Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PandaJ108 t1_j8eiamf wrote

“The suspect is a 62-year-old Weng Sor homeless man and may have been living in the U-Haul truck, according to police.”

Article recently updated with the info above.

189

k1lk1 t1_j8f50n4 wrote

Likely this is a stolen truck then?

So probably yet another entirely senseless tragedy that could have been prevented if we ever just cracked down on lawless behavior, and got mentally ill vagrants psychiatric help.

110

ctannr t1_j8h114x wrote

maybe not stolen, uhauls are dirt cheap and actually kinda make sense for a homeless person who is not totally destitute when it comes to money

23

MarquisEXB t1_j8j3zwx wrote

Agree that we need to take real action to curb homelessness and help the mentally ill. Addressing homelessness is usually done by creating free/inexpensive housing. The latter would be solved with true government available healthcare.

The problem with implementing either is a sizeable percentage of the population won't tolerate people getting stuff for free, and will vociferous oppose and vote against their tax money going to "moochers". The "they bought filet mignon with food stamps" style memes would be everywhere.

So we'll probably end up doing what we always do. Give more money to cops and hope they can sort it out. (Hint: At $11B, it's the most expensive PD in the country, and they are not equipped to solve homelessness.)

6

DifficultyNext7666 t1_j8jlk4o wrote

I mean i think the big pushback is everyone seeing how fucking bad NYCHA buildings are treated by the people that live there

2

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_j8f827z wrote

> and got mentally ill vagrants psychiatric help.

... By force? Is that what you mean? Dude had no priors

−59

k1lk1 t1_j8f8lvz wrote

Yes he does. Stabbed his brother in 2015. Arrested repeatedly.

https://pix11.com/news/local-news/brooklyn/suspect-in-brooklyn-u-haul-rampage-was-acting-out-not-taking-his-medications-son-says/

84

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_j8f97sx wrote

Welp. Sorry, earlier reporting.

Oddly blase reaction from the son. Says his dad does "very frequently [does] something like this". Maybe he gave the interview before reading the news

20

k1lk1 t1_j8fbeb4 wrote

The transcription of his words may not have conveyed the sadness or anger. Also it sounds like the son is mostly estranged from the father.

17

PandaJ108 t1_j8grae6 wrote

Great, a mentally ill individual with a documented history of violence is now responsible for killing someone. It seems this country is incapable of dealing with violent mentally ill people prior to them killing someone.

6

boxer_dogs_dance t1_j8gv6dg wrote

The history of the end of long term inpatient options for most patients is well documented. The abuses in the bad old days were real and horrific, but proposed replacement care for closed institutions was never implemented or budgeted for. Police, social workers, medical staff all have fewer options than they need to solve the problem until someone earns a lock down space in a hospital for the criminally insane by doing something like this. Everyone with a stake in city life should be doing what they can to hold government feet to the fire to change things and make inpatient care available earlier and more often. Just my two cents, but you are right. We are currently handling this issue wrong across the country.

6

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j8i0ugd wrote

As someone who has been medicated by force, it doesn't hold up for long. You get medicated, a 2-6 week stay in a psych ward, and then you're out. They set up appointments and stuff for you to continue care, but no one checks to make sure that you go to them. I would get out and go off of my medication immediately, just to end up back a week or two later.

4

[deleted] t1_j8fukix wrote

[removed]

−17

JoeWhy2 t1_j8fxncm wrote

His name.

11

theexpertgamer1 t1_j8g1fd6 wrote

That doesn’t make sense. Reading the sentence as written, it can’t be his name. It’s used as an adjective

1

JoeWhy2 t1_j8g7wu4 wrote

I never said that it makes sense. But the man's name is Weng Sor.

3

Oo0o8o0oO t1_j8g9m9b wrote

Everybody have fun tonight.

Everybody Weng Sor tonight.

