation.

So by commenting on a persons bigotry, it is mental retardation?

She dissed them as not being normal because of their clothes.

Interesting.

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

Wow, so much said and so little needed. She is a liberal, she is a bigot, I have been told that all conservatives are racist and bigots, or have you forgot?

Why is it okay for one side to make blanket statements and yet when I call a liberal a bigot it is wrong. Liberal bigotry doesn't encompass all liberals but infers a bigotry that liberals tend to have. They are bigoted to those things they disagree with. Right wing females, right wing blacks, right wing gays, and people of a religion they disagree with.

And then you have your name calling which is quite telling of you.

 

[Pogo]

So by commenting on a persons bigotry, it is mental retardation?

She dissed them as not being normal because of their clothes.

Interesting.

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

Wow, so much said and so little needed. She is a liberal, she is a bigot, I have been told that all conservatives are racist and bigots, or have you forgot?

Why is it okay for one side to make blanket statements and yet when I call a liberal a bigot it is wrong. Liberal bigotry doesn't encompass all liberals but infers a bigotry that liberals tend to have. They are bigoted to those things they disagree with. Right wing females, right wing blacks, right wing gays, and people of a religion they disagree with.

And then you have your name calling which is quite telling of you.

Oh poser please.... smh

 

[Againsheila]

No excuse for no seat belt due to pregnancy.

"According to a recent study by the University of Michigan, if all pregnant women wore a car seatbelt, approximately 200 fetuses could be saved each year and an estimated 370 fetuses die as a result of car crashes each year in the United States...the Tummy Shield is designed to be worn around the thighs, therefore protecting the abdomen from trauma resulting from a car collision."

And I'm sure they had that available in the cab. NOT!!!!

 

[Grandma]

So by commenting on a persons bigotry, it is mental retardation?

She dissed them as not being normal because of their clothes.

Interesting.

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

Wow, so much said and so little needed. She is a liberal, she is a bigot, I have been told that all conservatives are racist and bigots, or have you forgot?

Why is it okay for one side to make blanket statements and yet when I call a liberal a bigot it is wrong. Liberal bigotry doesn't encompass all liberals but infers a bigotry that liberals tend to have. They are bigoted to those things they disagree with. Right wing females, right wing blacks, right wing gays, and people of a religion they disagree with.

And then you have your name calling which is quite telling of you.

If you aren't a liberal, if you have no comprehension of how liberals think, then you aren't qualified to make any sort of blanket statement about liberals. I'm a liberal. And a pagan. And a licensed driver. I grieve for the victims, I hope the fucker that killed them gets a nice long sentence, I don't care what church they went to or whether or not the killer speaks spanish.

And had I been in her place I probably wouldn't have been able to wear a seatbelt. Here's something to try at home - get in the back seat of your car, shove a large watermelon up the front of your shirt, and see if you can get the seatbelt to fit around it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

OK how about "previously convicted" drunk driver?
or alleged driver previously convicted for drunk driving?

And yes, he may have been SOBER this time, and STILL FLED if he had been BANNED from driving and had illicitly borrowed some other vehicle in violation of his terms.

I guess the issue here is
(a) are you held to the same journalistic standards of stating "ALLEGED" until the driver is legally convicted?
(b) once someone is convicted of driving drunk, is it okay to ALWAYS label that person as a "drunk driver" like you would a "serial killer" or "wife beater" if they did it in the past?

No, it's not okay to report it "as fact" before it was confirmed.
You may have lucked out if the case turns out to match your description called in advance!

 

[emilynghiem]

So by commenting on a persons bigotry, it is mental retardation?

She dissed them as not being normal because of their clothes.

Interesting.

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

Wow, so much said and so little needed. She is a liberal, she is a bigot, I have been told that all conservatives are racist and bigots, or have you forgot?

Why is it okay for one side to make blanket statements and yet when I call a liberal a bigot it is wrong. Liberal bigotry doesn't encompass all liberals but infers a bigotry that liberals tend to have. They are bigoted to those things they disagree with. Right wing females, right wing blacks, right wing gays, and people of a religion they disagree with.

And then you have your name calling which is quite telling of you.

I agree it is not consistent to call out only conservatives for making bigoted or biased statements, and not also liberals for the same.

Either call them both out, forgive and correct them both, or don't call ANYONE a bigot and just focus on correcting whatever biased information is incorrect inaccurate or unfair.

Treat your neighbor as yourself, and the corrections can be made with mutual respect and without any namecalling. Thank you, and I agree we should be equally concerned about correcting all sides, not just the ones that favor our own political or personal positions!

 

[Pogo]

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

Wow, so much said and so little needed. She is a liberal, she is a bigot, I have been told that all conservatives are racist and bigots, or have you forgot?

Why is it okay for one side to make blanket statements and yet when I call a liberal a bigot it is wrong. Liberal bigotry doesn't encompass all liberals but infers a bigotry that liberals tend to have. They are bigoted to those things they disagree with. Right wing females, right wing blacks, right wing gays, and people of a religion they disagree with.

And then you have your name calling which is quite telling of you.

I agree it is not consistent to call out only conservatives for making bigoted or biased statements, and not also liberals for the same.

Either call them both out, forgive and correct them both, or don't call ANYONE a bigot and just focus on correcting whatever biased information is incorrect inaccurate or unfair.

