Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Freexscsa t1_ix1ndly wrote

They can believe what they want, but they have to bring charges to keep someone in jail.

235

mtarascio t1_ix1ndcx wrote

The article doesn't have any of the reasons they suspect it's intentional.

The line is that they need time to build a case so they couldn't hold him.

They have until Friday to present that case.

It's good they're being careful because that's more likely to face proper consequence if it was intentional.

132

10ofRods t1_ix2nb7w wrote

Video footage shows him driving on wrong side of road and then accelerating more and more as he approaches the group.

That’s from local print news. I haven’t seen it.

37

IT_Chef t1_ix2zmfx wrote

I'm not defending the guy, however people have a known to panic and hit the accelerator rather than the brake.

Example - https://youtu.be/q7NxL4II_vI

This is not unusual

29

DefinitelyNotAliens t1_ix2p3vc wrote

Other sources say he was stone cold sober (from alcohol, blew a 0.0), witnesses heard him accelerating, no tire skid marks from braking and he crossed into oncoming traffic to hit them.

I heard that and said, "high on drugs, medical emergency or did it on purpose."

When you're not drunk, cross into the wrong lane and accelerate into 25 people you were high af, having a massive medical episode or did that on purpose. Kinda hard to do on accident. He was only going 30.

12

ronmcson1 t1_ix3ldkr wrote

Pretty much zero modern cars will leave skid marks from hard braking due to anti lock braking systems. Not saying he braked, but if he did, unlikely there would be any skid marks.

8

lordshield900 t1_ix6o6z0 wrote

Could they keep him on another charge?

Like, he was driving the wrong way on a street and seriously injured a bunch of people that's still a crime as far as I'm aware.

Why aren't they charging him with something else and then upgrading them later?

3

[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

slackshack t1_ix1z8ji wrote

oh you can always believe what the lasd says.

23

Scoutster13 t1_ix1ohrd wrote

The only way I could imagine this was an accident is if he had some medical emergency, like a seizure or passed out. I really wanted that to be the case when this first happened but I guess they have ruled that out. What a horrific thing. So sorry for those poor young people.

21

paperclip_nazi t1_ix1qqv5 wrote

Or drunk. Or sleep deprived. Or on his phone.

17

Scoutster13 t1_ix1t7lv wrote

Yes, but I was thinking something that's less his direct fault. Just hate to see something like this from someone just being careless.

6

tryingtodefendhim t1_ix1r8s6 wrote

Or getting oral sex, Or giving oral sex, Or some other sex

3

JaiC t1_ix4czhh wrote

Funny I was watching a podcast on the very subject of police lying just the other day.

Pro-tip: When the police say "we believe" it means they're lying.

9

DofPa t1_ix4u4e8 wrote

Shame this didn’t happen in uvalde

0

notevenapro t1_ix32hcy wrote

Looks like his air bags deployed. Wonder if they will get the silver box and analyze it.

−1

Hall-Double t1_ix2tyxl wrote

Beyond all reasonable doubt ......

−2

76vibrochamp t1_ix3aljv wrote

Wonder if they decided to take care of this on the street.

−2

1320Fastback t1_ix1qgvm wrote

Bet he flees south before charges are filed and he is re arrested.

−26