Man, woman arrested in McDonald's drive-through shooting are both felons

Jan 10, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Kansas City Star

Deborah Bennington's car which got shot at at the West Kellogg McDonald's on Wednesday morning.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of64
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jan 18, 2013
 
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>That is a big part of the reason that DUI related deaths are way down. It is called enforcement. More arrests mean more revoked licenses and fewer drunk drivers on the road. DUH!!!!!
The DUI laws have been in place many years now. You still wonít explain the 1.4 million arrests. Your claim is DUI laws have been effective. If effective there would be a lot fewer people driving under the influence.

Could the death rate reduction also partially be attributed to safer vehicle design and advancements in medical technology?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 18, 2013
 
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>The plain fact of the matter is that the percentage of traffic deaths where alcohol was a factor has declined. Try to explain that one away.
Safer vehicle design and advancements in medical technology would explain that partially. You canít just look at deaths to determine if the DUI rate has gone up or down. You discount two major components toward the point youíve attempted to make. DUI incidents without fatality, DUI incidents without a crash and finally DUI drivers not caught by law enforcement.

You claim the tougher laws have been effective. With 1.4 million arrests in 2010 that claim doesnít stand up.

Traffic deaths are on the rise. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16...

Today alcohol is a factor in 37% of traffic fatalities of people 16-20. People that shouldnít be drinking at all under the law. This link indicates a reduction from the mid 70ís. A factor you must consider when viewing the reduction is during the 1970ís the legal drinking age was 18. The link does attribute the majority of the reduction to that factor. http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactS...

Compare alcohol involvement in fatal crashes in 1999 and 2009 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/t... See document 1113 Alcohol Involvement for drivers in fatal crashes.

In 1999 the percentage was 20.3, in 2009 the percentage *increased* to 22.3.

Once again, DUI laws havenít been effective. The 1.4 million arrests in 2010 is a clear indicator of that.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jan 18, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've worked in the automotive industry - safety has improved by many other factors besides seat belts and laws:
Addition of "crumple" zones
Better frame design
Air bags and side curtains
Anti-lock braking systems
Better roads
Better lighting technology (LED)
Better tire technology
Better traction control and suspension
Heads up displays
Elimination of "blind spots" via mirrors
Rearward view camera technology
Auto alarms for crash recognition
Just a few examples of how Engineering has improved automobile safety.
Yes, some of the items you list Iíve already addressed. Were you a salesperson or technician? How did your role give you special insight?

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jan 18, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, some of the items you list Iíve already addressed. Were you a salesperson or technician? How did your role give you special insight?
Manufaturing Engineering

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jan 18, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Manufaturing Engineering
Interesting, unable to spell your title? I had to take that shot.

“The trolls hate this guy”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

In the heads of trolls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Safer vehicle design and advancements in medical technology would explain that partially. You canít just look at deaths to determine if the DUI rate has gone up or down. You discount two major components toward the point youíve attempted to make. DUI incidents without fatality, DUI incidents without a crash and finally DUI drivers not caught by law enforcement.
You claim the tougher laws have been effective. With 1.4 million arrests in 2010 that claim doesnít stand up.
Traffic deaths are on the rise. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16...
Today alcohol is a factor in 37% of traffic fatalities of people 16-20. People that shouldnít be drinking at all under the law. This link indicates a reduction from the mid 70ís. A factor you must consider when viewing the reduction is during the 1970ís the legal drinking age was 18. The link does attribute the majority of the reduction to that factor. http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactS...
Compare alcohol involvement in fatal crashes in 1999 and 2009 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/t... See document 1113 Alcohol Involvement for drivers in fatal crashes.
In 1999 the percentage was 20.3, in 2009 the percentage *increased* to 22.3.
Once again, DUI laws havenít been effective. The 1.4 million arrests in 2010 is a clear indicator of that.
You danced a jig around the part that the percentage of fatal accidents involving alcohol consumption are down. Improvements in car safety affect non-drinkers and drinkers alike and will not affect the ratio of alcohol to non-alcohol fatalities. The fact that one will find a lowered percentage of accidents at the end from the start of any 5 year period you choose nation wide in the U.S. as a whole in the last 30 years indicates that there would have to be a smaller percentage of drunk drivers on the road than in the past. That is the only plausible explanation for the drop.

