Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Something similar happened down here a few years ago. Police got a report of a deer carcass on 95. They come to remove it, turns out it's the torso of a woman who tried to cross 95 (because that's safe) and got hit by a semi, and torn apart so badly that no one noticed it was a person's body. "Several" (because !@#$ you, gugny) people hit the "deer carcass" before anyone called it in.

Edited by DC Tom
Posted

Something similar happened down here a few years ago. Police got a report of a deer carcass on 95. They come to remove it, turns out it's the torso of a woman who tried to cross 95 (because that's safe) and got hit by a semi, and torn apart so badly that no one noticed it was a person's body. About eight people hit the "deer carcass" before anyone called it in.

 

How did they quantify the number of vehicles that hit the torso before it was called in?

Posted

 

How did they quantify the number of vehicles that hit the torso before it was called in?

 

I don't remember. It was certainly an approximation, possibly based on the distance between body parts.

Posted

 

I believe this is the same methodology Poojer applies in the "Would Ya" threads.

It least its an objective and quantifiable method that leads to consistent and repeatable results.

Posted

I don't remember. It was certainly an approximation, possibly based on the distance between body parts.

When I read "about 8" I was able to ascertain that the number was an approximation. Others...not so much apparently.
Posted

It least its an objective and quantifiable method that leads to consistent and repeatable results.

 

True, but it is also an unnecessary step. I've summarized it in a before and after flowchart:

 

 

Before:

 

Measure distances between body parts ---------> long ------------> Yes

|

|

|

--------->short ------------> Yes

 

 

 

After:

 

Yes

 

 

See how much time that saves?

Posted

When I read "about 8" I was able to ascertain that the number was an approximation. Others...not so much apparently.

 

Then why not say, "several?"

Posted

 

Then why not say, "several?"

 

Because I remembered that's what the story said. Had I witnessed it, I would have given you the exact number of cars or, had I not witnessed the cars, said nothing. But I'm not relying on my own accurate observations of the accident, I'm relying on my own accurate observations of a story written by somebody who did so poorly in journalism school that they're covering traffic accidents in the Baltimore-Washington corridor.

Posted

 

Because I remembered that's what the story said. Had I witnessed it, I would have given you the exact number of cars or, had I not witnessed the cars, said nothing. But I'm not relying on my own accurate observations of the accident, I'm relying on my own accurate observations of a story written by somebody who did so poorly in journalism school that they're covering traffic accidents in the Baltimore-Washington corridor.

 

What was the cause of death?

Posted

 

Then why not say, "several?"

Well, I didn't say anything, but, knowing what a stickler you are for only sticking to the facts in all things I understand your feelings.

Posted

 

Because I remembered that's what the story said. Had I witnessed it, I would have given you the exact number of cars or, had I not witnessed the cars, said nothing. But I'm not relying on my own accurate observations of the accident, I'm relying on my own accurate observations of a story written by somebody who did so poorly in journalism school that they're covering traffic accidents in the Baltimore-Washington corridor.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....with the VIN numbers of course.

×
×
  • Create New...