Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

Freexscsa t1_ix1ndly wrote

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

235

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

1320Fastback t1_ix1qgvm wrote

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

−26

slackshack t1_ix1z8ji wrote

oh you can always believe what the lasd says.

23

mces97 t1_ix28y6j wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#585,588)

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

10ofRods t1_ix2nb7w wrote

Replying to mtarascio (#585,307)

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

DefinitelyNotAliens t1_ix2p3vc wrote

Replying to mtarascio (#585,307)

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

DefinitelyNotAliens t1_ix2pdya wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#585,588)

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

Hall-Double t1_ix2tyxl wrote

Beyond all reasonable doubt ......

−2

notevenapro t1_ix32hcy wrote

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

−1

76vibrochamp t1_ix3aljv wrote

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

−2

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

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ix5ryl4 wrote

Replying to thechervil (#592,290)

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

Replying to EnvironmentalSound25 (#595,309)

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

lordshield900 t1_ix6o6z0 wrote

Replying to mtarascio (#585,307)

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

EnvironmentalSound25 t1_ix6po1d wrote

Replying to thechervil (#597,263)

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

Replying to EnvironmentalSound25 (#597,411)

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_ixa1yue wrote

Replying to thechervil (#597,430)

>>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