At least 10 hurt after a car hits pedestrians in New York's Times Square - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=DogGunn;52245305]It's a sad state of affairs when you have to be suspicious of an event like this. I feel even 5 years ago, no one even would have considered this to be a terrorist attack when it very well might have been a complete accident.[/QUOTE] We shouldn't though, since thats exactly what they would be aiming for, but oh well, what can we do...

BBC article updated to say he is testing negative for alcohol. But is testing positive for drugs. ABC citing unnamed law enforcement sources is saying it was K2, synthetic marijuana.

[QUOTE=pentium;52246558]Times Square is just another route through the city. If say I was piss drunk and drove home and killed someone in the process it wouldn't matter if I was driving down Broadway or 12th. I still equally broke the law and didn't care which way I was driving to get home. Point is unless he intentionally went through Times Square to cause an accident then sure, charge him for intending to do harm. Otherwise this accident is no different if it had happened three blocks away.[/QUOTE] That [i]is[/i] my point. If your route home is through a bunch of empty corn fields, you're not disregarding a substantial risk of harm, and if you accidentally run into someone, it's not going to be the same crime. Negligent homicide at best. But if you know you're going to drive through one of the most densely populated high-traffic areas on the planet, that's about as substantial of a risk as one could possibly take. Manslaughter. Hell, I'd argue that it might even qualify for depraved heart murder if you do something that grossly reckless. If he [i]intentionally[/i] crashed his car, then you might've kicked it up to plain old murder, but that's irrelevant. I mean, if you're going to rate me dumb or whatever, feel free to give me a reason why choosing to drive intoxicated in Manhattan is exactly the same, for the purposes of homicide degrees, as driving in the middle of nowhere. The location does matter. This is basic crim law. Choosing to drive different routes through Manhattan isn't the question here - pentium's argument was that someone with two DUIs killing someone is always the same everywhere. It's not. That's just not how this works.

[QUOTE]Richard Rojas appeared under the influence of drugs or alcohol when police and civilians teamed to corral him after he fled the scene when his car crashed into a metal pole at 45th Street and Broadway shortly before noon Thursday. He blew a 0.0 when tested for alcohol at the precinct. A law enforcement official said certain statements and tests suggest he was under the influence of something he ingested through smoking. Source: Who Is Richard Rojas? What We Know About the 26-Year-Old Driver Who Mowed Down Crowd in Times Square | NBC New York [url]http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Richard-Rojas-Times-Square-Car-Plow-Pedestrian-Death-Injuries-Investigation-Evacuation-NYPD-Drugs-Alcohol-423010814.html#ixzz4hTHKzf5O[/url] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=pentium;52246558]Times Square is just another route through the city. If say I was piss drunk and drove home and killed someone in the process it wouldn't matter if I was driving down Broadway or 12th. I still equally broke the law and didn't care which way I was driving to get home. Point is unless he intentionally went through Times Square to cause an accident then sure, charge him for intending to do harm. Otherwise this accident is no different if it had happened three blocks away.[/QUOTE] It's a weird fucking day when I find myself clicking "agree" on a pentium post.

The only upside to this is that they know where to upgrade the security and bollards. If a car could do that imagine someone with intent, aka a truck

[QUOTE=garychencool;52245820]Any word on CCTV footage?[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_1495142708[/url]

[QUOTE=lope;52245389]Never really understood how strong those bollards are until I saw this picture [t]https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/17F8E/production/_96109189_twio.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] mos of the time they're full of concrete or other heavy shit

Man fuck...I hoped it would be only injuries and no deaths, but damn. Such a shitty and sudden way to go.

[QUOTE=Aide;52247279][url]https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef2_1495142708[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lope;52245389]Never really understood how strong those bollards are until I saw this picture [t]https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/17F8E/production/_96109189_twio.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Goddamn, it's weird to think if this happened a half hour later I might have been right there. That Swatch store is on the Times Square-facing part of the hotel I was staying in. Glad as fuck it wasn't terrorism but it's awful nonetheless.

another angle shows the guy getting out of the car after crashing and attacking people: [url]https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=642_1495155857[/url]

Please only create these kinds of threads if you're committed to updating the OP.

Why is it important exactly whether there was a terrorist motive behind it or it was an accident? The harm done is the same regardless. Is it the risk of there being similar attacks shortly afterwards in the area? That doesn't seem to have happened during past terror attacks.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52248872]Why is it important exactly whether there was a terrorist motive behind it or it was an accident? The harm done is the same regardless.[/QUOTE] Because one is manslaughter and the other is murder.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52249161]Because one is manslaughter and the other is murder.[/QUOTE] What does that change for those who were killed/injured? I'm not talking about the way the perpetrator will be judged. What I don't understand is people who go "hope it wasn't a terrorist attack" when the end result is the same anyway.

