[BREAKING] Its happening. Grand jury has made a decision about Ferguson.
2,211 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;46577399]I'm really not sure about what to think when people have unironically said that it was OK for that guy in the car to run over those protestors because they were in the way.
Frankly I've read some shit in my time on SH but this takes the cake. Nothing gives you the right to deliberately run somebody over with a car, especially not for a flimsy reason like 'they were in the way' and were 'blocking traffic' because that's the point of a protest you dinguses, there's going to be disruption done to highlight a problem. Inconvenience is an inevitable side effect of this. You suck it up and deal with it by looking for alternatives, not go full retard by injuring and killing innocent people.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying he was [i]right[/i] to mow down all of those people at high speed. We are explaining that once he got involved, his instincts gave him [i]no choice[/i] but to do so. He was not intending on seriously injuring people at first - only to push them out of the way - but eventually he got trapped into doing so because otherwise, he would have been dragged out of the car by everyone climbing on it and smashing it in.
Nobody was killed.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;46577413]No one was getting run over until they decided to jump on his hood.[/QUOTE]
yeah, because he had the insanely dumb idea of driving into the crowd
[QUOTE=Riutet;46577395]What does nationality have to do with this? I'm just trying to cover all bases, it seems like you've never heard of the concept of driving through a crowd of people without running them over, but I've seen it happen all the time where I live, so I'm just trying to understand, is it just a British thing?
Second of all, I'm not justifying him running people over, I'm justifying the act of driving through a crowd of people as something that happens, and usually what happens is people realise there is a car coming through very slowly and they clear the way.
I don't condone running people over just because they don't get out of the way, but I do understand why the driver reacted the way he did and I also blame the people who were blocking the road for the accident.[/QUOTE]
Huh, well, just a difference of perspective I guess. Heyho, you know? I support the idea that you shouldn't plow through crowds of peaceful protesters with a two ton machine capable of maiming somebody for life, if not outright killing them, just because you're annoyed at having to change lanes. And you support the idea that plowing through crowds of people is A-Okay. Glad we got that sorted out. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess! Like whether or not you enjoy a certain show.
[I]"Hey man, do you like The Walking Dead?"[/I]
[I]"Not especially, but I'm pretty fond of driving over the screaming bodies of human beings who had the audacity to stand in front of me."[/I]
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46577414]If people were trying to break my windshield and shit, i'd be pretty afraid of what would happen if I just sat on the brake and let them get to me. Do you think they want to break my windows just to share a few mean words?
I'd put my own life above violent protesters. Honestly, who would just sit there and see what happens?[/QUOTE]
You see, me, what I would do, is elect [I]not to ram my vehicle into, and over, a crowd of peacefully assembled people[/I]. That way, I don't have to worry about the backlash that doing so might cause.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46577417]Huh, well, just a difference of perspective I guess. Heyho, you know? I support the idea that you shouldn't plow through crowds of peaceful protesters with a two ton machine capable of maiming somebody for life, if not outright killing them, just because you're annoyed at having to change lanes. And you support the idea that plowing through crowds of people is A-Okay. Glad we got that sorted out. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess! Like whether or not you enjoy a certain show.
[I]"Hey man, do you like The Walking Dead?"[/I]
[I]"Not especially, but I'm pretty fond of driving over the screaming bodies of human beings who had the audacity to stand in front of me."[/I]
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
You see, me, what I would do, is elect [I]not to ram my vehicle into, and over, a crowd of peacefully assembled people[/I]. That way, I don't have to worry about the backlash that doing so might cause.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, people trying to smash in the guy's windows and windshield and screaming to kill him seem pretty far removed from peaceful to me.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46577417]Huh, well, just a difference of perspective I guess. Heyho, you know? I support the idea that you shouldn't plow through crowds of peaceful protesters with a two ton machine capable of maiming somebody for life, if not outright killing them, just because you're annoyed at having to change lanes. And you support the idea that plowing through crowds of people is A-Okay. Glad we got that sorted out. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess! Like whether or not you enjoy a certain show.
[I]"Hey man, do you like The Walking Dead?"[/I]
[I]"Not especially, but I'm pretty fond of driving over the screaming bodies of human beings who had the audacity to stand in front of me."[/I]
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
You see, me, what I would do, is elect [I]not to ram my vehicle into, and over, a crowd of peacefully assembled people[/I]. That way, I don't have to worry about the backlash that doing so might cause.[/QUOTE]
Okay, we get it, he was stupid. We get the concept. That has been thoroughly conveyed to us. You do not need to further exemplify your username. We understand.