3

lafayette0508 t1_j8gdb8w wrote

I don't why the guy asking is getting downvoted so much, it doesn't make sense the way it's quoted in the OP comment here. And you're right, the name is no longer in this article. But from other searching, it does seem it's his name.

1

AnacharsisIV t1_j8fy0vv wrote

I searched the article and didn't see his name printed.

−2

Silo-Joe t1_j8e7301 wrote

Report from NY Times that he was arrested in the Carroll Gardens/ Red Hook area. Didn’t know it was possible to evade the police for such a long distance (5 miles in Brooklyn traffic) driving a UHaul truck.

162

AnotherUselessPoster t1_j8e8d0g wrote

Ever heard of the Gowanus Expressway?

64

WorthPrudent3028 t1_j8eqkn8 wrote

You mean the world's largest parking lot?

43

CactusBoyScout t1_j8fzii1 wrote

The Gowanus is one of the few that I actually rarely see that congested... except where it meets the BQE.

13

xmrlazyx t1_j8jggpo wrote

It's gotten much better both directions after they added the split exit southbound for the Belt and finished the construction of the additional lanes northbound near the Battery Tunnel. Up until about 5-10 years ago, it was bumper to bumper at pretty much all times of the day from the Verrazano all the way to the Brooklyn bridge.

2

[deleted] t1_j8ei6i3 wrote

[deleted]

1

BRBLOLWTF t1_j8emzs2 wrote

How could he possibly go from Bay Ridge to Red Hook via the belt?

29

Visual_Positive_6925 t1_j8f210g wrote

!?!? Umm get on the belt at 4th ave under the verazzano and take it to the start of the BQE…duh? Depends how north in bay ridge you start but in south bay ridge its faster to go “backwards” and get on the belt than to take the streets to the bqe ramp by the precinct

14

Visual_Positive_6925 t1_j8f24ox wrote

Lmfaooo I just realized we accidently just made a new york version of my fav SNL skit “the californians”. Youtube it. Do yourself a favor

40

Brucehandstrong t1_j8fiphi wrote

What are you doing here?

4

jbeshay t1_j8fw6sp wrote

Ehhhhhhh I think you should go home now!!!

4

Brucehandstrong t1_j8g70nw wrote

How about I have a seat on that euro-Argentinian style foot chair.

4

[deleted] t1_j8en6da wrote

[deleted]

3

BRBLOLWTF t1_j8enbo6 wrote

I'm just saying... The belt would take you the other way

1

[deleted] t1_j8enijv wrote

[deleted]

−1

BRBLOLWTF t1_j8enoqv wrote

Could've also taken the BQE without getting on the belt

4

[deleted] t1_j8eo2ay wrote

[deleted]

4

BRBLOLWTF t1_j8eo8ji wrote

Not necessarily.... Could've got on from 92nd, 86th st or 65th st.

10

paradox_djell t1_j8e7qlb wrote

There were at least 6 choppers hovering there, so this checks out

17

ny_medic t1_j8fbgw7 wrote

When the NYPD has a no-pursuit policy, anything is possible.

17

mowotlarx t1_j8e4qk0 wrote

This is my neighborhood. Hoping my neighbors make it through any injuries. This is horrifying.

99

TapesNStuff t1_j8e6x3g wrote

Mine too. Sadly, I wasn't too surprised. They drive like maniac assholes in this neighborhood.

40

SnottNormal t1_j8edxog wrote

I don’t think I know anyone local who hasn’t almost been clipped at least once. Bay Ridge car culture is unreal.

40

TapesNStuff t1_j8efb7h wrote

The thing that gets me, it's not like they can't do anything about it. They just choose not to. I shouldn't have to be worried when I'm crossing the street on a crosswalk when I have the light, but I am.

33

PKMKII t1_j8eqlkv wrote

Cops see working the 68th precinct as easy street, where they can just put their feet up and not be too busy. Combine that with a general attitude of normalizing reckless driving, it’s a recipe for asshole drivers being unchecked.

