I had a difficult time deciding if this should be in the BBQ Pit or in Great Debates. Obviously, ranting about the bus driver’s actions and, most assuredly, about the hijacker’s actions would be appropriate in the Pit, I do see a question worthy of debate. So here goes:
Recently, a felon hijacked a bus and forced the driver to continue driving to flee from the police. The bus finally crashed into a minivan, killing the driver, and the felon attempted to flee but was apprehended by the police.
The questions:
What should the driver have done differently?
Does the fact that someone had a weapon pointed to the driver’s head give the driver the right to kill someone else?
Does the bus driver’s employer share responsibility in the minivan driver’s death?
Should the employer provide training to the bus driver’s for such situations as this? If so, what training?
I’m also curious as to a recent emergency landing in Florida in which a small plane landed on a beach and almost hit (killed) people on the beach. Why didn’t the pilot attempt to land where he wouldn’t take a chance on killing people - is his life more important than theirs?
You mean like he should have done a Steven Seagal and taken the gun away from the guy? Or maybe he should have driven more like Sandra Bullock in Speed and miraculously managed to avoid killing anyone?
Those are movies. In real life, when someone holds a gun to your head, you do what the man says, no matter how many baby buggies happen to be crossing the street at the next intersection.
**
No, and IMO it’s silly for you to suggest it.
**
No, and IMO it’s silly for you to suggest it.
**
Should bus companies all over the world assume that their vehicles are going to be liable to hijacking at any time and provide the appropriate anti-hijacking training to their employees?
Should airlines all over the world assume that their vehicles are going to be liable to hijacking at any time and provide the appropriate anti-hijacking training to their employees?
Should taxi companies all over the world assume that their vehicles are going to be liable to hijacking at any time and provide the appropriate anti-hijacking training to their employees?
Should cruise lines all over the world assume that their vehicles are going to be liable to hijacking at any time and provide the appropriate training?
Should the U.S. Postal Service assume that their vehicles are going to be liable to hijacking at any time and provide the appropriate anti-hijacking training to their employees?
Should Svendsen’s Florist assume that their vehicles are going to be liable to hijacking at any time and provide the appropriate anti-hijacking training to their employees?
Are you starting to see a trend here?
No, and IMO it’s silly for you to suggest it.
Actually, he did “attempt to land where he wouldn’t take a chance of killing people”–kudos to him for keeping his head and picking a big, presumably mostly empty beach, instead of trying to bring it down on a busy interstate or something. You sound like you think he deliberately aimed his plane at people on the beach.
Do you fly planes? When you’re up in the sky at 1500 feet and the engine starts missing, all you wanna do is get DOWN. It’s not easy to find a spot for an emergency landing in the first place, let alone be able to set it down in an emergency without racking it up.
I didn’t pay much attention to this story when it was broadcast, and I’m having a little trouble finding a link; but if I heard the report correctly the hijacker forced the driver to the floor and drove the bus himself.
So you think it’s okay to kill babies to save your own life. Tnanks for the answer.
Oh, please let your neighbours and everyone else on the planet know when you’re on the road.
Perhaps a better solution would’ve been to flood the engine, throw the vehicle into the wrong gear, immediately drive it into unoccupied vehicles - or something along those lines.
Two things:
YOU just asserted that’s the way it is, and
I did not suggest it. I asked the question.
Personally, I’m appalled that the driver did what SHE did instead of doing something, anything, to keep the bus from colliding with other OCCUPIED vehicles.
What’s silly about it? Police departments nationwide get sued for the actions of their officers, and the outcome of the suits tend to be, IIRC, based on the training the officers have received. Since the police departments are part of the government, the taxpayer ends up paying for that. Bus companies in many places fall into the category of government-run entities and thus it might behoove the government running it to find a solution BEFORE the event happens.
Well, since airplane passenger companies provide such training based on such an assumption why shouldn’t the bus transportation companies do the same?
See above.
Yes. I think they should.
Yes. I think they should.
Yes. I think they should.
Yes. I think they should. I think that any employer who has his employees interact with the public should have some kind of policy, and training in that policy, on how said employer expects said employees to act in the event of an emergency. Kind of like how my local credit union trains the tellers on how to deal with bank robbers.
Yep. You’re insensitive and unaware of reality yourself. Reread my OP and you will see that I asked some questions - I didn’t suggest anything.
Then explain why the pilot landed amongst the beachgoers.
Actually, from the news footage I saw, he could’ve ditched the vehicle in the water - well away from people on the beach. And it looked like that stretch of beach wasn’t mostly empty.
My personal opinion is that anyone who pilots an aircraft ought to assume the responsibility of sacrificing his life in the event of a wreck rather than endanger those on the ground.
Beats me I’ve never been a hostage before. Maybe he could have crashed into a stationary object or something. Maybe.
**
No actually it does not give him the right to kill someone else. But he isn’t criminally responsible for any of the deaths which might occur that honor goes to the jerk with the gun.
**
I don’t think so.
**
This happens on a daily basis? Should I, as a licensed driver, be trained by the state in case someone decides to carjack me?
Maybe because the pilot had no other choice. Unless the pilot was negligent he probably attempted to find a better place to land. Shit happens sometimes and it really sucks.
Depends on what you think her priorities should have been? Should she, an untrained and presumably terrified woman have tried to disarm the dangerous criminal with the gun to her head or should she have focussed on trying to stay alive through this nightmare? If she’ done anything differently the chances are she wouldn’t be around for you to castigate her.
I don’t see what you’re getting at here. In the situation we’re discussing that question just doesn’t apply. The driver was being forced, on pain of death, to keep driving. There was no element of choice involved.
IMO no. Why should he? The blame cannot be placed upon anybody but the guy with the gun, the guy who was forcing her to keep going.
Why don’t they just employ a load of retired navy SEALS and have done with it? :rolleyes:
Well if the pilot had had a choice between a crowded beach and an empty field then doubtless he would have chosen the field. It seems clear to me that the choice was not available to him, same as with this bus driver.
Or perhaps she could have tapped out a morse code message against the steering wheel telling the ther passengers to rescue her. hindsight is a wonderful thing monty but you have to understand this woman was probably scared to death. Do you really think it’s as easy to come up with solutions like yours under that sort of pressure?
Ditching a plane in a lake or river requires specialized landing techniques that you have to learn. It’s not like setting her down on the ground, with water added. Ditching a plane successfully in the ocean is even trickier, and requires even more specialized landing techniques…
Notice that the Malibu Beach that day in 1944 was “crowded with thousands of Sunday bathers”. I sure can’t find any kind of news link to the story you’re referring to. Just how many people were on your Florida pilot’s beach?
No, I wouldn’t expect a pilot to deliberately squash people. But I wouldn’t expect a Florida pilot, faced with choosing between a tricky ocean ditch and a landing on a beach with only a few people, to definitely put his own life in even more danger on the off-chance that he might hit someone.
No, it was the NRA’s fault! Had the gun not been easily available, practically given out free with every box of Cracker Jacks, the earlier shooting victim would not have been shot, the bus would not have been hijacked, and the woman in the mini-van would still be alive! It’s not the man’s fault (who took the action); it’s the NRA’a fault!
That was a joke! The blame rests entirely on the hijacker.
Well… people generally tend to be pretty clueless. There’s a good chance they didn’t see the airplane until it was too late, especially if the engine was not developing power since it would not be heard.
I didn’t hear about the incident cited, but without knowing the details I’ll guess the pilot made the proper decision. The OP said he almost hit people. A miss is as good as a mile. Given a choice between a relatively empty stretch of beach and the ocean, I’d choose to attempt a landing on the beach. I’d try to land in the high surf line since the sand would not be as soft there and I’d be more likely to make a safe landing there than in the soft dry sand. Of course as a helicopter pilot, I don’t really need all that much space.
You know, large hail can fall at any time, disabling vehicles of all kinds. Maybe owners of fleet vehicles should assume that they’re going to be liable to be struck by softball-sized hail at any time, and provide the appropriate anti-hailstone training to their employees.
Maybe the Workplace Fleet Safety System should stop worrying so much about car crashes and add a chapter on deterring hijackers and disarming gunmen, so all those FTD Florist delivery guys will be able to emulate Steven Seagal and avoid having to run over any babies in strollers.
Well, the pit thread got closed, so I will repeat my point here:
The bus driver decided that the possibility that she might hurt someone was preferable to the certainty that she would have died. Deciding to follow the gunman’s orders in no way insured that some third party would die–it simply increased the probability. There are plenty of carjacking cases where people follow the orders of thier captors and no one gets hurt.
Monty said:
No, it isn’t the point. The quality of a decision can’t be judged by its outcome. Buying a lottery ticket is a stupod thing to do whether or not you win. By your logic, had she let the driver shoot her and then he, unable to drive a bus worth a damn, had run it into a busload of nuns and puppies, that would have been her fault as well–she shouldn’t have given in to the selfish desire to “be a hero” and instead should have done her best to keep a lethal weapon-a huge bus–out of the hands of someone obviously unable to weild it safely
Monty ignored all that and came back with:
And I pointed out that she didn’t sacrifice someone else’s life, she risked someone else’s life. There is a difference.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I would really like Monty to see why someone might chose to risk a life over the sure certainty of losing a life, and he won’t have a chance to do so in the other thread.
Personally, I think these “what should so and so have done differently” threads are kind of silly. Unless you were in a similar situation, you don’t really know what you would do. It’s very easy to judge someone elses actions in hindsight, from the safty of your couch.
But anyway, here’s my 2 cents:
Turned.
It does not give the driver the “right” to kill other motorists. The driver can’t just say “well, I’ve got a gun to my head. Now’s my chance to finally smash into these annoying cars since I can’t be blamed.”
Bear in mind, the driver is also responsible for the lives of the passengers on the bus. Given the choice between a known threat (the guy with the gun) and a possible threat (potentially hitting another car), most people go with the known threat.
Blaming the driver is like blaming a rape or burglery victem.
No, unless the bus company was negligent. Which they were not. It is highly impractical to install metal detectors and armed security gaurds on every city bus. Unless you want your bus fairs to increase to $10 a ride.
The only security device that would be practical would be a silent alarm and/or a lo-jack style tracking device. Possibly a device that keeps the bus from going faster than 50 mph.
Basically the same training bank tellers get. Just be cool and do what the gunman says.
Basically, it is ridiculous to blame anyone but the highjacker. The highjacker has the gun and is in control. Thats why they have “felony murder” laws that state if someone dies, even accidently, while you are commiting a felony, you are responsible.
The highjacker created the situation when he pulled the gun on the driver. He should hold all the responsibilty.
msmith537 is right - the bus driver was responsible for the bus passengers’ lives. They were a known quantity, on the bus, and who knows what would have happened to them had she not complied with the hijacker’s demands? She knew that they were in direct, immediate risk. She didn’t know how much risk there was to other drivers on the road. Maybe they’d all get out of the way in time - who knows? It was a crap shoot.
Should she have let the hijacker kill her, and then left him to kill all the passengers too? Or, as others has brought up, let him careen all over the road, driving the bus himself, slamming into nuns and puppies?
We can second-guess this sort of thing 'till the cows come home. It seems to me that by Monty’s standards, she’d be damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. Someone probably would have ended up being hurt or killed because of this hijacker. So why is she supposed to have a crystal ball and know how it’s going to go?
Actually, this is the kind of input I’m looking for here. Thanks. I’ll repeat that:
Actually, this is the kind of input I’m looking for here. Thanks.
I’m differing with you here because there are a lot of things which people do that the consequences are different based on the outcome, not the initiation of the action.
I agree with you there. That’s why I’m one of the few folks who voted AGAINST the California State Lottery. Now, I’m sure the folks who’ve won the Lottery disagree with us.
No. The hijacker would’ve been solely at fault because his was the sole action in driving over the hypothetical nuns and puppies (an aside: I’ve never seen a group of nuns and puppies, but I have seen a group of nuns and ducks.)
But you’re ignoring what I think is the point: should she have been a hero or should she have complied given the eventual result of another driver’s death? I don’t see either as selfish.
Bad semantics there, MJ. If she risked someone’s life and that someone dies, then she sacrificed someone.
Basically that’s what I’m asking here. Should she have done anything differently or is what she did do what she should have done?
I really don’t remember the thread about the pilot landing on the highway and killing the other driver generating this much rancor. But then I didn’t keep up with that thread.
That’s the flaw in your thinking, Monty, and people have been trying to tell you this entire time. She couldn’t possibly have known that by complying with the gunman’s words that it would have resulted in someone else’s death.
This has been hinted at here, and explicitly stated in the Pit thread. Why you’ve chosen to ignore this refutement of your logic is beyond me.
See above where I posted “…or something.” I’m going to belabor this: I DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY OR THE SAME. That’s pretty much why I asked the question in the OP.
I did not say that and I did not imply that. I find it not only disingenuous but also dishonest to say that I did.
Granted. Also every driver on the road is also responsible for not endangering the lives of others. Yet another reason why asked the question I asked in the OP.
Most likely. Also most people tend to react more strongly to insults and perceived physical threats than most (good) cops, that’s why most people aren’t police. I asked what the driver should’ve done differently or if she did the exact right thing.
