Kodak's CMO caught a couple crooks last night in his underwear

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
10:20 PM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655
Apparently, Jeffrey Hazlett, Kodak's CMO, caught a couple guys breaking into his family car in South Dakota (where he lives) in the wee hours of the night. Gave chase in his skivvies, and caught them for the police.

Just thought it was interesting!

http://twitter.com/JeffreyHayzlett
 
He is nuts. Risk your life for a couple of petty vandals is stupid. Half these people are on drugs or carry weopons and their behavior is not rational.

Now if I lived way out in the country and was armed, they they would get a fair trial
that take all of 10 sec, and they would be dispatched. but I live in the city where most likely the cops do catch and release justice just like fishing. That`s why we have these problems.
 
About 23-24 years ago, in Bristol, I woke up in the middle of the night, and, assuming that the usual reason was why I had woken up, headed for the loo ('bathroom' in American) at the top of the stairs. I was stark naked.

Then I realized that the front door was open and that there was a strange smell in the air. I headed back to my study and picked up a sword, then went to investigate. A couple of men were hurrying out of the door.

They had stolen the usual stuff: stereo, TV. But a naked man with a sword in his hand clearly got their attention, and distracted them from their attempts to smoke, on the premises, Tibetan incense! Hence the smell...

Alas they were never caught. In those days I owned no firearms, and my only half-decent air pistol was both single-shot and in India. Today, a catapult and a bowl of marbles might have speeded them on their way (I live in France) and they might, I like to think, have been apprehended when they took the car in to have the window fixed.

In California it wouldn't have been an air pistol or sword, but equally, I don't think I'd have shot fleeing thieves in the back, at least fatally, if they'd refused to stop (a warning shot might have persuaded them). As a British copper said, when explaining why he abandoned the chase for a speeding motorist, "Yes, they were breaking the law, but it wasn't anything that they or I deserved to die for. "

Cheers,

R.
 
He is nuts. Risk your life for a couple of petty vandals is stupid. Half these people are on drugs or carry weopons and their behavior is not rational.

Now if I lived way out in the country and was armed, they they would get a fair trial
that take all of 10 sec, and they would be dispatched. but I live in the city where most likely the cops do catch and release justice just like fishing. That`s why we have these problems.

He apparently lives in South Dakota. There is only 'out in the country' there from what I've been told.
 
About 23-24 years ago, in Bristol, I woke up in the middle of the night, and, assuming that the usual reason was why I had woken up, headed for the loo ('bathroom' in American) at the top of the stairs. I was stark naked.

TMI, Roger. With all due respect.

They had stolen the usual stuff: stereo, TV. But a naked man with a sword in his hand clearly got their attention, and distracted them from their attempts to smoke, on the premises, Tibetan incense! Hence the smell...

Tibetan incense, eh? I take it they got into your private stash.

In California it wouldn't have been an air pistol or sword, but equally, I don't think I'd have shot fleeing thieves in the back, at least fatally, if they'd refused to stop (a warning shot might have persuaded them).

As an enthusiastic gun owner and a proponent of personal concealed carry, I can only say that I also would not shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. I will defend my life and the lives of my family with deadly force if necessary. However, I am neither bloodthirsty nor stupid. A fleeing criminal represents no threat to my life at that time. Nor would I have fired a 'warning shot' as there is no telling where it might come down, and we do have sufficient population density that 'stray bullet deaths' are rare but do happen here.

Property can be replaced; that is why I have insurance. In any case, it is not worth my life, and any confrontation between a criminal and a homeowner is a much higher risk than simply letting the fleeing criminal go. I am death-averse and aware of risk.

On the other hand, if someone were to break into my house and I discovered them whilst they were in the act of invading, deadly force would be an option I would consider using. I have no desire to shoot anyone, and somehow I have managed to avoid it as a civilian (military requirements being somewhat different), but I also have no aversion to it. I value human life, but ultimately, I value mine and my families most of all. If I feel the choice is between me and thee, I choose me.