18

panda12291 t1_j8f2hps wrote

Who is "they"? Maybe the City could put additional timers on the lights or have more cops paid overtime to just stand around and wait for something to happen, but ultimately it's up to car drivers to not be murderous assholes (which also seems impractical given my experience with drivers in this city).

1

infellatio t1_j8fi05s wrote

Or banning most cars would be great

10

panda12291 t1_j8fiv3a wrote

Sure, I'd love to ban cars from most of the city, but that seems a bit impractical. We could at least start by putting more onus on car drivers to actually give a fuck or pay up. But the city doesn't have any authority to do that without a state law, and there doesn't seem to be much willingness from the rest of the state to put more penalties on dangerous drivers.

6

v_for__vegeta t1_j8enod9 wrote

Don’t think this falls under “car culture”. Dude is clearly intentionally out to kill people.

23

panda12291 t1_j8f336b wrote

So general car culture? The way people casually drive twice the speed limit and completely ignore pedestrians while making turns here is terrifying. It really feels like most drivers in this city don't care if they kill someone as long as they get where they want to go as fast as possible (which is a bit ironic because the subway is usually a lot faster anyway, but then they'd have to deal with other humans).

7

Begoru t1_j8gnocm wrote

The infrastructure that allows for a driver to easily run over cyclists is car culture. A bike line with jersey barriers like the one in Queens Blvd would’ve prevented it.

2

mowotlarx t1_j8eo30n wrote

This is true. This man clearly did this on purpose, but the drivers there acting "normally" are insane. Probably once a week I have a close call. When I'm in the crosswalk and have the light or am at a stop sign. There is ZERO traffic enforcement here.

21

tbs222 t1_j8e0g4w wrote

Reports are that the truck struck people at different locations in Brooklyn. The truck has been stopped and the driver is in custody, however, NYPD still checking the truck to make sure it presents no additional threat.

Unconfirmed reports that this could be an act of terrorism.

Edit: WABC reporting that the truck was cleared by the Bomb Squad.

64

TheNormalAlternative t1_j8ejdsi wrote

>Unconfirmed reports that this could be an act of terrorism.

I don't know what the article said when first posted, but it's been updated and does not include any rumors of terrorism.

TL;DR - apparently, a suicidal person got behind the wheel of his motorhome, i.e., a rental truck, and intentionally struck people while in a possibly altered mental state

37

George4Mayor86 t1_j8e2j15 wrote

Struck by a UHaul? Wow, it’s amazing how a truck did that with nobody driving it.

61

mowotlarx t1_j8e56u7 wrote

It's sick how we dehumanize crimes committed by drivers. It's important to say a DRIVER hit someone, the car didn't do it on its own.

87

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j8e8jrd wrote

>Glock 19 Gen 3 9mm shoots 12 people in Gotham

A headline that would justifiably enrage everyone. Why is it different for other dangerous inanimate objects?

48

SumyungNam t1_j8gp7lb wrote

/s Yes ban U-Hauls and make U-Haul free zone makes everyone safer

3

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8e8hmh wrote

You don't know that.

In this particular case it definitely looks deliberate, but generally speaking when there's a car accident it's not for the newspaper to determine whether it was deliberate, careless, a medical event, or mechanical failure.

It's important for newspapers not to print libel and things that are false.

Edit: Not to mention that when journalists report breaking news, they likely don't have all the facts.

But this sub: A DRIVER? INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? NEVER HEARD OF IT. GET THE PITCHFORKS BOYS.

−27

thebruns t1_j8ebuto wrote

> but generally speaking when there's a car accident it's not for the newspaper to determine whether it was deliberate, careless, a medical event, or mechanical failure.

And yet youre calling it an accident which sounds like you're determining no one was at fault.

19

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8ed3io wrote

I'm not writing a newspaper article, I'm writing a Reddit post.

−13

thebruns t1_j8edfms wrote

> It's important for newspapers not to print libel and things that are false.

