Two youngsters smash McDonalds store front, try to escape via drive-thru window.
October 27, 2002 2:19 PM Subscribe
Two youngsters smash McDonalds store front, try to escape via drive-thru window. Police chase suspects for several hours before finally confronting them, tranquilizing them, and finally, executing them, all without a trial. Is this a justified reaction based on population data? Or can we as a civilization be doing more?
like throwing gasoline on a fire...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:34 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:34 PM on October 27, 2002
We should shoot the anti-globalization people more often. Maybe we could hunt them for food, but I bet hippies taste bad.
posted by nyxxxx at 2:36 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by nyxxxx at 2:36 PM on October 27, 2002
asks for registration, cant be bothered.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:44 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:44 PM on October 27, 2002
Maybe we could hunt them for food, but I bet hippies taste bad.
Hippies suck. (900K .wav)
posted by Galvatron at 2:53 PM on October 27, 2002
Hippies suck. (900K .wav)
posted by Galvatron at 2:53 PM on October 27, 2002
I think it only counts as a troll if the poster is serious, atom128. Damclean2's post just catches people who react knee-jerkishly without reading the articles. Very clever, I thought.
Why hire a sharpshooter when there are human predators for free?
Holy cow, that's a disturbing sentence. My initial reaction would be to suggest that sport hunters simply hunt with contaceptive darts, rather than bullets.
I'm suspicious of the assertion that bow-hunting kills more humanely than gun-hunting. Perhaps that's true if there's a direct hit on the heart area, as the study tested, but from what I've heard from hunters, that kind of clear shot is very hard to pull off. If the arrow grazes the deer or hits a non-vital area, the animal can go for hours before bleeding to death or dying of shock.
And as far as killing these particular deer goes, I'd say it was probably justified. It sounds like at least one of them was seriously injured, and I doubt there was a good wildlife hospital nearby.
But perhaps I'm taking this too seriously. Jest on...
posted by hippugeek at 2:53 PM on October 27, 2002
Why hire a sharpshooter when there are human predators for free?
Holy cow, that's a disturbing sentence. My initial reaction would be to suggest that sport hunters simply hunt with contaceptive darts, rather than bullets.
I'm suspicious of the assertion that bow-hunting kills more humanely than gun-hunting. Perhaps that's true if there's a direct hit on the heart area, as the study tested, but from what I've heard from hunters, that kind of clear shot is very hard to pull off. If the arrow grazes the deer or hits a non-vital area, the animal can go for hours before bleeding to death or dying of shock.
And as far as killing these particular deer goes, I'd say it was probably justified. It sounds like at least one of them was seriously injured, and I doubt there was a good wildlife hospital nearby.
But perhaps I'm taking this too seriously. Jest on...
posted by hippugeek at 2:53 PM on October 27, 2002
Clever post. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play the Deer Management Simulator.
sgt.serenity: asks for registration, cant be bothered.
Just tell them you're a female in Uzbekistan born in 1901. I'm sure most respondents lie, hopefully teaching them not to bother us in the future.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:02 PM on October 27, 2002
sgt.serenity: asks for registration, cant be bothered.
Just tell them you're a female in Uzbekistan born in 1901. I'm sure most respondents lie, hopefully teaching them not to bother us in the future.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:02 PM on October 27, 2002
no need for a trial! they were caught in the act!
and now they'll never do it again.
posted by jcterminal at 3:04 PM on October 27, 2002
and now they'll never do it again.
posted by jcterminal at 3:04 PM on October 27, 2002
When you fuck with America, there's a price to pay. You better believe it. God Bless.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:07 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:07 PM on October 27, 2002
Mmm, agreed hippugeek. A wee bit of satire from our compatriot damclean2. Like all decent satire it does point to a bit of truth behind the outlandish statement. There are too many deer in the wilds of the US and as we continue to expand our cities and dwelliings we will see more incidents like this.
So we should all thinking about going to our local Wal-Mart and purchase special "deer killing" rifles, we need to make our neighborhoods a safer place for our children.
posted by jeremias at 3:08 PM on October 27, 2002
So we should all thinking about going to our local Wal-Mart and purchase special "deer killing" rifles, we need to make our neighborhoods a safer place for our children.
posted by jeremias at 3:08 PM on October 27, 2002
Sorry, I'm all out of smartass tonight. So I will have a serious discussion with myself.
The pro-hunting piece actually touched on the real issue - human overdevelopment has chased out all the other animal predators. The problem is too many people, not enough deer -- and cougar, and wolves, etc.
I hate seeing woodlands and farmlands near me making way for uglyass McMansions. (These places are proof that money and taste aren't a package deal.)
And the cell-phone-yapping Yuppies who move "to the country" can't stand to be more than a four-minute Navigator drive from a coffee shoppe and K Mart. So there come the bleeping malls, too.