The total number of DUI arrests don't mean anything as simply putting more patrol cars on the streets at the hours drunk drivers are more likely to populate the streets will bump the number of arrests up without any increase in the total number of drunk drivers. I have never had a DUI arrest. Can you honestly say the same?

“The trolls hate this guy”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

In the heads of trolls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
The DUI laws have been in place many years now. You still wonít explain the 1.4 million arrests. Your claim is DUI laws have been effective. If effective there would be a lot fewer people driving under the influence.
Could the death rate reduction also partially be attributed to safer vehicle design and advancements in medical technology?
You still ignore the fact that vehicle safety improvements affect sober as well as drunk drivers. Drunk drivers continue to show a downward trend in the percentage of fatal accidents which can only be explained by a lower percentage of intoxicated drivers which is the reason for the laws in the first place. Stricter enforcement will simply raise arrests rates even if there in no increase in the number of intoxicated drivers. You keep throwing out the arrest total without making any meaningful relation of the figure in any logical manner.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Jan 19, 2013
 
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You danced a jig around the part that the percentage of fatal accidents involving alcohol consumption are down. Improvements in car safety affect non-drinkers and drinkers alike and will not affect the ratio of alcohol to non-alcohol fatalities. The fact that one will find a lowered percentage of accidents at the end from the start of any 5 year period you choose nation wide in the U.S. as a whole in the last 30 years indicates that there would have to be a smaller percentage of drunk drivers on the road than in the past. That is the only plausible explanation for the drop.
The total number of DUI arrests don't mean anything as simply putting more patrol cars on the streets at the hours drunk drivers are more likely to populate the streets will bump the number of arrests up without any increase in the total number of drunk drivers. I have never had a DUI arrest. Can you honestly say the same?
Fatalities is not part of your original claim. Your claim was tougher laws have been effective. Statistical data disproves that claim.

Yes, I can say Iíve never been arrested for DUI. I seldom drink and when I do never more than one. In 2012 I consumed two beers. If it matters, my last traffic citation was in 1988 for speeding, in 1979 I was cited for speeding as well. Is your record that clean? What were you attempting to prove with your question? Did you conclude I approve of DUI?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You still ignore the fact that vehicle safety improvements affect sober as well as drunk drivers. Drunk drivers continue to show a downward trend in the percentage of fatal accidents which can only be explained by a lower percentage of intoxicated drivers which is the reason for the laws in the first place. Stricter enforcement will simply raise arrests rates even if there in no increase in the number of intoxicated drivers. You keep throwing out the arrest total without making any meaningful relation of the figure in any logical manner.
I did no such thing. In fact Iíve stated vehicle and road improvements have decreased fatalities. I also stated advances in medical technology has also reduced the fatality rate. But, your original claim wasnít about fatality. You claimed DUI laws have been effective. Thatís simply not true.

“The trolls hate this guy”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

In the heads of trolls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Fatalities is not part of your original claim. Your claim was tougher laws have been effective. Statistical data disproves that claim.
Yes, I can say Iíve never been arrested for DUI. I seldom drink and when I do never more than one. In 2012 I consumed two beers. If it matters, my last traffic citation was in 1988 for speeding, in 1979 I was cited for speeding as well. Is your record that clean? What were you attempting to prove with your question? Did you conclude I approve of DUI?
You are absolutely oblivious to the fact that the percentages of fatal accidents involving alcohol have decreased sharply in the last thirty years or so and the only plausible explanation is that fewer people are driving while intoxicated either by the deterrence due to stronger laws or the fact that more people are having their licenses revoked or both. And whether or not something was a part of my original argument or not has no bearing on the facts anyway. Can you spell red herring?