This is what you said. What you said it wrong.

"Driver hits multiple pedestrians" is a statement of fact.

16

cdavidg4 t1_j8eajzs wrote

Stating that a driver in a u-haul hit someone doesn't denote guilt or state anything false. It's merely accurate reporting.

13

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8eb856 wrote

You're not allowed to hit people with your car.

Journo: John hit someone with his car.

Not denoting guilt? Really?

And you don't know that it wasn't mechanical failure or a medical event, therefore it may be false.

−11

cdavidg4 t1_j8ecf4l wrote

Intentionally, unintentionally, following a mechanical failure, after suffering a medical episode.

These are all additional statements and don't change the base statement that a driver hit someone with their car. Which is accurate in all of the above scenarios.

12

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8edh1y wrote

That's just not how any of this works. They can't write headlines like that. They could write, "John allegedly hit pedestrian with car" but that's not a fact.

"Person hit by car" is a fact.

"John allegedly hit person with his car" is speculation.

−4

newestindustry t1_j8eq8jx wrote

So would it be appropriate for me to say "you have chosen the dumbest hill possible to die on", or would i need an "allegedly" in there?

11

thebruns t1_j8f03tm wrote

It's a fascinating example of "im not owned! im not owned!!", i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob to start the week off.

7

cdavidg4 t1_j8eef5v wrote

A different scenario. A 6 year shoots his father with a gun.

Under your thinking, the headline should read "Father shot with gun" and not "6 year old shoots father with gun" as that's speculative.

We don't know intensions or if somehow the gun went off accidently or missfired or a strong gust of wind did it. A non-passive headline with all parties noted is more accurate.

5

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8ef2w1 wrote

They write headlines like that all the time.

>Father of three shot dead after getting caught in hotel gunfight on visit to son’s college

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/paul-kutz-poughkeepsie-shooting-marist-college-b2195263.html

Shot dead by a gun not being held by a person?????

Obviously not.

2

cdavidg4 t1_j8efnel wrote

And they also use the headline "Drive hits pedestrian" all the time.

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/08/denver-driver-hits-four-pedestrians-sidewalk-downtown/

So your statement that they "can't write headlines like that" is obviously false.

8

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8eg2q2 wrote

They're quoting the police, which is very different than making their own determination.

>Driver hits four pedestrians on sidewalk in downtown Denver, police say

0

cdavidg4 t1_j8egvl5 wrote

It's doesn't state intent or guilt so how is it different? It simply states fact.

5

SleepyStreetNoisy t1_j8efiuy wrote

Youre not allowed to INTENTIONALLY hit someone with your car. But if its an accident and youre changing the radio station then the police let you go scott free typically in nyc.

4

ComeOnPelicanFly t1_j8ec83e wrote

Have you seen the video of the guy jumping out of the way? Pretty clear he was being aimed at by this piece of shit.

2

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8ed18p wrote

>In this particular case it definitely looks deliberate, but generally speaking

>Edit: Not to mention that when journalists report breaking news, they likely don't have all the facts.

0

nonlawyer t1_j8ecbv5 wrote

Come on, no sane person would read this headline and reach this conclusion.

Describing the vehicles involved in a collision is standard because you generally don’t know the identity of the driver(s) immediately and saying the “driver of a red SUV struck the driver of a blue Mazda” is slightly wordier. It’s not some conspiracy.

Honestly, quibbling about headline word choice when a bunch of people are injured and possibly fighting for their lives is just super gross

19

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8eegsh wrote

It's a meme opinion and virtue signaling.

−3

mowotlarx t1_j8eocad wrote

"Meme opinion." Ok.

When someone is shot, do the headlines say "man shot by gun" or do they say "man shot by [insert human being]? You know the answer. Car culture is a death cult, for real.

3

bklyn1977 t1_j8ex8v7 wrote

If the headline says 'man shot' I am thinking gun not crossbows or peashooters.