Now, actually consider yourself having been stupid enough to try to push people out of the way. Are you going to sit there and let the mob of angry rioters smash your car in and beat you to shit? No. You're going to floor it and get the hell out of there. That was not a predetermined, meditated act. It was done in the heat of the moment.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46577417]Huh, well, just a difference of perspective I guess. Heyho, you know? I support the idea that you shouldn't plow through crowds of peaceful protesters with a two ton machine capable of maiming somebody for life, if not outright killing them, just because you're annoyed at having to change lanes. And you support the idea that plowing through crowds of people is A-Okay. Glad we got that sorted out. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess! Like whether or not you enjoy a certain show.
[I]"Hey man, do you like The Walking Dead?"[/I]
[I]"Not especially, but I'm pretty fond of driving over the screaming bodies of human beings who had the audacity to stand in front of me."[/I][/QUOTE]
Man, I'm not at all justifying plowing through people, there is a difference between plowing into a crowd of people, and driving through a crowd of people. The operative words are through and into.
I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that you can drive through a crowd of people without driving into them. I also can't understand why you think I'm saying he was justified in running them down, I'm saying that I understand why he acted the way he did, but not that I condone it.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577434]Okay, we get it, he was stupid. We get the concept. That has been thoroughly conveyed to us. You do not need to further exemplify your username. We understand.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say another word about it, were it not for you sheltered lunatics arguing that using your four thousand pound vehicle as a battering ram against human beings was somehow a kosher response to the inconvenience of changing into a different lane.
Guys, do we really need to resort to name calling when we should be having a civil discussion?
Here, allow me put this in a pictoral format, since the concept of exactly what transpired seems to be so alien to you good folks:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/u3x6HPr.png[/img]
Driving around a crowd of people: Good.
Smashing through a crowd of people: Bad.
Alternative Route: Good.
Vehicular Assault: Bad.
Not Hurting or Killing People: Good.
Hurting or Killing People: Bad.
"Good" means :)
"Bad" means :(
on what planet is driving your car into the thighs of a throng of charged people, even at 2mph, not the sign of a provocation and of someone with something to prove
and likewise, what part of simply sitting in your car and waiting is so fucking unfathomable, are you people really that narcissistic
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46577446]If he stayed parked, I don't want to imagine what that mob was going to do to him.[/QUOTE]
probably nothing, like all the other thousands of drivers who were blocked by protests across the country tonight
just like the cars right next to him
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46577472]I think people are talking post-bad decision. I think any rational person would've just went around, but it was too late for this poor fella.
I mean we could say "would you shoot the armed guy in your house?" and you're answering with "I wouldn't have an armed guy in my house anyway"[/QUOTE]
these situations are not comparable because you're obviously justified in protecting yourself in your own house against malicious intruders. you aren't justified in running people over and crushing them to death
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46577472]I think people are talking post-bad decision. I think any rational person would've just went around, but it was too late for this poor fella.
I mean we could say "would you shoot the armed guy in your house?" and you're answering with "I wouldn't have an armed guy in my house anyway"[/QUOTE]
Did you first smash your house into the armed man? Because the situation isn't comparable in the slightest, unless that armed man was nowhere near you, and then you decided to ram him with your house.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46577480]these situations are not comparable because you're obviously justified in protecting yourself in your own house against malicious intruders. you aren't justified in running people over and crushing them to death[/QUOTE]
If they're threatening to drag you out of your car and beat you, yes, yes you are. Same as the guy who got brake checked by those bikers in NYC.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;46577491]If they're threatening to drag you out of your car and beat you, yes, yes you are. Same as the guy who got brake checked by those bikers in NYC.[/QUOTE]
In what fantasy world do you live in that this is what occurred? There are ten other vehicles in the image above that don't have anybody beating on them. Eleven, if you count the vehicle that rammed them, which you should, because there were no people climbing onto his car until he had already rammed them. If you'll notice, the vehicles that are not running people down, do not have angry people trying to break those vehicles. Did you notice that? Are you noticing it, right now?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46577475]Here, allow me put this in a pictoral format, since the concept of exactly what transpired seems to be so alien to you good folks:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/u3x6HPr.png[/img]
Driving around a crowd of people: Good.