“The trolls hate this guy”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

In the heads of trolls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I did no such thing. In fact Iíve stated vehicle and road improvements have decreased fatalities. I also stated advances in medical technology has also reduced the fatality rate. But, your original claim wasnít about fatality. You claimed DUI laws have been effective. Thatís simply not true.
That is only your opinion. The fact that alcohol consumption is involved in a considerably smaller percentage of fatal accidents over the last 30 years tells most people otherwise about the effectiveness of laws on drunk driving. You made a claim and offered no evidence to solidly back up your claim other than to cite the total number of DUI arrests which are skewed by any number of variables. Actually, there were more DUI arrests in 1982 (the year in which they peaked) which shows that using your own standards that DUI laws are effective because about that time, states started cracking down on drunk driving due to concerted lobbying pressures from different groups. How coincidental it was that MADD was founded in 1980 and they became a formidable influence group in the early 80s and ever since then, laws have been getting tougher and a smaller percentage of fatal accidents are attributed to alcohol consumption.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You are absolutely oblivious to the fact that the percentages of fatal accidents involving alcohol have decreased sharply in the last thirty years or so and the only plausible explanation is that fewer people are driving while intoxicated either by the deterrence due to stronger laws or the fact that more people are having their licenses revoked or both. And whether or not something was a part of my original argument or not has no bearing on the facts anyway. Can you spell red herring?
You made a claim which was proven incorrect so you move the goal post. Even your new claims arenít based in fact.

You now claim fatal accidents involving alcohol have decreased sharply. Thatís not true either. Iíve already posted the link which disputes your assumption over a 10 year period.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/t...

See document 1113 Alcohol Involvement for drivers in fatal crashes.
In 1999 the percentage was 20.3, in 2009 the percentage *increased* to 22.3.

This will verify the above link. From the NHTSA

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.PDF

Then you move to a 30 year period. Over that period there was a decrease, not exactly a dramatic decrease. Was that decrease due to laws? Proof?

Your claim was DUI laws have been effective. The arrest and alcohol related fatality percentage both indicate youíre wrong.

“The trolls hate this guy”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

In the heads of trolls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
You made a claim which was proven incorrect so you move the goal post. Even your new claims arenít based in fact.
You now claim fatal accidents involving alcohol have decreased sharply. Thatís not true either. Iíve already posted the link which disputes your assumption over a 10 year period.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/t...
See document 1113 Alcohol Involvement for drivers in fatal crashes.
In 1999 the percentage was 20.3, in 2009 the percentage *increased* to 22.3.
This will verify the above link. From the NHTSA
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.PDF
Then you move to a 30 year period. Over that period there was a decrease, not exactly a dramatic decrease. Was that decrease due to laws? Proof?
Your claim was DUI laws have been effective. The arrest and alcohol related fatality percentage both indicate youíre wrong.
The chart given in my past post did not post as copied and pasted, but I am sure you are intelligent enough to make sense of it anyway. However, I will give you the link for the post anyway so you can better see it.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-sta...

It is very ironic that you would cherry pick one of the very few links that appear on the surface to bolster your position while many others exist that contraindicate your position. After all, you had previously accused me of giving insufficiently small samples.

Since 1982, the percentage of alohol related fatal accidents has decreased in its relation to all fatal accidents which can only indicate one thing...that the laws are indeed working as evidenced by the greater than 1/3 drop in the percentage of alcohol related fatalities not to mention that DUI arrests are down from their peak in 1982 when there were significantly fewer drivers on the road than today.