4

wewladdies t1_j8emty6 wrote

??? What even is the point of this comment lmao. Like im legitimately curious what point you are trying to make

11

[deleted] t1_j8en960 wrote

[deleted]

−7

jersey_girl660 t1_j8ez61j wrote

If you interpret the headline as that I’m legitimately concerned. No shit a driver was behind the wheel. Thanks captain obvious

9

bklyn1977 t1_j8eqs1a wrote

We know vehicles are operated by people. For a headline you get the quick factual details out. The story changes when you say pedestrians struck by a rickshaw or struck by a truck.

Once they have a suspect for the driver they can add it in the body of the article.

It's not some conspiracy.

11

[deleted] t1_j8fepft wrote

[deleted]

0

bklyn1977 t1_j8fg7xf wrote

When I see a headline about a vehicle collision I think 'what did this fucker do' no 'what did the car do'

7

Scout-Penguin t1_j8fmhxh wrote

What do you suggest?

"Struck by a U-Haul truck, that was being driven by a person"? "Stuck by a person driving a U-Haul truck"? Do we seriously believe that either of these communicate the facts better than "struck by a U-Haul truck"?

6

George4Mayor86 t1_j8fn4vq wrote

The NYTimes headline, “man driving UHaul truck strikes multiple pedestrians in Brooklyn” seems to cover it.

7

bklyn1977 t1_j8fw4vy wrote

The headline was changed when a suspect was named. Even the headline in the linked article here is updated:

'8 struck, possibly intentionally, by man driving U-Haul truck in Brooklyn'

7

spoil_of_the_cities t1_j8eiaxq wrote

It would be pretty weird to be struck by a driver. Like the driver got thrown out through the windshield and collided with a pedestrian. Could happen, but usually I think people are struck by the vehicle

−1

karmapuhlease t1_j8ekflh wrote

Do people get shot by bullets, or shot by other people who use guns?

3

spoil_of_the_cities t1_j8etoks wrote

If we say "bullets struck John" that seems pretty clear. If we say "a person struck John" that sounds like a fistfight.

2

karmapuhlease t1_j8ewxze wrote

"Bob shot John with a handgun" versus "John was struck by bullets fired by a handgun"

2

HEIMDVLLR t1_j8ehf4z wrote

Sorry but none of us would react the same if we heard a Smart car jumped the curb and hit a crowd of people.

Matter fact what if it was a self-driving ride-share vehicle like Waymo?

−4

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8efgw3 wrote

It appears that he was fleeing a traffic stop.

>The man had been stopped by the police for driving erratically. He then fled the traffic stop and hit several pedestrians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/13/nyregion/brooklyn-truck-hit-pedestrians.html

49

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_j8fa6vn wrote

The police later said that he had already hit people by the time he was stopped; guess it won't be clear until later

26

Turbulent_Link1738 t1_j8ei95q wrote

And that’s why cops don’t bother with traffic laws. To actually enforce them means people will get hit by cars.

−49

TechnicallySpaghetti t1_j8ek1cu wrote

The cops don't need any more excuses to not do their jobs, bootlicker.

32

ripstep1 t1_j8frzw0 wrote

“If we sent a social worker he wouldn’t have run over these people. The true crime here is the cops racially targeted this innocent man with a traffic stop.”

1

thebruns t1_j8ebjga wrote

Terrorists keep using vehicles to attack people and yet NYPD refuses to enforce any and all vehicle laws.

Meanwhile, we still have to take our shoes off when we fly due to a failed attempt 20 years ago

31

Acrobatic-Order-1424 t1_j8g303r wrote

I don’t know about failed, I’m pretty sure they were successful terrorizing the city when they brought down the towers and killed thousands of people.

−3

thebruns t1_j8g347g wrote

> I’m pretty sure they were successful terrorizing the city when they brought down the towers and killed thousands of people.