Smashing through a crowd of people: Bad.
Alternative Route: Good.
Vehicular Assault: Bad.
Not Hurting or Killing People: Good.
Hurting or Killing People: Bad.
"Good" means :)
"Bad" means :([/QUOTE]
If you look at the image, you'd see they were blocking that entire intersection, so it's an adequate suggestion assuming he wants to go the way the green arrow suggests, but what if he wants to go one of the ways the red arrow is pointing too.
Now you can argue that he just find a new route that involves the green arrow, that is entirely fair.
You can also argue that he starts going the way the green arrow is pointing but then uses the much thinner numbers to more safely drive through the crowd, also fair.
Can you also argue that driving through the crowd he is currently facing slowly and waiting for them to make a bit of space is fair? I argue yes, you argue that he should have found another route. Both are valid, but I argue that nothing bad would have happened if not for the protesters jumping on his car, and that making your way through a crowd is a legitimate thing to do in a car. His mistake to me, was surging forward, not the route he took.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46577475]-condescending words-[/QUOTE]
You're not getting it. There is a [b]very clear distinction[/b] to be made here that you're completely ignoring just so you can be a condescending shitlord.
There is a concept of causality in the legal world. It states that if A does something that would have otherwise not affected B, that something is what caused B's damages, and A is responsible.
However, there are some important distinctions here. A proximate cause is something which could have had another outcome, had it not been for an intervening cause. Take, for example, this situation. The proximate cause was the driver trying to slowly get through the crowd. The intervening cause was the crowd attacking the driver. The result was that the driver was forced to accelerate, causing the serious injury. [b]However[/b], had the protestors not started to climb on the car and instead just got out of the way [i](as crowds typically do when someone is trying to drive through them)[/i], the driver's flight response would not be kicked in, and they would not have needed to accelerate.
In such a case, there are two concurrent actual causes, and both parties are liable. [b]However[/b], courts have ruled that causation is restricted by foreseeability - if a consequence was not forseen, the actor may not be liable. Again, we parallel this to this case - the driver did not forsee having to accelerate, so they are not directly responsible.
Again, let me make this point absolutely, 100% crystal clear - [b]nobody is seriously saying the driver was right in driving through the crowd[/b], and [b]nobody is saying the driver was right in accelerating[/b].
We are saying that the driver [b]is[/b] responsible for any damages caused by slowly driving into the crowd, but because he was [b]forced[/b] to reflexively accelerate in the situation, it is impossible to argue that at that specific point in time, he had any other logical choice than to cause major injuries.
I'd like to step away from whatever argument is going on and shine a light on something.
You want to riot? Go ahead. Is it racially motivated? Sure. You disagree with the jury's decision? Understandable. Peaceful Protests? Its your right. Burn the town to the ground? Unacceptable.
MLK Jr famously wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The peaceful protesters across the nation are calling this an injustice of the system. They are exercising their rights as they should. Those bad apples that come with and want violence are the problem. The burning, smashing, and looting of businesses accomplishes what? Thats not solving the racial disparity or institutionalized racism that exists in this nation. Thats setting us back further rather than progressing us forward.
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRbeCEAAPWwt.jpg[/t][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfSgsCYAAieNA.png[/t]
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRkxCcAABAKy.jpg[/t]
Look at these three local business owners in Ferguson. These are the real victims of the riots.
Where's their justice?
Their business; their income; their life; their american dream. Gone.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46577518]I'd like to step away from whatever argument is going on and shine a light on something.
You want to riot? Go ahead. Is it racially motivated? Sure. You disagree with the jury's decision? Understandable. Peaceful Protests? Its your right. Burn the town to the ground? Unacceptable.
MLK Jr famously wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The peaceful protesters across the nation are calling this an injustice of the system. They are exercising their rights as they should. Those bad apples that come with and want violence are the problem. The burning, smashing, and looting of businesses accomplishes what? Thats not solving the racial disparity or institutionalized racism that exists in this nation. Thats setting us back further rather than progressing us forward.
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRbeCEAAPWwt.jpg[/t][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfSgsCYAAieNA.png[/t]
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRkxCcAABAKy.jpg[/t]
Look at these three local business owners in Ferguson. These are the real victims of the riots.
Where's their justice?
Their business; their income; their life; their american dream. Gone.[/QUOTE]
It's the Indian guy that gets me.
First victimised by Michael Brown.