There is no need for me to discuss this any further as the statistics nearly directly coincide with the growth of MADD and its efforts to make the roads safer by reducing the percentage of drunk drivers on our roads. I can now rest my case with the confidence that you will find nothing of value that might refute my position. If your bruised ego needs soothing, I will even let you get the last word in as I have rested my case and see no point in answering your non-answers.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>The chart given in my past post did not post as copied and pasted, but I am sure you are intelligent enough to make sense of it anyway. However, I will give you the link for the post anyway so you can better see it.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-sta...
It is very ironic that you would cherry pick one of the very few links that appear on the surface to bolster your position while many others exist that contraindicate your position. After all, you had previously accused me of giving insufficiently small samples.
Since 1982, the percentage of alohol related fatal accidents has decreased in its relation to all fatal accidents which can only indicate one thing...that the laws are indeed working as evidenced by the greater than 1/3 drop in the percentage of alcohol related fatalities not to mention that DUI arrests are down from their peak in 1982 when there were significantly fewer drivers on the road than today.
There is no need for me to discuss this any further as the statistics nearly directly coincide with the growth of MADD and its efforts to make the roads safer by reducing the percentage of drunk drivers on our roads. I can now rest my case with the confidence that you will find nothing of value that might refute my position. If your bruised ego needs soothing, I will even let you get the last word in as I have rested my case and see no point in answering your non-answers.
I did review the link. Their data doesnít agree with the NHTSA data. For example, 2008 the NHTSA places the percentage at 22% while your link has it at 37%. Your link has a decrease of 3% from 1998 to 2008 while the NTHSA shows an increase of 2%.

Iím cherry picking my data? Do you know what the NTHSA is? Both links Iíve provided related to this are US Government links. Thatís cherry picking? Letís see, which is going to be most accurate? Some site called alcohol alert or the very government organization which collects the data directly from law enforcement that all othes use, and abuse? Whoís cherry picking? In this case, that would be you.

“The trolls hate this guy”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

In the heads of trolls

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I did review the link. Their data doesnít agree with the NHTSA data. For example, 2008 the NHTSA places the percentage at 22% while your link has it at 37%. Your link has a decrease of 3% from 1998 to 2008 while the NTHSA shows an increase of 2%.
Iím cherry picking my data? Do you know what the NTHSA is? Both links Iíve provided related to this are US Government links. Thatís cherry picking? Letís see, which is going to be most accurate? Some site called alcohol alert or the very government organization which collects the data directly from law enforcement that all othes use, and abuse? Whoís cherry picking? In this case, that would be you.
Your figures only compare one isolated 10 year period while my chart covered a period of 28 years. Who's cherry picking? This is not the first time you have incessantly trolled me on Topix. It is obvious that your intention here is not to have a good faith discussion. Perhaps you need to read something about what motivates trolls in the first place.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25540/Why_People_...

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki...
As I explained, my charts covered all incidents where alcohol was involved regardless of whether drivers were over the limit or not while yours only included those over the legal limit. Studies have shown that even being well under the legal limit significantly increases the chances of being involved in a fatal accident.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, unable to spell your title? I had to take that shot.
Working from a smart pad.

It's not made for "man hands."

“I will not change .....”

Level 5

Since: May 10

to satisfy your petty needs

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Working from a smart pad.
It's not made for "man hands."
Well that's not very smart, lol.
Morning M69!

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Jan 22, 2013
 
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Your figures only compare one isolated 10 year period while my chart covered a period of 28 years. Who's cherry picking? This is not the first time you have incessantly trolled me on Topix. It is obvious that your intention here is not to have a good faith discussion. Perhaps you need to read something about what motivates trolls in the first place.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25540/Why_People_...
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki...
As I explained, my charts covered all incidents where alcohol was involved regardless of whether drivers were over the limit or not while yours only included those over the legal limit. Studies have shown that even being well under the legal limit significantly increases the chances of being involved in a fatal accident.
Your chart disagrees with NHSTA data so it must be incorrect. You do know the purpose of the NHSTA?

The chances of being involved in a fatal crash isnít at issue. Your claim that DUI laws have been effective is. Those laws havenít been effective.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Jan 22, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Working from a smart pad.
It's not made for "man hands."
I understand, have accomplished some incredible errors on my iPhone. Between the small keys and itsí desire to change words there have been interesting results.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jan 22, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, have accomplished some incredible errors on my iPhone. Between the small keys and itsí desire to change words there have been interesting results.
The iphone keypad is absolutely ten times easier than a droid though. The keypad is just way too touchy. I disabled my auto correct and check spelling - too much of a pain in the arse.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of64
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••