As a British copper said, when explaining why he abandoned the chase for a speeding motorist, "Yes, they were breaking the law, but it wasn't anything that they or I deserved to die for. "

As a former LEO, I can only say that the debate in the USA is ongoing over pursuit policies. Some departments have no-pursuit policies and some do not. Some have some regulated approaches to pursuits based on the perceived risk to the public and approval from supervisors at the time.

Police departments have faced public outrage and lawsuits for a) abandoning pursuits and b) continuing pursuits. A department is sued (and settles) when a police car chases a carjacker through town and the carjacker runs over and kills a pedestrian. Another department is sued (and settles) when they abandon a pursuit as 'too dangerous to the public' and the criminal is later apprehended at home after he kills his family. There seems to be no 'right answer' that will meet with public approval. Every debate I've ever seen on the subject simply devolves into people taking one side or the other and refusing to accept that there is ever a situation where the opposite approach makes sense. End result: the police lose no matter what they do.
 
TMI, Roger. With all due respect.



Tibetan incense, eh? I take it they got into your private stash.



As an enthusiastic gun owner and a proponent of personal concealed carry, I can only say that I also would not shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. I will defend my life and the lives of my family with deadly force if necessary. However, I am neither bloodthirsty nor stupid. A fleeing criminal represents no threat to my life at that time. Nor would I have fired a 'warning shot' as there is no telling where it might come down, and we do have sufficient population density that 'stray bullet deaths' are rare but do happen here.

Property can be replaced; that is why I have insurance. In any case, it is not worth my life, and any confrontation between a criminal and a homeowner is a much higher risk than simply letting the fleeing criminal go. I am death-averse and aware of risk.

On the other hand, if someone were to break into my house and I discovered them whilst they were in the act of invading, deadly force would be an option I would consider using. I have no desire to shoot anyone, and somehow I have managed to avoid it as a civilian (military requirements being somewhat different), but I also have no aversion to it. I value human life, but ultimately, I value mine and my families most of all. If I feel the choice is between me and thee, I choose me.



As a former LEO, I can only say that the debate in the USA is ongoing over pursuit policies. Some departments have no-pursuit policies and some do not. Some have some regulated approaches to pursuits based on the perceived risk to the public and approval from supervisors at the time.

Police departments have faced public outrage and lawsuits for a) abandoning pursuits and b) continuing pursuits. A department is sued (and settles) when a police car chases a carjacker through town and the carjacker runs over and kills a pedestrian. Another department is sued (and settles) when they abandon a pursuit as 'too dangerous to the public' and the criminal is later apprehended at home after he kills his family. There seems to be no 'right answer' that will meet with public approval. Every debate I've ever seen on the subject simply devolves into people taking one side or the other and refusing to accept that there is ever a situation where the opposite approach makes sense. End result: the police lose no matter what they do.

Dear Bill,

TMI?

British burglars are very seldom armed. Or at least they weren't in those days. Indeed, a year or so later, our local sub-postmaster (sub-post office = combination general store and PO) subdued three burglars with the aid of a sword, though as far as I know (I never asked him) he was not stark naked at the time.

Point well taken on chase policies. You HAVE to trust the copper on the spot, and back him up unless he makes a decision (either way) that no-one half-rational could have considered making.

Cheers,

R.
 

Too Much Information! Also known as HMI (Horrifying Mental Image).

British burglars are very seldom armed. Or at least they weren't in those days. Indeed, a year or so later, our local sub-postmaster (sub-post office = combination general store and PO) subdued three burglars with the aid of a sword, though as far as I know (I never asked him) he was not stark naked at the time.

From my recent interactions with friends in the UK who are involved in the same, er, recreational activities as myself, the rate of knife crimes in the UK is going up at a rather alarming rate. Not debating gun-control policy here, as I suspect you are not either. The UK simply never had the gun culture that the US has always had since dot, so there are less of them about, nothing to do with gun bans and the like. It would appear that criminals in both nations intent on procuring guns can do so if they try hard enough.

