I am reading the NYTimes. There is a tragic story about a young Brooklyn couple, her pregnant, killed by a hit and run driver. The baby died a day later.
The trial of the killer is starting. In the breakdown of the case, they include this statement:
(bolding mine)
Just a surreal thing to read while focused on the case itself. I suppose there are logical explanations - e.g., someone has a pet reptile - but…still weird to read.
Yes, Gough is listed as one of the prosecutors in the NYTimes article.
That hat on the archive picture of the bride and groom - wow, that is awful in whole new ways of awful*. I thought I knew a bit about Hasidic Jews and their modes of dress, but haven’t seen a hat like that.
Again - first and foremost, this is a terrible tragedy and the driver/killer deserves punishment to the fullest extent of the law. But the bag of frozen rats and that hat definitely add a surreal aspect to this awful situation.
*Edited to Add: now I feel awful for commenting - this family is going through so much, and I sure don’t know enough about their community’s customs to…appreciate a hat like that. Just surreal.
Here is the intersection in question. To be honest, it doesn’t look very different from, or any more dangerous than, a thousand other intersections where a busy road acts as the T-junction for a smaller side road.
It’s not clear to me what the speed limit is on Kent Avenue,* but i’ll bet it’s well under 70 mph, which is allegedly the speed that Acevedo was going when he hit the livery car. And fleeing the scene is a total asshole move, and should get him extra punishment.
I’m curious about a couple of the prosecutor’s comments to the jury,. though:
First of all, surely there needs to be at least SOME question of right of way. If Acevedo was on Kent Avenue, and the livery car was pulling out of Wilson Street and onto Kent Avenue, then Acevedo had the right of way, and the livery car was supposed to yield to any cars on Kent Avenue before pulling out. I simply don’t see how you can say that right of way isn’t even an issue when one of the car was controlled by a STOP sign and the other one wasn’t.
Also, the absence of skid marks could simply mean that the livery car pulled out right at the last second, and Acevedo never even had time to hit the brakes before hitting them. It doesn’t necessarily imply some nefarious intent.
None of this excuses Acevedo’s speeding, or his fleeing the scene. Both of those things should weigh heavily. If he wasn’t speeding, maybe the livery driver would have seen him in plenty of time, and not pulled out. And if they couldn’t avoid the accident altogether, maybe the Glaubers would have lived if Acevedo was going the speed limit. But even with all that, i just don’t see how right of way isn’t at least a partial factor in an accident at a T intersection.
And the bag of frozen rats? That’s just weird.
Edit: According to the NY Post story linked by Crotalus, Acevedo was going more than twice the speed limit. That’s pretty fucked up. To be honest, going 60-70 on any surface street in New York City should probably be a lock-up offense by itself.
So, does Florida law draw no distinction between the person who is confronted by a STOP or YIELD sign, and a person who is not? Between a person trying to enter the flow of traffic, and a person who is already in the flow of traffic?
If it doesn’t, then why have the signs at all. Why not just make every intersection a free-for-all, where people just get to choose who goes first? Having no concept of right of way is, to put it bluntly, fucking retarded.
Yes, having right of way doesn’t mean you get to drive like an asshole. Even if he had right of way in the case, Acevedo still broke the law in a bunch of ways and deserves to be punished. But that doesn’t mean that right of way is a useless concept.
I’ve mentioned this before, but when we were hanging around NYU Medical Center, there were a number of Jewish men who would be wearing hats of that basic type, though they weren’t as tall and the fur wasn’t teased up in the air like that. It prompted my parents and me to whisper to one another from Seinfeld “What attracts you to our religion, George?” “I’d have to say, it’s the hats.”
I’ve mentioned this before, but when we were hanging around NYU Medical Center, there were a number of Jewish men who would be wearing hats of that basic type, though they weren’t as tall and the fur wasn’t teased up in the air like that.** It prompted my parents and me to whisper to one another from Seinfeld “What attracts you to our religion, George?” “I’d have to say, it’s the hats.”
**These – “shtreimels” http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shtr.jpg
Its no secret that I’m a huge BMW fan. Great cars, well built and come with an impressive list of standard features. Trunk-lib mounted tool kits, glove-box mounted rechargeable flashlights, full sized factory spare wheels, bag of frozen rats, through-seat ski bags, heated seats, first aid kits… the list goes on and on.
Of course, I bought all mine used and only the 740 still had the bag of rats intact. My 325 is missing the flashlight.
For the GQ answer, yes, they were probably for a snake or bird of prey. Usually called “feeder rats.” If you need your own bag of frozen rats, Amazon is tragically unhip, but you can start here: http://www.laynelabs.com/frozen-rats.
