That sounds likely to me.
As others have said, there are people in this world who can make really stupid decisions without any outside impairment.
While clearly not the same thing as pointing a nearly 3 ton vehicle at children, as a preteen I’d deliberately ride my bicycle toward two younger friends of mine. We were having fun until some nearby adults pointed out how dangerous this was and thankfully put a stop to it before anyone got hurt.
Maybe this supposed adult never got that message.
Aaah, so it’s your neighbors fault.
I can’t find it offhand, but several years ago there was a local story about a woman who was sitting in the passenger seat of a car, videotaping her teenage son driving. She kept laughing and prodding him to go faster, which he did. In the meantime one could hear a teenage girl in the backseat screaming in fright and begging him to slow down. But the mother (and I use the term advisedly) kept egging her son on, and he kept going faster. Until he inevitably lost control of the car and slammed into a bridge support, killing himself and several others, including the screaming girl. The woman survived, as did the videotape, which led to the prosecutor filing charges (something along the lines of “reckless endangerment”). She then tried to claim hardship because she had lost her beloved son.
(Another segment of the videotape featured her young — maybe five or six — daughter. When the woman said “shake your moneymaker” the little girl turned around, bent over and wiggled her bottom. What a role model.)
The fault obviously lies with the nut behind the wheel but some of us suspect mitigating circumstances were involved.
This (while tragic) reminds me of the definition of “chutzpah”: to confess to the court that you killed both your parents, but request mercy because you are now an orphan.
I read this in another article, but that claim was made when she was first talking to the police and before they reviewed the surveillance video. She never thought it was a speed bump.
As for why she went over the kid the second time, who knows. Crazy or impaired I guess.
Caller to 911: I think I ran over my kid! I thought it was a speed bump! I think he’s dead!
Operator: Stay calm, ma’am. Are you sure he’s dead?
[sound of car passing over bump a second time]
Caller: Okay, now what?
No! No! No! No! No!
You totally blew the set up of the world’s funniest joke
Operator: Stay calm, ma’am. ** Make** sure he’s dead.
It was an artistic choice and I stand by it.
I’m going to hell right along with you guys for cracking up at these. Shame they don’t outweigh the utter tragedy of the subject, but there we go. For the avoidance of doubt, this is commentary, not criticism.
Is the OP implying it’s OK and/or common to play chicken with a chicken?
I know the originals for the other jokes, but not for “But she needs the eggs…”
Which leads me to Dead Cat’s comment. Well done. Or should I say “over hard”?
A man visit a psychiatrist, saying, “Doctor, my son thinks he’s a chicken.” The psychiatrist suggests that the boy be sent to an institution. “We’d like to do that,” says the man, “but we need the eggs.”