That had nothing to do with the shoes. How old are you?

12

Acrobatic-Order-1424 t1_j8g3inc wrote

Pretty old. What other terrorist flying incident could you be referring to that happened 20 years ago?

−8

thebruns t1_j8g3pma wrote

The failed attempt with the shoe. I thought that was clear from my post?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2001)

>In 2006, security procedures at American airports were changed in response to this incident, with passengers required to remove their shoes before proceeding through scanners.[The requirement was phased out for some travelers, particularly those with TSA PreCheck, in 2011.[8] Also in 2011, the rules were relaxed to allow children 12 and younger and adults 75 and older to keep their shoes on during security screenings.

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

>The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was a terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives, carried aboard airliners travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada, disguised as soft drinks.[1] The plot was discovered by British Metropolitan police during an extensive surveillance operation. As a result of the plot, unprecedented security measures were initially implemented at airports. The measures were gradually relaxed during the following weeks, but passengers are still not allowed to carry liquid containers larger than 100 ml onto commercial aircraft in their hand luggage in the UK and most other countries, as of 2022.

15

bushysmalls t1_j8e6kax wrote

Coworker said he was behind a truck like this over near Bensonhurst just before and the guy might have hit someone else over there too

16

Crustydonout t1_j8e5w6t wrote

It's always the rental trucks

11

[deleted] t1_j8e9wf0 wrote

[deleted]

−6

penone_nyc t1_j8eetx0 wrote

You're a genius. You should run for mayor or governor.

0

uppernycghost t1_j8eil65 wrote

I took this pic yesterday at the lunar new year parade and thought it was a weird choice given the recent sentencing of the uhaul terrorist and not even 24 hour later we have this. Eerie.

10

TheNormalAlternative t1_j8ejqzt wrote

I'm angry at how irrational it would be to use "PRIDE" and "UHAUL" after starting with "DILDO" and having the 'D' and 'L' both rejected, and then getting no 'A' with "ASIAN." Atrocious Wordle player.

16

PandaJ108 t1_j8e9pbm wrote

In the clip one sees a rider on a moped get hit by the truck with the cops right behind chasing. Timeline would have to be detailed to get a better idea exactly what happened. Was an active pursuit already on its way in the clip shown? Or did it only start once the moped driver was hit?

5

KaiDaiz t1_j8f23h5 wrote

Speedy recovery for victims and throw the book on perp

3

downonthesecond t1_j8epfc2 wrote

Come on, the other guy was just convicted.

2

synthetic_apriori t1_j8l5yz7 wrote

Any info on what mental illness this man had? schizo?

2

[deleted] t1_j8e4uf2 wrote

[deleted]

1

Aviri t1_j8e8827 wrote

Considering you need a driver's license to rent these trucks there already is one.

5

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j8e8nkp wrote

You need a drivers license to buy a gun too, guy.

2

Aviri t1_j8e98r9 wrote

Oh are we talking about guns now? Feels like an odd jump to make considering all the obvious differences between a rental truck and a gun, might make for a bad comparison. I was just noting that there are in fact steps that put control on who can use these rental trucks, since of course it's important to have safety mechanisms in place to make sure we reduce chances of people getting hurt.

1

thebruns t1_j8ebq12 wrote

The problem is any license is allowed, why dont trucks require a truck license?

−1

TrevorX5J9 t1_j8efpwq wrote

You can’t legislate all the problems away.

2

DogBotherer t1_j8ggn1x wrote

Allegedly this was a stolen one - if so, perhaps they need fingerprint starters?

2

thebruns t1_j8gio4m wrote

I dont see why every vehicle doesnt require a license be inserted for it to start. Its 2023 we have the tech

2

DogBotherer t1_j8giziy wrote

And we could have proper detailed background checks for those too - with vigorous mental health evaluations required.

