Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ix1r091 wrote

[deleted]

84

mces97 t1_ix28y6j wrote

Whether intentional or not, if they can't prove it was intentional, for his safety, I'd get the fuck out of that state. Or he's gonna "commit suicide."

34

DefinitelyNotAliens t1_ix2pdya wrote

It's suspicious. He wasn't drunk (blew 0.0), witnesses heard and saw him accelerating, no tire skid marks and he crossed out of his lane and into oncoming traffic to hit 25 people while going 30 miles an hour.

If he wasn't doing this intentionally, he was high or having a medical emergency. He accelerated through them and hit 25 of 75 cadets before hitting a post and never braked. To have been completely accidental without some major factor is a stretch. This wasn't a 55 zone. He never tried to stop. It's high suspect with available information.

10

IT_Chef t1_ix2zra8 wrote

Is it unreasonable to think that he panicked the wrong foot pedal?

5

jdtoast t1_ix1wcl0 wrote

> If those were regular citizens run over it would have been a 'tragic accident'

I don't think that's true at all.

−42

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ix1y68i wrote

There would be an investigation either way, but officials definitely would not have announced suspected malicious intent had this been regular citizens.

36

thechervil t1_ix4hqdb wrote

Not sure why you're getting downvoted when the Darrel Brooks trial literally just convicted someone for something similar.

−1

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ix5ryl4 wrote

Not sure why you’re comparing the two when several witnesses stated that Brooks was awake and aware as he drove into the crowd after resisting officers pounding on his car attempting to stop him. He zig-zagged to target people and avoid cars and also had a history of attacking via vehicle. The two scenarios are not the same.

In this incident, the driver veered over into the oncoming lane striking the cadets before crashing into a pole. Is there any evidence in support of this being a deliberate attack?

6

thechervil t1_ix6my68 wrote

The statement was in response to the phrase "If those were regular citizens run over it would have been a 'tragic accident', but as it was cops who were injured there MUST be an aggressor and SOMEONE must pay"

So Sausegeypie saying "if" it had been regular citizens it would be different is just untrue because, again, we literally have a days old example of a very similar (obviously not identical) scenario where a car plowed into pedestrians who were citizens and was brought to justice.

I am not saying they are identical, but to imply that the only reason it was being handled so seriously is because they were cops is just completely ignoring the Brooks outcome.

So don't try to strawman this into motivation or driver coherence.

The response was purely based on the fact that the victims social/work status would not necessarily make a difference in how it was handled.

−2

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ix6po1d wrote

And my response is that the Brooks situation could not have plausibly been labeled as an accident. It was an obviously deliberate attack and so not similar enough to be a relevant comparison to the current discussion.

3

thechervil t1_ix6q7it wrote

Again you try to deflect attention away from the fact that this is a discussion about what group the victims belonged to affecting whether it would be aggressively persued, pure and simple.

Quit trying to strawman.

−1

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ix6r1sv wrote

You continue to ignore the fact that aggressively pursuing Brooks was the only viable option in that particular situation (regardless of who the victims were) and so really doesn’t prove anything.

4

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ixa1yue wrote

>>quit trying to strawman

You keep using that word…

It was a foundational part of your argument that this and the Waukesha incident are similar events. I am directly engaging with your proposition by counter arguing that they are not sufficiently similar. Where’s the strawman, don quixote?

0