Posted on 07/05/2020 11:46:25 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
A woman struck by a vehicle that drove onto a closed Seattle freeway early Saturday and plowed into a crowd of protesters has died, while a second woman remains in serious condition, officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Physician, heal thyself.
the parked cars seem to be placed so as to force oncoming automobiles into the slow emergency lane to the right. there do not seem to be any warning signs or warning flashers. there does not seem to be any special illumination. the illumination seems all coming from standard freeway lightposts at regularly spaced intervals for urban freeways. this seems certainly not a standard roadblock or traffic funnel imho— imho, it is poorly designed and poorly managed from a safety point of view.
initially, at 0:00 through 0:05, pedestrians seem to be milling around without taking any particular notice. this is imho a very serious safety issue. most of the pedestrians are dressed in black, another serious safety issue.
the first notice by onlookers from movement seems to be at about 0:06. most onlookers seem to start to move out of the way by 0:09. most onlookers seem to be out of the way by 0:18. the two women seem to move towards the slow lane as if to get into the slow emergency lane, then they both change direction, imho probably in response to the automobile change in direction to avoid the pedestrians in the slow emergency lane directly in front of him, reversing his steering back into the slow lane. so, i think it is possible that the women were not so much challenging the automobile so much as off to a late start in reacting, and then moving in the wrong direction for the auto driver reaction to other pedestrians.
the impacts seem to be at 0:19.
i think that the first public video shows the victims moving obliquely towards the auto.
in either case, both women seem to demonstrate a serious lack of situational awareness to the danger that they have placed themselves in, and much more so than most if not all other pedestrians at the scene.
if they had been doing this or something similar for 19 days in a row, then it is amazing that the leaders did not know or care about the dangers to which the protesters were exposed. perhaps they were becoming complacent and emboldened by their own actions and the apparent lack of any injurious consequences of their actions.
hell no - my read on him is, visa-expired Eatrian criminal, who’s going to jail and then when he’s old, deported.
As far as I’m concerned everyone on the freeway is a criminal, guilty of accessory to murder of another criminal. With the exception of Omari and the mom who was told by her daughter how to get on the freeway. Everybody else? fed time.
Absolutely true and those who shut it down need to be charged. In this case with the added 'Felony Murder' rule.
No, man, really, thanks for that...”pedestrians standing on the freeway...” I will never forget that one. BTW, they weren’t standing, they were dancing, which I don’t know if that makes your stupid post better or worse, but it does make it funny as hell.
a question is, who makes such decisions.
a logical surmise might be that it is the mayor, and that such local decisions are routinely delegated to mayors by the governor. in such a scenario, the mayor would contact the state highway patrol either directly or through an intermediary such as the local police chief.
one look at the design of the funnel implies at least to me that no police chief or highway patrol person in their right mind would ever condone or otherwise allow protestors to form such a dangerous funnel/roadblock.
Include the cops on that one.
“...perhaps they were becoming complacent and emboldened by their own actions....”
These “protests” on the Interstate were starting later and later each night, which may have something to do with your theory.
There is a rumor out there that the driver was a protestor and CHAZ, at the Mayor’s house, etc. Combined with information from protestors on how to get to the protest on the interstate by using the exit ramps, that would be pretty interesting if the driver got that information, and then drove to meet up with this protest.
In a hurry, but off by one exit. Oh crap, I thought they were SOUTH of the overpass!
unless the governor or mayor restricted the highway patrol from arresting or confronting the freeway protestors, in which case the governor or the mayor might assume legal responsibility for any outcomes (eg negligence).
jury selection for a civil lawsuit if one is ever filed in a local court could be a very interesting exercise.
“I’ll wait...”
_________________
I’m very pleased you waited for my reply, Ol’ Dan Tucker-!
Simply because a coward of the state closed a roadway/highway doesn’t remove the responsibility of the persons on the roadway/highway.
You tell me the road is closed. I don’t care. I’m not stupid enough to be standing out there, let alone at night.
I can understand many people making excuses for the babyism that is tolerated of the young adults and those who want to pass as mature adults. Most of those making excuses have, in one way or another, facilitated the making of those dangerous folks out there, these days.
It doesn’t remove the fact that actions have consequences.
It is really a simple equation. She placed her life on the life, betting she was protected from anything and everything simply because someone told her the roadway/highway would be closed.
The person saying that is a coward to begin with, or the roads would not have been closed.
It’s like a game of dare, where instead of overdosing, she stood out there on the roadway and dared life to come at her for what she said she was a believer.
The person who hit her will pay a price. I’m fairly sure the coward that gave permission for the road to be closed will take great care to make sure the driver faces justice. Or, rather, what passes for justice, these days.
It doesn’t in any way remove her actions from the equation.
You may not like my opinion; your approval is not needed for my having an opinion.
What I do respect, is your willingness to spend your time in seeking an explanation from me.
“If everyone was jumping from the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump from it?”
I always thought my mother was being a bit sarcastic with that question. As I age, I see she was trying to make a point, one which I was too young to see at the time.