But hey, who wants to be out in nature. It's so, I dunno, wild. And buggy. Sometimes it gets so quiet that you can actually just sit and think. Which can be a little too scary. Better to stay inside and watch The Bachelor.
Me -- I would welcome our whitetail overlords ...
posted by NorthernLite at 3:23 PM on October 27, 2002
The pro-hunting piece actually touched on the real issue - human overdevelopment has chased out all the other animal predators. The problem is too many people, not enough deer -- and cougar, and wolves, etc.
I hate seeing woodlands and farmlands near me making way for uglyass McMansions. (These places are proof that money and taste aren't a package deal.)
And the cell-phone-yapping Yuppies who move "to the country" can't stand to be more than a four-minute Navigator drive from a coffee shoppe and K Mart. So there come the bleeping malls, too.
But hey, who wants to be out in nature. It's so, I dunno, wild. And buggy. Sometimes it gets so quiet that you can actually just sit and think. Which can be a little too scary. Better to stay inside and watch The Bachelor.
Me -- I would welcome our whitetail overlords ...
posted by NorthernLite at 3:23 PM on October 27, 2002
Bah - the site wants me to fill out a survey before it'll display the article. Never mind.
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:12 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:12 PM on October 27, 2002
It took you monkeys longer to post your "Oh I'm too good for this survey" posts then it would have to type in a birthdate and a zip code.
Your righteous indignation has been duly noted, now screw off.
posted by xmutex at 4:22 PM on October 27, 2002
Your righteous indignation has been duly noted, now screw off.
posted by xmutex at 4:22 PM on October 27, 2002
With the Sniper shootings the hunting season was canceled in the area to avoid shots being reported as false alarms to the hotline. Not that theres any (legal) hunting in DC. Maybe there should be.
posted by stbalbach at 4:28 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by stbalbach at 4:28 PM on October 27, 2002
I went to this McDonald's many, many times during my high school years in D.C. At around 20 blocks from the Capitol, it's a totally urban environment, to say the least. As the article mentioned, however, a few blocks away lie rail yards that lead to (relative) greenery in northern D.C. and Maryland.
posted by Mapes at 4:33 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by Mapes at 4:33 PM on October 27, 2002
"Your righteous indignation has been duly noted, now screw off."
Their site also wont work without cookies to *store* your survey data. You may also screw off.
posted by MrLint at 4:52 PM on October 27, 2002
Their site also wont work without cookies to *store* your survey data. You may also screw off.
posted by MrLint at 4:52 PM on October 27, 2002
Yikes, yesterday we had dogs shooting their owners and today we have marauding outlaw deer. Twilight Zone music.... what's next?
posted by madamjujujive at 4:56 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by madamjujujive at 4:56 PM on October 27, 2002
Mapes - Yes, I ride the MARC everyday, and I've seen a few deer walking that route more than once.
Anyway, I went to the McDonald's in question the same night, hoping to rubberneck some, but all the hubbub had died down, and the windows were boarded up, making me a tardy smart mob of one. The only indication that anything had happened was the police tape around the boarded-up window. Photo. (self-link)
posted by brownpau at 5:03 PM on October 27, 2002
Anyway, I went to the McDonald's in question the same night, hoping to rubberneck some, but all the hubbub had died down, and the windows were boarded up, making me a tardy smart mob of one. The only indication that anything had happened was the police tape around the boarded-up window. Photo. (self-link)
posted by brownpau at 5:03 PM on October 27, 2002
asks for registration, cant be bothered.
hah, I usually skip those too, but all it asks for is a year ('birth') zipcode and country.... took me 2 seconds.
anyway...
Don't get me started on deer population. My family lives in a wooded area in the mountains. In the summer we used to not be able to see more than 50 feet through the trees - ground coverage and low tree growth. Now we can see hundreds of feet. The deer have eaten more than their share.
Its a fact that there are too many deer and the foliage is suffering. We no longer have plush ferns like we used to (deer eat firns? now they do). We find dead deer in the winter, etc.
PA is starting a controversal program which allows more deer to be killed this hunting season, but also limits the size (and hence age) of the bucks you can shoot. see here.
We live in a VERY remote location. Humans are pushing animal populations around, but not where I live (and hence this is a little OT rant, sorry).
posted by tomplus2 at 5:09 PM on October 27, 2002
hah, I usually skip those too, but all it asks for is a year ('birth') zipcode and country.... took me 2 seconds.
anyway...
Don't get me started on deer population. My family lives in a wooded area in the mountains. In the summer we used to not be able to see more than 50 feet through the trees - ground coverage and low tree growth. Now we can see hundreds of feet. The deer have eaten more than their share.
Its a fact that there are too many deer and the foliage is suffering. We no longer have plush ferns like we used to (deer eat firns? now they do). We find dead deer in the winter, etc.