THIS IS INSULTING TO ME THAT YOU IMPLY THAT I MAKE SUCH AN INFERENCE. A very close friend was the victim of rape and suffers daily from the societal blame she gets for it.
Now if someone holds down a victim while another person rapes the victim, then YES, both the person holding the victim down and the one doing the actual physical act of rape are both guilty. There may be an extenuating or mitigating circumstance of the rapist holding a gun to either person’s head at the time.
Also, I’m sure the busdriver in the story related in the OP is emotionally devestated by the fact of the other driver’s death. What I’m asking here is: DID SHE DO THE RIGHT THING OR SHOULD SHE HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY?
Well, the Police Departments get sued for negligence and wrongful death when a felon fleeing from the police kill another driver. Again, I’m asking: SHOULD THE BUS COMPANY HAVE A STANDARD POLICY AND TRAINING ON THESE THINGS? Please note that bus drivers get robbed on occasion, too, and sometimes by armed robbers.
A. I’m asking if the company was negligent.
B. I’m asking if there’s a solution to prevent a repeat occurrence.
C. I don’t think it’s a good idea to put metal detectors on the bus.
D. It MIGHT be a good idea to randomly have armed police in civilian clothes on random buses and inform the public about that. That way the “crap shoot” is in the hands of the cretinous felon.
E. I’ve lived in Tokyo where the fares for some routes are well above $10. I wasn’t too impressed with the service on the bus there.
EXCELLENT! This is what I’m looking for! A suggested solution to prevent a future occurrence of what happened.
I’d like to venture here that most people, if the gunman says “take this knife and cut this other teller’s throat” won’t do that. For those of you who will do that: I hope I don’t live anywhere near you.
AGAIN AND AGAIN: I DID NOT THEN, NOR DO I KNOW, ABSOLVE THE HIJACKER OF HIS BLAME.
Right. Agreed. And I, for one, am very glad that California is one of the states with such laws. Others feel that such laws or in error. I disagree with those individuals.
Actually, I was kind of hoping the incident would’ve just been a case of “suicide by cop” without anyone else getting hurt. It didn’t turn out that way. I was interested in input from all sides (however many “sides” there may be in this discussion) and what kind of suggested solutions there might be.
Let’s see: Big-assed bus against minivan - bus drives over/through/into occupied minivan - what’s the likely result for occupant of minivan? I obviously agree that at the very instance of complying with the hijacker she couldn’t have known that she was going to wreck, but there’s a point where the driver should’ve known she was likely to lose control IN TRAFFIC.
I think I’ll refer you to my last response to you in the pit thread.
I’ll also state what I implied in that pit thread: I personally think that if someone else had started this particular thread, you and a few others would’ve stated your points differently. I personally think you want to take potshots at me. Take them and be done with it. Then address the actual questions I asked.
Anyway, what about that small plane driver who killed the automobile driver when the pilot landed on the OCCUPIED highway? What’s your take on that? Same as on this issue or different since I didn’t post to that thread, IIRC?
>> Does the fact that someone had a weapon pointed to the driver’s head give the driver the right to kill someone else?
The right to kill? No. The right to take risks which would otherwise be unacceptable and which may result in death? Yes. She has to make a choice by balancing two very difficult choices, both of which involve danger of death. Choice (a), refusing to comply with the hijacker, seems to me to be much more likely to lead to someone’s death. Therefore she made the right choice. You obviously would rather let the guy shoot you in the head rather than obey. Good for you.
>> Does the bus driver’s employer share responsibility in the minivan driver’s death?
Here I am going to disagree with the majority. The employer, obviously, shares no moral responsibility nor is there negligence of any sort, but… corporations and individuals are deemed to have a civil liability by the mere act of owning property which causes an accident, even if there is no negligence involved and they are not at fault. I am not saying this is right or wrong but it is the way things are, so, in this case the courts would find the bus company liable for the damage done, without (I repeat) needing to find any fault.
If your car is parked in your driveway and some kid steals it and kills someone with it, you are civilly liable, whether you like it or not. If you left it with the keys in the ignition you may be found negligent but even if you secured it with all possible measures, you are still civilly liable. That is what insurance is for.
As long as the injured party is not at fault, you have a certain liability by the mere possession of property. That’s the law.
>> Should the employer provide training to the bus driver’s for such situations as this? If so, what training?
Gimme a break. Are you delirious or have you been smoking something? What are the odds per driver-hour of this happenning? If they had to take training for ll contingencies which have a greater chance of happening, they’d never get to drive a bus as they would get to old age before they were half way through their training. Come on!