Now I see not only how many people blindly jump, but how many people they want to literally drag over the bridge’s edge as they jump.
Pretty long-winded reply that still managed to avoid answering my one, single question to you.
Let me repeat for you again:
Please explain what reasonable and responsible actions the driver took that makes it okay to hit pedestrians standing on a freeway closed off by the police.
“Please explain what reasonable and responsible actions the driver took that makes it okay to hit pedestrians standing on a freeway closed off by the police.”
_____________________________________
Your premise is flawed. You believe I give the driver the okay to do what he did.
I’d like to say I am stunned you failed to assess my post correctly. You are simply angry because I place the harmful consequences of the protestor’s actions upon themselves.
I literally owe you no answer that will please you, for you wish to remove any and/or resulting harm from the women who were in the roadway/highway.
You have my answer. Simply because it doesn’t make you happy does not in anyway make it less of an answer.
Sometimes people can have differing viewpoints. This is one of those times. I am not faulting you for you having your viewpoint; I simply do not share that viewpoint.
You would be waiting for a very long time for my removing any responsibility from themselves of their part of the equation.
I’m not into babyism and cannot, nay, will not, change from my viewpoint simply to appease someone else. I would consider that an act of cowardice.
No, here's your quote to which I responded. In your very first sentence you declared that you cannot declare that the driver is at fault.
I cannot in good mind declare the young man at fault. It’s a case of suicide by vehicle. She was one of several who placed themselves on a highway/roadway. It doesn’t matter, the foolishness and cowardice of the local/city/county/state governship. She placed herself on that path, literally. I grieve, for the young man. And that’s without knowing of his previous or current lifestyle. It’s of no matter what he’s done: She set the suicide in motion, herself. He’s paying for it.
You declared that what he did doesn't matter.
It sounds to me like you're perfectly okay with what the driver did.
“I cannot in good mind declare the young man at fault.”
__________________________________________
Yes, I did write it.
I stand by it.
It goes back to my viewpoint of the folks in the roadway/highway.
For that split second that ended up harming them, I am not going to fault the driver.
As I said, earlier, justice will be dealt to him.
Let me put it this way. If my own children are going to stand in a roadway/highway and they get hit by a vehicle I will not blame the driver for that particular act. My children will have brought upon themselves consequences they did not foresee. The law can handle the driver for the actions heading up to that point. My children would still bear responsibility. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t grieve the loss, it simply means they were part of the equation.
Yes, my children have been raised with the knowledge of how I view placing oneself in the line of danger when it’s not needed.
I agree with you. Pedestrians are not supposed to be on the highway for this very reason. More blood on the hands of local politicians and police.
Thank you, JerseyDvl, for your ping.
I get concerned (perlexed?) when I seem unable to explain myself.
It’s truly a privilege posting on this particular site and I truly try to keep from putting my foot in my mouth.
the pedestrians had no police permission to be on the freeway.
so any guilt presumed on the part of the driver (and at this stage it is presumed, not in evidence) is at best a wash.
the freeway is designed and intended to be a “free way” for automobiles to drive at high speed, not intended for pedestrians to demonstrate and disrupt the primary intended use. all posted freeway signs reinforce the intended use, as used by the auto driver. more strikes against pedestrians’ side of the equation imho.
finally the auto driver seemed to slow down somewhat before the blockade, and he also seemed to attempt to take evasive action to steer his auto away in a direction away from a larger clump of protesters to his front and right. at the time the driver took this last evasive action, the two victims seem to move into his path rather than to safety. the driver seemed to have a choice between hitting the two victims to his left, or remaining on a straight course and hitting even more victims. the driver probably had less than a second to make a decision and react.
the traffic funnel or roadblock does not appear to have been designed with the safety of protesters in mind if a vehicle with a driver who is unaware of the protest were to approach at normal freeway speeds.
how about an answer from you:
please explain what reasonable and responsible actions the protest organizers and the mayor took that makes it safe to stand in the center lanes of a freeway or to permit protester access to the center lanes of an interstate freeway, under any circumstances.
Even if the driver knowingly drove through barriers closing the freeway? That would be a tough position to argue in court, counselor.
the freeway is designed and intended to be a “free way” for automobiles to drive at high speed, not intended for pedestrians to demonstrate and disrupt the primary intended use. all posted freeway signs reinforce the intended use, as used by the auto driver. more strikes against pedestrians’ side of the equation imho.
Let me see if I've got you correctly.
If the police erect barriers to close the freeway, for whatever reason, you're saying that anyone and everyone is free to drive around the barriers, no matter what the circumstances or consequences because the freeway is solely intended for driving. Good luck with that one, counselor.
> Even if the driver knowingly drove through barriers closing the freeway?
ahem. no one was supposed to be there. that means, no protesters were supposed to be there... so protesters by being there were violating the law, putting themselves and others at risk, and creating a drag on precious law enforcement and emergency resources. you do know what a “wash” is, dont you... counselor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.