Treat your neighbor as yourself, and the corrections can be made with mutual respect and without any namecalling. Thank you, and I agree we should be equally concerned about correcting all sides, not just the ones that favor our own political or personal positions!

What Will Ferrell doesn't get is that I've never labeled him anything; I'm staunchly and consistently anti-label, and he comes on like none of that matters and he's gonna project his little strawman pet. He completely made that up.

With that kind of attitude we may as well not bother eschewing blanket statements and just crawl down into the same hole he lives in. It's his dishonest tactic to have it both ways.
And I'm not putting up with it. Ever.

 

[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.

(My bold)

Nah, not "biblically" - predating that, Torah? Pentateuch? I'm not sure of the right noun, but it's certainly NOT a bible. The contents of the Christian bible weren't worked out - well, mostly - there's still some disagreement about certain books - until around 200CE. The Old Testament was lifted wholesale from Judaism, but there's disagreement about the Apocrypha & some others.

I fully understand that the cultural roots of Judaism predate christianity, and that much of christian moral values were derived from more ancient texts. You will notice that I did not capitalize, so did not refer to the Bible. "Biblically" is a term I thought more people could relate to as posed opposite to a more relativistic morality. Thanks for you clarification, though.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Absolutely not. But the inability to see one's own blatant blanket statement, let alone the intellectual ineptitude it takes to extrapolate the commentary of one person to the entire population of an entire side of the political spectrum, is. But to then play dumb about it while your own words are sitting right there, well that's a head-scratcher.

Wow, so much said and so little needed. She is a liberal, she is a bigot, I have been told that all conservatives are racist and bigots, or have you forgot?

Why is it okay for one side to make blanket statements and yet when I call a liberal a bigot it is wrong. Liberal bigotry doesn't encompass all liberals but infers a bigotry that liberals tend to have. They are bigoted to those things they disagree with. Right wing females, right wing blacks, right wing gays, and people of a religion they disagree with.

And then you have your name calling which is quite telling of you.

If you aren't a liberal, if you have no comprehension of how liberals think, then you aren't qualified to make any sort of blanket statement about liberals. I'm a liberal. And a pagan. And a licensed driver. I grieve for the victims, I hope the fucker that killed them gets a nice long sentence, I don't care what church they went to or whether or not the killer speaks spanish.

And had I been in her place I probably wouldn't have been able to wear a seatbelt. Here's something to try at home - get in the back seat of your car, shove a large watermelon up the front of your shirt, and see if you can get the seatbelt to fit around it.

Oooops! Here we go. If you are not a [fill in the blank, most common citations include: black, hispanic, gay, and now, liberal], you cannot understand [match the first blank] and are therefore denied any opportunity to opine about [match the blank]. I guess we won't be subjected to your opinions about conservatives again, will we.

 

[waltky]

Another Hispexican...

Cops hunt ex-con over Brooklyn crash that killed young couple, baby
5 Mar.`13 -- The one-day-old baby boy delivered by C-section after his parents were killed by a hit-and-run driver in Brooklyn died Monday, and police have narrowed their search for the driver.

Doctors performed an emergency C-section to deliver the premature infant after a BMW sedan slammed into the cab carrying expectant parents Nachman and Raizy Glauber, who were on their way to the hospital because the mother-to-be felt ill. The boy had been in intensive care since the delivery. Police are still looking for the driver who struck the cab at the intersection of Wilson Street and Kent Avenue in Williamsburg, police said. Police said they are looking for Julio Acevedo, a 44-year-old Brooklyn man who served time in prison for a 1987 shooting death. Sources said the BMW was speeding at more than 60 mph when it hit the cab.

Authorities have said a male driver and a passenger in the BMW fled the scene of the accident on foot. Raizy Glauber was thrown from the car and her body landed under a parked tractor-trailer, witnesses said. Nachman Glauber was pinned in the car, and emergency workers had to cut off the roof to get him out, witnesses told police. Nachman Glauber was pronounced dead at Beth Israel Hospital, while his wife died at Bellevue, police said. The couple's son was pronounced dead a day later, his death ruled extreme prematureness due to maternal blunt force injuries.

'God's will'

Hours after the infant's death, Joseph Silverstein, Raizy Glauber's older brother, told NBC 4 New York in the hallway of the couple's building that "this is God's will." Silverstein said he and other family members were able to see the baby before he passed away, but he declined to elaborate. The driver of the livery cab survived the crash. He was taken to Beth Israel Hospital in stable condition, police said. Police said Takia Walker, 29, of the Bronx, owned the BMW involved in the fatal crash but was not behind the wheel. She was arrested early Monday on insurance fraud charges, accused of allowing a third party who was not on her vehicle insurance policy to drive her car. On Saturday, Raizy Glauber "was not feeling well, so they decided to go" to the hospital, said Sara Glauber, Nachman Glauber's cousin.

The Glaubers were married about a year and had begun a life together in Williamsburg, where Raizy Glauber grew up in a prominent rabbinical family, Sara Glauber said. Raised north of New York City in Monsey, N.Y., and part of a family that founded a line of clothing line, Nachman Glauber was studying at a rabbinical college nearby, said his cousin. "You don't meet anyone better than him," she said. "He was always doing favors for everyone." Sara Glauber also said her cousin and his bride had a unique connection, and that it was appropriate they died together. "If one had to go, the other had to go too because they really were one soul," she said.

Source

 

[novasteve]

Acevedo allegedly told the ny daily news he was fleeing gunshots so didn't stop to check if they were okay