2

thebruns t1_j8gj4r6 wrote

Yes theres a lot more we could do that we simply dont

1

juggernaut1026 t1_j8e58tq wrote

And four notarized references filling out a questionnaire about the mental health of the person which cannot be relatives or law enforcement and must live in the state

−6

KidAstoria t1_j8emew1 wrote

Next time use a bike to move your stuff!

−3

BasedAlliance935 t1_j8etjw5 wrote

It's not that simple especially if you need to mive alot of stuff at once. Maybe the problem here is less so the van and more so with the driver

4

NetQuarterLatte t1_j8fzqio wrote

The driver will probably be out the next day, and if he doesn’t take a plea deal, there will be so much evidence generated by the whole ordeal (all the comms of officers involved, all the security footages, all the 911 calls related to the event, etc) that it’ll be impossible for the DA to collect all the evidence for discovery and not violate the discovery requirements, such that he will likely get the case dismissed.

−3

Refreshingpudding t1_j8elt0i wrote

<opinion reserved until ethnicity of driver determined>

−7

Happyduckling47 t1_j8ezdhq wrote

Y’all say this shit but never wanna bring up gender. 99% of violent crime is committed by men so if you’re gonna be a bigot start there

/s but only partially because the stats are true

17

iv2892 t1_j8f187f wrote

This is true . Not sure about 99% of the time , but the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men . I’ve never seen a woman push somebody onto subway tracks , commit a mass shooting or assault people . Is usually men, not only in the US but internationally too. You never see women doing this

10

mowotlarx t1_j8f8c4j wrote

Does anyone know why NYPD decided to chase after the U-Haul on the sidewalk? I thought car chases were prohibited on the street, not to mention the sidewalk. Anyone have insight? Sounds like a dangerous blunder on their part.

−7

LIGHT_COLLUSION t1_j8ffj55 wrote

If the NYPD are chasing a truck that keeps running people over, I want them to chase that thing till the wheels come off.

26

k1lk1 t1_j8fb3to wrote

Yes, let's figure out a way to pin this on NYPD.

15

mowotlarx t1_j8fbq6n wrote

You think NYPD should have pursued a high speed chase on the sidewalks?

This is their job. They absolutely deserve shit when they do something stupid and dangerous.

−12

ripstep1 t1_j8fs6hi wrote

Yeah this guys should have just been allowed to run over people in perpetuity until he decided to stop.

11

mowotlarx t1_j8fvkyu wrote

I mean, that's literally what he did. Chasing him on the sidewalks didn't stop him. It just put people in even more danger.

−4

ripstep1 t1_j8g6xpz wrote

You are cool with a guy running over people completely uninhibited until he runs out of gas or his axel tears off?

9

[deleted] t1_j8gtccc wrote

[removed]

−1

I_AM_TARA t1_j8ing2s wrote

Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior

(a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed.

(b). No dog whistles.

(c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft.

(d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.

1

stork38 t1_j8hyvr6 wrote

"Sounds like a dangerous blunder on their part." he says, while wiping Cheeto dust from his chin and pondering leaving his basement apartment for the first time in 17 days

3

ER301 t1_j8fynn6 wrote

My guess is the police officer will be reprimanded. Highly doubtful that’s what they’re trained to do in that situation.

1

s317sv17vnv t1_j8iihfb wrote

Pretty sure driving a U-haul on the sidewalk is prohibited, but sure let's blame the NYPD for this one.

1

mowotlarx t1_j8ikq24 wrote

You're trying real hard to not understand the issue. What did chasing them on the sidewalk do except put more people in danger? They didn't catch them by driving up on the sidewalk which they're not supposed to do. I'm pretty sure high speed chases are prohibited here. They didn't catch him until he got out of the tunnel in Red Hook. So what they did was incredibly stupid, dangerous, and useless.

0

[deleted] t1_j8ehl6i wrote

[deleted]

−19

mowotlarx t1_j8f8l9k wrote

The more logical and likely answer is he was trying to commit suicide by cop.

6