PA is starting a controversal program which allows more deer to be killed this hunting season, but also limits the size (and hence age) of the bucks you can shoot. see here.
We live in a VERY remote location. Humans are pushing animal populations around, but not where I live (and hence this is a little OT rant, sorry).
posted by tomplus2 at 5:09 PM on October 27, 2002
Venison Parmesiana is GREAT! I wish I could have it more often.
posted by HTuttle at 5:25 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by HTuttle at 5:25 PM on October 27, 2002
I'm in agreement with NorthernLite. And with the summer drought continuing into the fall, I'm sure we'll see more stories of deer, or even bear, coming down into our neighborhoods.
posted by jazon at 6:47 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by jazon at 6:47 PM on October 27, 2002
I think a major opportunity was missed here, folks.
We coulda had McVenison for pete's sake. Think what the toys in the Happy Meals woulda been like!!
You people....
posted by jonmc at 6:52 PM on October 27, 2002
We coulda had McVenison for pete's sake. Think what the toys in the Happy Meals woulda been like!!
You people....
posted by jonmc at 6:52 PM on October 27, 2002
Their site also wont work without cookies to *store* your survey data. You may also screw off.
So, do what everyone else does (maybe) and fill in false details, keep the cookie and throw off all their demographics. "Oh wow," they will think, "we are really popular in Uzbekistan, with 101 year old women."
posted by sycophant at 6:56 PM on October 27, 2002
So, do what everyone else does (maybe) and fill in false details, keep the cookie and throw off all their demographics. "Oh wow," they will think, "we are really popular in Uzbekistan, with 101 year old women."
posted by sycophant at 6:56 PM on October 27, 2002
Really, the least we can do for the washington post is not lie about the completely unimportant demographic questions they ask. They provide their extensive newspaper coverage, updated much more frequently than the paper edition, for free over the net. To lambast them for asking your age, sex and rough location strikes me as rude.
posted by gsteff at 7:00 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by gsteff at 7:00 PM on October 27, 2002
I found that 1492 isn't considered a reasonable answer to the age question, but 2001 is.
So they'll think female toddlers in anartica using mozilla are visiting the site.
I also sign any petition I'm asked to sign, but if I disagree with it I use the nom de plume, Fred Flintstone.
posted by nyxxxx at 7:15 PM on October 27, 2002
So they'll think female toddlers in anartica using mozilla are visiting the site.
I also sign any petition I'm asked to sign, but if I disagree with it I use the nom de plume, Fred Flintstone.
posted by nyxxxx at 7:15 PM on October 27, 2002
Oh, here! There are plenty of other places we can get our deer-jump-through-fastfood-window news outside of the Washington Post. Okay?
posted by brownpau at 7:31 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by brownpau at 7:31 PM on October 27, 2002
My heart goes out to the families of these young people who lost their lives in...... What the fuck, deer? Venison steaks anyone?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:48 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:48 PM on October 27, 2002
Ben-o, I'm pretty sure that was the joke. Try and keep up.
posted by jonson at 9:50 PM on October 27, 2002
posted by jonson at 9:50 PM on October 27, 2002
Living where I do, about 4 hours north of Toronto, Ontario, I have seen some of the effects of the ongoing debate between hunters and animal control.
Recently, our provincial government cancelled the spring bear hunt, which sounded great to me...Bear hunters often camp out in trees with bait at the bottom, which doesn't strike me as very sporting.
But then the bears started moving into town and I started getting worried. My wife would no longer take my daughter out for walks because we had bears in our neighborhood.
I am not sure what the answer is, because both sides seem to be very inflammatory in their rhetoric. I find it wery hard to separate the bluster from the facts here. But at least those who oppose the hunt (most of whom don't have bears in their yard) don't have Ted Nugent on their side!
Plus, I would trade the bears for deer anyday...
posted by Richat at 3:56 AM on October 28, 2002
Recently, our provincial government cancelled the spring bear hunt, which sounded great to me...Bear hunters often camp out in trees with bait at the bottom, which doesn't strike me as very sporting.
But then the bears started moving into town and I started getting worried. My wife would no longer take my daughter out for walks because we had bears in our neighborhood.
I am not sure what the answer is, because both sides seem to be very inflammatory in their rhetoric. I find it wery hard to separate the bluster from the facts here. But at least those who oppose the hunt (most of whom don't have bears in their yard) don't have Ted Nugent on their side!
Plus, I would trade the bears for deer anyday...
posted by Richat at 3:56 AM on October 28, 2002
Are the animals coming into our neighborhoods, or our we moving into theirs?
I would think that the continuing growth and development of the country/world is going to lead to more and more of this type of event.
Now some would argue that we need to hunt to keep down the population. That theory will eventually come to the most final conclusion that will lead to the extermination of the animals, due to the competition from our ever expanding suburbia.
