Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

George4Mayor86 t1_j8e2j15 wrote

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

61

mowotlarx t1_j8e4qk0 wrote

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

99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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_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

KidAstoria t1_j8emew1 wrote

Next time use a bike to move your stuff!

−3

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

elizabeth-cooper t1_j8ep2d2 wrote

Yeah, I know the answer because someone thought of this already and I already answered them. When someone is shot you don't even have to say "by a gun" because you can't get shot by a knife.

>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

0

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

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

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

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

KaiDaiz t1_j8f23h5 wrote

Speedy recovery for victims and throw the book on perp

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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