Point well taken on chase policies. You HAVE to trust the copper on the spot, and back him up unless he makes a decision (either way) that no-one half-rational could have considered making.

The police are trained (one presumes) and have good judgment (one presumes even more) to know the current risk involved in a pursuit at the time they engage in it. I myself have had friends who discontinued pursuits when I would have thought the adrenalin coursing through their systems would have prevented it, but they apparently were made of sterner stuff. Still, no one can know the future; a criminal not pursued because he was going into a crowded urban area, or because he was merely a car theft suspect, might turn out to be a danger to the public for reasons unknown to the police at the time. All this to say I agree with you.

EDIT: I have also heard that in the Republic of Ireland, they're banning (and confiscating) swords, and that various edged weapons have been banned in the UK as well.
 
Roger, you so casually mention that you reached for your sword... as if we all have one laying about in easy reach. I got a good laugh from your story.

bmattock, on the subject of concealed carrying, having been in college when streaking was in vogue, I had joined a group of folks one night who were noisily playing soccer in the buff on a wet, muddy field outside of my dorm. I must have been about 2 am. Of course, when campus security keystone kops showed up the disrupt our fun, we all took off in different directions. eventually they corralled all of us and had us sit on some bleachers at the edge of the field for a stern lecture. among the nuggets of wisdom they imparted on us was the importance of never running when being pursued by officers of the law, the prime reason being that, "they might think you're carrying a concealed weapon." I could not let this go without a wise-assed, "you mean dressed like this?" which drew snickers from everyone including two of the head keystone kop's underlings. Being that there were nearly 30 of us, they let all of us go. This was around the time that after shooting a naked escaped mental patient who had shimmied up a light post, the LA police had shot him dead, claiming they thought he might have a concealed weapon. Having learned my lesson, in the 32 years since that soccer game, I have never again run from the constabulary naked or otherwise, nor have I engaged in outdoor sports in the buff.
 
Having searched my fair share of arrestees, may I say that a person of size can indeed conceal a weapon (often of frightening dimensions) upon their person, even naked. I will take this no further, as I do not wish to venture into TMI or HMI territory myself.
 
Too Much Information! Also known as HMI (Horrifying Mental Image).



From my recent interactions with friends in the UK who are involved in the same, er, recreational activities as myself, the rate of knife crimes in the UK is going up at a rather alarming rate. Not debating gun-control policy here, as I suspect you are not either. The UK simply never had the gun culture that the US has always had since dot, so there are less of them about, nothing to do with gun bans and the like. It would appear that criminals in both nations intent on procuring guns can do so if they try hard enough.


The police are trained (one presumes) and have good judgment (one presumes even more) to know the current risk involved in a pursuit at the time they engage in it. I myself have had friends who discontinued pursuits when I would have thought the adrenalin coursing through their systems would have prevented it, but they apparently were made of sterner stuff. Still, no one can know the future; a criminal not pursued because he was going into a crowded urban area, or because he was merely a car theft suspect, might turn out to be a danger to the public for reasons unknown to the police at the time. All this to say I agree with you.

EDIT: I have also heard that in the Republic of Ireland, they're banning (and confiscating) swords, and that various edged weapons have been banned in the UK as well.

TMI: Ah, sorry.

Knife crime: I suspect there are two factors at work. The more important is almost certainly hysteria, which has been popular in the UK since the rise of the yellow press well over 100 ears ago. The other is that this tends to be class- and possibly race-related, so that the groups who stab one another are quite small; pretty much by definition, most socioeconomic groups don't stick knives in one another. Gun crime is similarly limited.

At my old school most of us carried knives at all times and no-one was ever stabbed or slashed. In fact I also had a swordstick, which I never had to use. Much like carrying teargas in California, my wife informs me. And, as you say, guns have always been available. It's just that most people have more sense than to use them. Certes, anyone who was required to develop some acqaintance with firearms (as we pretty much were) is likely to have more respect for them than someone whose firearms training comes from Hollywood.

@Rob: Loved your story too. But who doesn't have a few swords or machetes lying ariund?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom