131–140 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here, wish there was a Netflix section for "movies where no children are harmed"
Same and this is a really good idea
You have to feel terribly sad for everyone involved here. The only place the blame can rest is humanity's desire to mix very fast, solid vehicles with very slow, squishy pedestrians in the same spaces. We're way too far down that rabbit-hole to address it, but hopefully self-driving cars (and less polluting cars, too) will start to reverse the damage done by the automobile, in the not-too distant future.
"We're way too far down that rabbit-hole to address it" That's BS. Sweden has essentially zero pedestrian fatalities annually, and its overall traffic fatality rate is well under a quarter that of the US. There are two main components: reducing speed limits and spending money on infrastructure. Both of these are anathema in the US, but the refusal to do so is borderline criminal, IMO. http://www.visionzeroinitiative.…
Swedish: http://www.vibilagare.se/nyheter/260-doda-i-trafiken-2015
Such a sad story. > "The voice said in this very biblical, Old Testament, angry way" Is this what people consider "biblical"? An angry person? I've spent years reading the Pentateuch, writings, and new testament and I don't see this voice (I assume she means "God") as angry at all. Quite the opposite actually, as the narrative is [to the Jews] about God restoring them despite their rebellion and sin and [to the Chris…
He tells Saul (if I remember correctly) to murder subjugated people, women and children included, so at that moment to any sane person God is actually acting as a force of evil, corrupting the believers, who wanted to save them (for a life of slavery most probably, but still, better than murder).
He makes a bet with the devil over Hiob's life, and kills his entire family (or allows it to be killed, same thing) just to see that Hiob's indeed faithful (which he knew beforehand because he's omniscient, but whatever).
God of Old Testament even calls itself "jealous", and tells people he "punishes sins of ancestors on X generations" (3 or 4 if I remember correctly).
Kinda angry and evil, isn't it?
Wow that was a strong read. Granted that they are quite at the opposite ends of 'accidental kill' spectrum, it immediately reminded me one of my favorite movies, In Bruges {SPOILER AHEAD!} where we see a hitman who accidentally kills a little boy struggling with his life to overcome his "mistake". I get teary eyed every time I watch it..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's being downvoted because there is no reason to arrest the person. "They looked for skid marks on the road and took some measurements", and presumably they concluded there was no foul play.
Yeah, still not getting it. Wouldn’t normally a person be detained for questioning if they had just killed a person in some other context? Maybe arrest isn’t warranted—maybe a, “hey you look pretty shook up, would you mind coming down to the station with me to answer a few questions? Cool, I have to let you know before I get started that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” But I also…
To clarify my comment, I wasn't talking about finding a way to point fingers at her or something. but really, just sending her on her way, driving the car she just used to kill a child with, is irresponsible.
If someone fires a gun randomly down the street, not aiming at anyone, but happens to hit someone, they'd certainly be arrested. Drive a multi-thousand-pound projectile down the street, kill someone, and it's just an "accident". The default needs to move to charging every driver involved in a fatal crash with manslaughter. Currently the police won't even perform basic investigative work that would make any charge pos…
>If someone fires a gun randomly down the street, not aiming at anyone, but happens to hit someone, they'd certainly be arrested. Drive a multi-thousand-pound projectile down the street, kill someone, and it's just an "accident". That is not the correct analogy for this accident. The correct analogy is "Someone runs across a live firing range." The shooters would not be charged.
The streets are paid for by every citizen, yet pedestrians have to adapt to car traffic, even though they are not the ones carrying a weapon.
You have to feel terribly sad for everyone involved here. The only place the blame can rest is humanity's desire to mix very fast, solid vehicles with very slow, squishy pedestrians in the same spaces. We're way too far down that rabbit-hole to address it, but hopefully self-driving cars (and less polluting cars, too) will start to reverse the damage done by the automobile, in the not-too distant future.
While I upvoted you for the initial part of your comment, I do not support the autonomous car argument, as I can't see how an autonomous car can avoid an accident of the sort cited in the article, namely an object or a person darting in front of a vehicle moving with enough velocity to be unable to come to a stop immediately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s my hope. Yesterday a 12 year old kid on a bike was hit by a car where I live. It was dark, and I don’t have the exact details. The kid was coming from behind a parked car, it was 7pm so night, so I guess it’s the same kind of story that happened (beside the fact that a lot of people here are really bad drivers). I’m so looking forward the time when human will stop driving by themselves. Of course there will be…
> Let’s hope technology will finally prevent that. Funny, because it's technology that caused the death in the first place. Maybe consider how to get rid of the car?
How do you guys feel about the sort of mob justice that happens in such cases in India? She would have been lucky to get out alive since the neighbours\police would have beaten her to a pulp, but having been punished for it, likely would not have faced so much guilt through her life right?
It's dumb. The whole point of the criminal justice/judicial/investigative systems is to prevent mob rule, which makes no attempt to reach truth, just get revenge.
"The lead officer came and told me that they were not arresting me - there was no indication that I was negligent or distracted or impaired in any way - but he gave me a little lecture saying, "This child died, that's a terrible thing, you need to make sure that you never do this again."" Was I the only one shocked by this? I mean, a little kid died and she's not arrested at least to conduct an investigation? How did…
IMO, the only person to blame in this incident is the person that thought a 50mph speed limit was appropriate for a road that kids live on.