Then victimised by some people using the death of Michael Brown to justify looting.
That's a double whammy.
K guys lets look at this video again
[video=youtube;4hHTNIYab5Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hHTNIYab5Q[/video]
He didn't just try to drive through peacefully and people just started to jump at him and hit his car....that happened when HE CRUSHED A WOMANS LEGS WITH HIS CAR....if you don't understand that seek help.
"BUT HE WAS IN DANGER" yeah in a situation HE caused, does that give a robber the right to shoot a homeowner because "fuck I was trying to rob this mans house with a gun peacefully but the homeowner started to shoot at me when I threatened to kill his wife, well I am in danger now so its justified if I kill him, it was definately the homeowners fault!" ??????
You people are messed up go outside.
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;46577524]K guys lets look at this video again
He didn't just try to drive through peacefully and people just started to jump at him and kill him....that happened when HE CRUSHED A WOMANS LEGS WITH HIS CAR....if you don't understand that seek help.
"BUT HE WAS IN DANGER" yeah in a situation HE caused, does that give a robber the right to shoot a homeowner because "fuck I was trying to rob this mans house with a gun peacefully but the homeowner started to shoot at me when I threatened to kill his wife, well I am in danger now so its justified if I kill him, it was definately the homeowners fault!" ??????
You people are messed up go outside.[/QUOTE]
The video you cited was edited to remove the part before he accelerated quickly (it starts just as he floors it for the first time, [i]after[/i] you can clearly see them first beating in his windows in the overhead shot).
If you're in a crowd of people and someone tries to drive through [i]slowly[/i] (keep in mind, the much-publicized broken legs lady was run over during the first acceleration, and you can actually see her quite clearly) are you going to move [i]towards[/i] the car and start smashing the windows, or are you going to move [i]away[/i] from the car so you don't get killed?
sheltered and naive white dudes shouldn't be acting like they should speak for this situation here. the driver is at fault for driving into the crowd, end of
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577511] The proximate cause was the driver trying to slowly get through the crowd. The intervening cause was the crowd attacking the driver. The result was that the driver was forced to accelerate, causing the serious injury. [b]However[/b], had the protestors not started to climb on the car and instead just got out of the way [i](as crowds typically do when someone is trying to drive through them)[/i], the driver's flight response would not be kicked in, and they would not have needed to accelerate.
We are saying that the driver [b]is[/b] responsible for any damages caused by slowly driving into the crowd, but because he was [b]forced[/b] to reflexively accelerate in the situation, it is impossible to argue that at that specific point in time, he had any other logical choice than to cause major injuries.[/QUOTE]
Do you have issues understanding situations? is your eyesight ok? the crowd attacked AFTER he crushed a womans legs with his car (slowly of course so that makes it ok)
"oh let me drive through the crowd slowly, oh I am running over a womans legs? haha its ok I'm doing it slowly so its alright, WTF EVERYONE IS ATTACKING ME HELP I HAVE TO INJURE MORE PEOPLE FUCK ITS THE ONLY WAY IM NOT AT FAULT."
??????
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577531]If you're in a crowd of people and someone tries to drive through [i]slowly[/i] (keep in mind, the much-publicized broken legs lady was run over during the first acceleration, and you can actually see her quite clearly) are you going to move [i]towards[/i] the car and start smashing the windows, or are you going to move [i]away[/i] from the car so you don't get killed?[/QUOTE]
"FUCK THAT WOMANS LEGS ARE GETTING CRUSHED BY A CAR WHAT DO I DO? hmmmm ill just sit back and move while the driver keeps her legs pinned with her car so she can never walk again, good safe thinking on my part :) move up to the drivers car and yell at him so he moves in a situation he caused? nah!"
Again, go outside
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577511]You're not getting it. There is a [b]very clear distinction[/b] to be made here that you're completely ignoring just so you can be a condescending shitlord.
There is a concept of causality in the legal world. It states that if A does something that would have otherwise not affected B, that something is what caused B's damages, and A is responsible.
However, there are some important distinctions here. A proximate cause is something which could have had another outcome, had it not been for an intervening cause. Take, for example, this situation. The proximate cause was the driver trying to slowly get through the crowd. The intervening cause was the crowd attacking the driver. The result was that the driver was forced to accelerate, causing the serious injury. [b]However[/b], had the protestors not started to climb on the car and instead just got out of the way [i](as crowds typically do when someone is trying to drive through them)[/i], the driver's flight response would not be kicked in, and they would not have needed to accelerate.