Unfortunately it looked pretty intentional from the video, he drives normally into the intersection and then suddenly U-turns into the sidewalk and floors it.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52249167]What does that change for those who were killed/injured? I'm not talking about the way the perpetrator will be judged. What I don't understand is people who go "hope it wasn't a terrorist attack" when the end result is the same anyway.[/QUOTE] It doesn't change anything, but people are curious to know why 10 people was just mowed down by a car in the middle of New York. I think you can figure this out by yourself.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52249203]It doesn't change anything, but people are curious to know why 10 people was just mowed down by a car in the middle of New York. I think you can figure this out by yourself.[/QUOTE] Being curious about the motive and hoping that the motive isn't terrorism are two different things.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52249209]Being curious about the motive and hoping that the motive isn't terrorism are two different things.[/QUOTE] I can't remember if it's called anything special but there's this psychological thing where people might not bat an eye towards a mass slaughter in a war-torn country because it's perceived as "ordinary", but as soon as it happens anywhere else it's no longer ordinary and everyone makes a big deal of it.

[QUOTE=DeEz;52249230]I can't remember if it's called anything special but there's this psychological thing where people might not bat an eye towards a mass slaughter in a war-torn country because it's perceived as "ordinary", but as soon as it happens anywhere else it's no longer ordinary and everyone makes a big deal of it.[/QUOTE] So it is an irrational response rather than a pragmatical one? [editline]19th May 2017[/editline] In that lethal traffic accidents happen everyday but a terrorist attack that yields the same damage will be seen as more horrible because it is unusual?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52249632]So it is an irrational response rather than a pragmatical one? [editline]19th May 2017[/editline] In that lethal traffic accidents happen everyday but a terrorist attack that yields the same damage will be seen as more horrible because it is unusual?[/QUOTE] It matters because you work to prevent them in very different ways.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52249702]It matters because you work to prevent them in very different ways.[/QUOTE] Sure. What makes one worse than the other though?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52249729]Sure. What makes one worse than the other though?[/QUOTE] What do you mean by worse? Is it worse in every single, tiny, way? No, probably not. Is it worse in a lot of ways? Yes, definitly. Here are some of the way in which terrorism is worse than traffic accidents: - It may inspire other terrorist attacks - It may be a sign of other terrorists or a terrorist organization - The person in question intended to kill, making them have a higher level of culpability and evil intent - The fact that someone was able to plan, attack, and kill in a highly populated area means that these areas are vulnerable to attacks that might be more successful. Traffic accidents are essentially random. Worrying or paying a lot of attention to them has very little effect on whether or where they are going to happen. This doesn't apply to terrorism. We can actively try to stop terrorism and it's good to note when deaths are terrorist related so that we can try to do so.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52249729]Sure. What makes one worse than the other though?[/QUOTE] Intent. Manslaughter is unintentional killing of another. If this were an act of terror, it would be killing of others with not just intent to kill, but intent to spread fear as well.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52249789]What do you mean by worse? Is it worse in every single, tiny, way? No, probably not. Is it worse in a lot of ways? Yes, definitly. Here are some of the way in which terrorism is worse than traffic accidents: - It may inspire other terrorist attacks - It may be a sign of other terrorists or a terrorist organization[/QUOTE] This I agree with, though inspiration to a lesser extent. Vehicular terror attacks have been occuring for a while now, and had this incident been another attack it probably wouldn't have given any new ideas to someone who already aspires to killing innocent people. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52249790]Intent. Manslaughter is unintentional killing of another. If this were an act of terror, it would be killing of others with not just intent to kill, but intent to spread fear as well.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]- The person in question intended to kill, making them have a higher level of culpability and evil intent[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about how we would judge the perpetrator here, though. [QUOTE]- The fact that someone was able to plan, attack, and kill in a highly populated area means that these areas are vulnerable to attacks that might be more successful.[/QUOTE] This is true, but we already knew that any area close to a road is vulnerable to vehicular terror attacks, and there isn't much we can do about it short of fencing every sidewalk with metal poles. [QUOTE]Traffic accidents are essentially random. Worrying or paying a lot of attention to them has very little effect on whether or where they are going to happen. This doesn't apply to terrorism. We can actively try to stop terrorism and it's good to note when deaths are terrorist related so that we can try to do so.[/QUOTE] This I strongly disagree with, however. Traffic accidents aren't unpreventable, completely random occurrences, far from it. That road fatalities rate wildly vary from country to country is proof that a lot can be done to reduce their frequency. And given that the amount of deaths related to traffic are higher by several orders of magnitude than terrorism-related ones, even a relatively small reduction in traffic death rates would save more lives than completely wiping terrorism off the map. To put things in perspective, reducing the amount of yearly traffic fatalities in Europe by [B]0.2%[/B] would save more lives than if we somehow managed to prevent all the terrorist attacks that happened in Europe in 2016. We can most certainly do way more by devoting at least as much energy in traffic safety as we currently do in fighting terrorism.

I don't know about other people, but the reason I hope for this to not be a terrorist attack is because terrorist attacks are usually used to justify all kinds of privacy infringing policies.