The root cause is the population growth of human kind. When does that hunting season open I wonder?
All in the name of progress....
posted by a3matrix at 5:24 AM on October 28, 2002
I would think that the continuing growth and development of the country/world is going to lead to more and more of this type of event.
Now some would argue that we need to hunt to keep down the population. That theory will eventually come to the most final conclusion that will lead to the extermination of the animals, due to the competition from our ever expanding suburbia.
The root cause is the population growth of human kind. When does that hunting season open I wonder?
All in the name of progress....
posted by a3matrix at 5:24 AM on October 28, 2002
"I'm suspicious of the assertion that bow-hunting kills more humanely than gun-hunting"
Much more complicated than that... A skilled gun hunter kills much more humanely than your average bow hunter. A good shot with the right weapon will usually kill the deer nearly instantly. The complicating issue is that the vast majority of bow hunters are pretty competent and a lot of gun hunters are not. A simplification of the argument is that any idiot with a deer rifle can shoot at, hit, and wound a deer but it takes lots of practice and no small amount of hunting skill to bow hunt. Many more deer are wounded and left to die by sloppy and careless gun hunters than by bow hunters. [generalization warning] Bow hunters also tend to be more thoughtful with respect to the suffering they inflict and more careful about making sure they ultimately find and finish wounded animals. Both weapons can be pretty devastating and wounds that are not instantly fatal are probably no more or less painful or inhumane based on the type used.
posted by cyclopz at 6:10 AM on October 28, 2002
Much more complicated than that... A skilled gun hunter kills much more humanely than your average bow hunter. A good shot with the right weapon will usually kill the deer nearly instantly. The complicating issue is that the vast majority of bow hunters are pretty competent and a lot of gun hunters are not. A simplification of the argument is that any idiot with a deer rifle can shoot at, hit, and wound a deer but it takes lots of practice and no small amount of hunting skill to bow hunt. Many more deer are wounded and left to die by sloppy and careless gun hunters than by bow hunters. [generalization warning] Bow hunters also tend to be more thoughtful with respect to the suffering they inflict and more careful about making sure they ultimately find and finish wounded animals. Both weapons can be pretty devastating and wounds that are not instantly fatal are probably no more or less painful or inhumane based on the type used.
posted by cyclopz at 6:10 AM on October 28, 2002
Geez! That's about a mile from the Capitol. I was at the Burger King mentioned in the article Saturday night. VERY urban area, well inside the beltway, but only about two miles from the Arboretum. I've seen deer there before, so maybe that's where they came from?
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:22 AM on October 28, 2002
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:22 AM on October 28, 2002
I'd have to agree with cyclopz. I know many bowhunters and they all take great care when hunting. I think a lot of it has to do with the distance required to take a shot. Most respectable bowhunters won't take a shot if the deer is more than 25 yards away. Whereas a typical hunting distance with a gun is 50 yards and above.
A friend and I were walking through a park in New York state on Saturday. Along the way we must have seen 15 deer all within 40 yards of us, some as close as 15-20. She had just gone bowhunting for the first time the day before but didn't take any shots because none of the deer got close enough. When she saw those deer 20 yards away she said how she didn't know if she could shoot one of them. She's going to continue to hunt and I'm sure she wouldn't have a problem shooting a deer, but I think her point was that she has that much more respect for the deer and when you have that respect you are much more careful about making a perfect shot. When you only have to be able to see the deer through a scope at 50 or 75 yards I'm not sure that respect comes as easily.
posted by goddam at 6:59 AM on October 28, 2002
A friend and I were walking through a park in New York state on Saturday. Along the way we must have seen 15 deer all within 40 yards of us, some as close as 15-20. She had just gone bowhunting for the first time the day before but didn't take any shots because none of the deer got close enough. When she saw those deer 20 yards away she said how she didn't know if she could shoot one of them. She's going to continue to hunt and I'm sure she wouldn't have a problem shooting a deer, but I think her point was that she has that much more respect for the deer and when you have that respect you are much more careful about making a perfect shot. When you only have to be able to see the deer through a scope at 50 or 75 yards I'm not sure that respect comes as easily.
posted by goddam at 6:59 AM on October 28, 2002
gsteff: Really, the least we can do for the washington post is not lie about the completely unimportant demographic questions they ask.
I lost a lot of respect for the Washington Post online when they started launching pop-unders.
posted by eddydamascene at 1:38 PM on October 28, 2002
I lost a lot of respect for the Washington Post online when they started launching pop-unders.
posted by eddydamascene at 1:38 PM on October 28, 2002
Apparently I'm now a 100-year old female from Azerbajin. I love surveys.
posted by Veritron at 2:38 PM on October 28, 2002
posted by Veritron at 2:38 PM on October 28, 2002
« Older Academic Fraud Watch, continued | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:29 PM on October 27, 2002