In such a case, there are two concurrent actual causes, and both parties are liable. [b]However[/b], courts have ruled that causation is restricted by foreseeability - if a consequence was not forseen, the actor may not be liable. Again, we parallel this to this case - the driver did not forsee having to accelerate, so they are not directly responsible.
Again, let me make this point absolutely, 100% crystal clear - [b]nobody is seriously saying the driver was right in driving through the crowd[/b], and [b]nobody is saying the driver was right in accelerating[/b].
We are saying that the driver [b]is[/b] responsible for any damages caused by slowly driving into the crowd, but because he was [b]forced[/b] to reflexively accelerate in the situation, it is impossible to argue that at that specific point in time, he had any other logical choice than to cause major injuries.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;46577542]Do you have issues understanding situations? is your eyesight ok? the crowd attacked AFTER he crushed a womans legs with his car (slowly of course so that makes it ok)
"oh let me drive through the crowd slowly, oh I am running over a womans legs? haha its ok I'm doing it slowly so its alright, WTF EVERYONE IS ATTACKING ME HELP I HAVE TO INJURE MORE PEOPLE FUCK ITS THE ONLY WAY IM NOT AT FAULT."
??????[/QUOTE]
Surprise, you didn't fucking read the post.
Let me try again: [b][i][u]NOBODY[/u] is saying he was right in entering the crowd.[/i][/b] We are saying that had the protesters not ganged up on him [b][i]before he caused serious injuries[/i][/b] he would not have been forced to plow through further. That makes them concurrent causes, and they are [b][i]both liable[/i][/b] for what happened.
Once again, the video you cited [b][i]does not[/i][/b] show the first part, where he was moving slowly. You're arguing based on an edited, selective point of view. There was the slow entry where he did not foresee the crowd attacking him, the crowd attacked him, he panicked and accelerated, [b]your video starts here[/b], the lady in red gets her legs ruined, they continue beating on his car, he accelerates [b]again[/b], running her over (along with a few other people) as he escapes. Unlike what the video's author wants you to believe, he didn't ram the crowd with his foot down, and he never intended on causing that serious injury.
I don't know what I just walked into with this thread. Both the driver and the people are stupid.
Why is everyone in this thread so stand-offish?
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;46577542]Again, go outside[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between discussion and bickering.
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/django-actress-daniele-watts-says-cops-cuffed-her-over-pda-n203221[/url]
posting this here just incase anyone missed it
yeah i'm going to go drive into a crowd now and i'll be sure to mention that i failed to foresee the need to run over another 30 people just to get away
also a post doesn't need a glossary of terms to make it's essential point
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577553][b][i][u]NOBODY[/u] is saying he was right in entering the crowd.[/i][/b][/QUOTE]
I am sort of. Not explicitly saying he was right as there were other options, just that I've seen people drive through crowds a bunch of times before without any serious issue and that it's my belief that nothing bad would have happened if not for the actions of those protesters who dived on his car.
I wouldn't call it wrong, I would call it unwise.
[QUOTE=Apache249;46577551][/QUOTE]
Sexy post sick!
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577553]Surprise, you didn't fucking read the post.
Let me try again: [b][i][u]NOBODY[/u] is saying he was right in entering the crowd.[/i][/b] We are saying that had the protesters not ganged up on him [b][i]before he caused serious injuries[/i][/b] he would not have been forced to plow through further. That makes them concurrent causes, and they are [b][i]both liable[/i][/b] for what happened.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you are having this much trouble understanding a situation? here in the real world people don't sit on the fence like children and go "your both at fault it doesn't matter" no, at the end of the day it started when the driver decided he was above everyone else to go around which puts the driver at fault. "BUT I WAS FORCED TO INJURE MORE PEOPLE AFTER EVERYONE ATTACKED ME FOR CRUSHING A WOMANS LEGS" sorry but that doesn't hold up in court.
Also there is no point repeating mindless sentences that literally say nothing if your mind can't actually comprehend more then "they are both at fault" cause btw no one is saying u think he is right, everyone is saying your retarded for even trying to shift blame on the crowd.
I'm watching the aerial footage through, and I can't tell whether the driver could even see the woman before she went under the car. There were two people sitting on the bonnet, and one of them looked like they could have been blocking the drivers vision of her. I can't tell to be sure though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.