That's certainly not the way it looks.
According to you, here's what he did:
there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.
The result being no crash.
Then he was hit, and there was a crash.
Other than full brake failure being rare,
Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.
from what I can find about the subject, the car not only did not appear to slow down, it did not make any significant movements to avoid the crowd,
So what about this?
there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.
nor was the horn used. You expect the crowd to wonder if it might have been a guy with total brake failure, a broken horn, and who did not react in any noticeable way to the fact his car was headed toward a large crowd of people with brakes that weren't functioning?
No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.
Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!
You've seemed to indicate that the driver was cognizant of the crowd posing a threat, and that that played a part in his reaction to the car being hit by the flagpole.
Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?
It does matter in the context of whether the action "fits," which you made a point of.
Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.
I've pointed out multiple times the indications.
That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.
One can act violently in attempting to protect oneself. As far as I am concerned, intentionally driving into a street packed with people is a violent act. I don't see how anyone could describe it as not being violent.
OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.
Again, from what I've been able to gather in a short search, total brake failure is rare. Here are a couple of links that make such an argument; take of it what you will.
Brake Failure Analysis Brake Failure Accidents
Partial brake failure is supposed to be more common, but would still allow the car to be slowed with the brakes.
Yeah,
eventually.
Homicidal tendencies may be unlikely, but how likely is total brake failure and driving a straight line with no use of the horn right into a large crowd of people? There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that some people do, in fact, drive into crowds intentionally. I don't recall ever hearing about a car running into a large crowd because the brakes and horn failed, and the driver did not even attempt to avoid the crowd. A car driving straight at a crowd, not slowing down, not making any indication there is a problem; it's not shocking that members of the crowd came to the conclusion it was intentional.
Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.
You have described driving into a crowd as understandable on a few occasions, while not being willing to apply the same to the reaction of the crowd, not even if they believed the act was intentional.
So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?
I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:
He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)
then I said this:
It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)
I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.
Which, in the end, would have been a less violent decision, sadly enough.
I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.
Of course, your statement is ridiculous; the person with the flag had not even done any visible damage to the bumper of the car, while the car had just run over more than a dozen people before members of the crowd attacked it. You continue to draw false equivalencies. A person hitting the back bumper of a moving car with a flagpole is far different from a car plowing into a large crowd.
Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.
See previous answers in this post.
Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!
*Sigh* Still trying to draw a false equivalency. You hitting a single person at 5mph is not the same as a car driving toward a crowd that was clearly blocking the road at what appeared to be at least 20mph, without braking, without using a horn, without any visible attempt to avoid hitting anyone.
We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.
All the evidence I've seen points to his control throughout. I did not see any loss of control after the flagpole hit the car.
Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!
For the first bit of distance, sure. Long term, probably not, as the car seems likely to be stopped by hitting that many bodies, even if there were no other vehicles in the way. And, of course, there is the insanity of thinking that plowing through a crowd of bystanders is a reasonable action.
That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.
"Thought it wouldn't work"? Really?
Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.
At the time the flagpole hit the car, there appears to be very little distance between the car and the crowd; perhaps 2 car lengths, if I'm remembering the photo correctly. Even if we assume the driver had time to stop before hitting anyone, at the time the flagpole hit the car, he would have to have known that he needed to stop just about right then to avoid hitting pedestrians.
And your point is?
If he thought he could pass through the crowd without hitting anyone, that would be one thing. This crowd was far too dense for anyone to think they would get through other than by hitting people, though. No matter how many times you say it, driving into a bunch of pedestrians is simply not acceptable nor understandable if intentional.
But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!
Lack of braking for the block before hitting the crowd. In the video that shows the incident from behind, the car brakes at the very beginning, something like a block away, and not again.
Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.
It's hard to say, but I would imagine that hitting that many people had begun slowing down the car and caused some damage.
Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!
I'm sorry, but choosing to run over a bunch of innocents to avoid a vague possible threat sounds like a violent person.
Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!
Again with false equivalencies. Being part of a crowd that was just run into in what may have appeared an intentional manner is very different from a single person being hit by a vehicle. When you were hit, did you think the person had done so purposely?
No.
Oh, sorry. I forgot that you consider killing a bunch of innocents reasonable if you have any sense that there may be a threat to your life.
You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.
Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?
Do I? Does it matter?
I never said that, actually. I did say that being a part of a crowd which you believe to have just been intentionally driven into is different than your average accident of one vehicle hitting one person.
I
wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!
I find that questionable. I just noticed this gem, as well:Still, perhaps your bigotry isn't influencing your opinion. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.
Brake failure is not common.
Brake Failure Analysis
What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.
No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.
As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.
