He DID go after her deliberately. He deliberately pushed her. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he meant to deliberately cause her death. Just like a car driver who is speeding is deliberately speeding, but not necessarily intending to kill anyone. If you cause someone to die, even if you didn’t mean to, you’ve still committed homicide.
Agreed. Watch the slow motion part. Just before he makes contact, he angles towards her and his upper body leans towards the woman just before contact.
Also, if you’re brushing by someone and your shoulders make contact, there’s a tendency for the torso to rotate. The woman was clearly moving towards the edge of the street after the impact.
His original line was nowhere near the woman’s.
There is zero doubt to give that guy the benefit of. He shoved her without breaking stride, kept running and then later ran back the same way and ignored her pleas for explanation. What else do we need? We don’t need to be able to read his mind. His actions speak for themselves.
It is hard to tell if he is an asshole who tried to harm another person, or if he is an asshole who doesn’t care if his actions harm another person.
It’s hard to care about the difference.
I mean, you could say the same thing about Charles Manson, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing isn’t utterly bewildering to contemplate. Why on earth would someone do this? is a pretty human question to ask.
Even trying to get into the mind of a sociopath, I’m stumped. He came back 15 minutes later, which suggests he had either no sense of self-preservation or no concept of the gravity of his actions. Most people who are pathologically self-interested aren’t going to return to the scene of the crime.
To be clear, I’m giving him no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. I’m just baffled.
Do you have a cite for this remarkably sweeping generalization, which is completely contradictory to my experience in a decade of running, or is this just an opinion?
That was a deliberate attempt. Even if he only intended to body check her, she wouldn’t have flown off to the side that way.
Agree totally. But it happens often. It’s a vicious cycle between a segment of the media and the public, and is not isolated to the UK:
- the media publishes some basic info about the guy
- then the public eats it up
- so then the media publishes more info about the guy – because, hey, it sells! and we’re here to make money while providing info
- and the public eats it up even more
- go to 3 and repeat
Lather, rinse, repeat. This is how we get paparazzi and irresponsible media. And we’re doing some of that here.
[This is in part how Trump won the election. (And let’s not hijack this thread with that aspect!)]
And I’m confident that you’re aware of this.
It’s not the justice system, it’s human nature and a segment of the media. Unless you were referring to the part of the justice system that releases the (as of yet unconvicted) guy’s name.
Certainly. Agree. That guy is a self-centered, self-absorbed dick whose actions almost resulted in a big red stain on the bridge roadway with gray matter splattered about.
Thank goodness the bus driver was alert and saw her at that very moment! Thank goodness the bus driver wasn’t looking at a text from his/her lover, or s/he hadn’t spilled hot coffee on his/her lap at that moment, or whatever distraction…
And according to the evening news tonight, the suspect the police had has been released having shown he indeed was not there.
We don’t have quite the same racial antagonism over here. America and Russia have had different histories creating race hatred.
On Putney Bridge ?
The Sky is usually blue.
And I completely agree with Aceplace that if ever questioned it could look suspicious if he called a lawyer. He should speak for himself.
I’m not entirely sure where “here” is for you. I know that the history of race in America is not the same as the history of race elsewhere.
OTOH, the British practically invented White Male Privilege, which is what I was talking about when I said that people are really scraping the barrel to find excuses for absolving this guy of attempted harm.
Yeah, I know. This is one of Arachnid Laser’s excuses from previously, that maybe the thug didn’t realize there was traffic, (even though it’s perfectly visible in the video that there is traffic pacing the jogger.)
The guy they arrested was American, right? I don’t blame him for immediately calling a lawyer. A) That would be the SOP here in America and B) he might not be too familiar with the British legal system.
I don’t blame him for calling a lawyer immediately either. SOP advice is to get a lawyer as soon as possible and shut up until he/she advises you. Here or in America or anywhere they have lawyers.
[del]Road rage.[/del] ROID RAEG!
Never talk to the cops, never talk to the cops, never talk to the cops (without the advice if counsel) — - YouTube
I struggled in particular with the wording of that. There is ostensibly a reason the justice system releases names prior to conviction and there is ostensibly a reason most people think that information should be public access through the media. It sucks for innocent people.
I agree, and maybe I’m not saying it in the best way. Maybe we’re both saying the same thing, but differently. For the justice system to release an innocent person’s name, for it to be broadcast by the media, yes it does suck.
Think of a man who has been accused of rape. I will often learn of his name in the news, early in the investigations, while I’ll also hear in the news, “the victim’s identity is being withheld, to protect her privacy.” What???!!!
You do realise that the only reason that the media published Bellquist’s name was because his lawyers had issued a public statement asserting his innocence?
Which turned out to be quite a smart move. If you are confident that you have proof that you are innocent, volunteering the information that you are the suspect can help strengthen your credibility. Especially as a claim to have an alibi carries greater weight if, instead of just being some unnamed suspect, everyone knows who you are.
I’m not familiar enough with the legal arguments to speak with authority on this subject, but it does seem wrong to me.
I don’t believe this scenario happens that often, but one reason to publicize alleged criminals names is to encourage people to come forward who were also victims or might have information.
As I know you know, sexual assault has carried such stigma about it, that publicizing the victims name is a form of re-victimizing.