Exhibit “B”. 
Isn’t what exactly what the judge will have to determine? That she shouldn’t have died? Sorry, my parsing skills are a little off today.
Well, yes. People (including myself) are doing that. We’re expressing opinions. Which, not being involved in the case, is all we can do. We can make reasonable assumptions (for example, that a bulldozer operator should be able to see someone at some point between 600 feet and running over her). True, we don’t have all the facts, but come on.
On preview: I’m exhibit A? 
Even if the bulldozer was going 15 mph, that gave the victim plenty of time to hightail it out of the way. If someone can’t avoid a bulldozer that’s lurching toward them from a distance of 600’, they probably shouldn’t be in the martyr business.
Liability, my ass.
So you think she deserved to die because she wouldn’t get out of the way? Look, the two situations (Corrie’s and the bulldozer operator’s) are not equivalent. If she moves, the building gets knocked down. If he (I’m assuming the driver was male) moves, the building doesn’t get knocked down, and he may face some sort of disciplinary action (but maybe not). If neither move, she dies, and the building gets knocked down.
It’s just not the same.
Obviously not whether “she should have died”, but whether someone was at culpable fault for her death.
Heh, I’m just picking on you guys a bit - because I know, from previous experience, that for those who support Corrie’s approach, it will be “obvious” that the IDF is guilty of negligence at least, and for those who oppose Corrie’s approach, it will be “obvious” that the IDF wasn’t guilty at all.
In other words, more than any other case probably, this one is seen through the eyes, not of reasoned assumptions based on the evidence, but of ideological positions.
From my experience, it is ultimately foolish to make any assumptions about an accident/incident. It is amazing what people can see or not see, how eye-witnesses can be fooled by their limited view of events.
That is true for regular accidents, where people have no particular stake in the outcome. How much more true for incidents like this, where everyone involved has some sort of partisan stake.
Alternatively, if the bulldozer operator fails in his mission to fill in the tunnel which terrorists were using to smuggle explosives, scores of Israelis might have died on a bus somewhere a few days down the road.
I am sure that this is insensitive and bad on my part, but am I the only one that is thinking about that scene in the Austin Powers movie where the guard gets run over by the steam-roller that is moving at about 1 mph?
Am I the only one who thinks getting run over by a bulldozer is the only way to get your point across?
Want to stop it? Flash the driver (from the side, where he can see you). Piss in the fuel tank. Get out your Swiss Army knife and jab a hole in the radiator (might not be possible in a battle hardened dozer). Put a statue of Solomon in the road.
Or use yourself to grease the treads as it passes by.
There are lots of forms of protest that don’t involve getting yourself run over by an extremely slow moving machine. I guess she saw that footage of Tiananmen Square and figured it worked for that dude, who knows.
Prior to Ms. Corrie’s death similar tactics had always worked – the bulldozers stopped. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether that strengthens or weakens the IDF’s claim that her death was an accident and that no, they did not single out a photogenic, press-savvy citizen of their closest ally to send a message of some sort.
Guilty as charged. 
I do, in fact, support Corrie’s position (as if it weren’t obvious), and yes, I’m making assumptions about the situation. Why? Because those assumptions seem reasonable to me.
Absolutely true. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. As my GF often says when we’re talking about eyewitnesses, “It was the black man that had the gun”.
manhattan: True. Mea culpa. The problem here, of course, is one of proving that there’s a tunnel entrance in that particular building. Which, I suppose, is going to have to be addressed at the trial. Although maybe not. And, on preview: let’s see. If such tactics had always worked in the past, Corrie must have been assuming that the bulldozer would stop. Furthermore, the driver (or his superiors) must have known of her assumption. So you’ll pardon me if this sounds like a case of “She thinks I’ll stop? I’ll show her”.
As you say, an issue for trial if in fact it is triable under Israel’s laws. As she died by bumping her head against the blade as opposed to being run over I prefer the “Oh, shit!” story. But then I’ve got my personal prejudices too. I believe it was proper for the bulldozer operator to complete his mission under the circumstances and that if he stopped or attempted to stop he should not have – that standing in front of bulldozers with the specific intent of stopping them is an act where the the responsibility lies solely with standee.
Prior to Oct '03, Siegfried and Roy’s tiger handling went without mauling. They worked in a dangerous situation and knew the responsibilities of their actions.
You can’t step in the way of danger and say that it never happened to me all the other times I did it, so why should it now?
I always won at Russian Roulette, except that last time of course. I was gonna sue Colt, but I lost my nerve at the last split second.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that last point. Which is fine with me.
Just one more thing, though: It’s hard for me to imagine a situation where she was completely invisible to both the driver and every other person present on the IDF side of things (assuming there were any, as I am) for the entirety of the bulldozer’s run. That’s what’s bothering me about this. Did nobody on the IDF side see her before she was hit? (Thanks for the clarification there, by the way.) And if she was seen, couldn’t have someone (not the driver) just have physically hauled her out of the way?
I don’t know. It just doesn’t add up for me.
I don’t think that’s what manhattan is saying. My take goes like this: “It’s always worked before. Given that fact, what does this say about the IDF’s claim that it was an accident?” That he and I draw opposite conclusions is really interesting to me (not being snarky here).
Yeah, it just doesn’t add up.
- I’m standing in the path of a machine that, while moving very slowly, can kill me.
- I don’t move, even though I have time, and get killed.
=
- I’m dead.
There is a lesson in there someplace, but I must be missing it.
OH! Get the fuck out of the way, live to fight another day! (even has a nice ring to it, dontcha think??)
And what happened could have been a paradigm shift in protester/bulldozer relations. “Well, I’ll be! That sumbitch always stopped before, I don’t think standing in the way is gonna work any more!”. So if somebody would have been previously plowed, maybe Corrie would be with us today. Who’s to say.
Oooh! Oooh! Is it possible that I’m the first one to suggest suing the estate of Douglas Adams? After all, Arthur Dent didn’t get killed when HE lay down in front of the bulldozer. (Now, suing the Vogon Construction Fleet, THAT might have been worth something.)
Yes, she was risking her life. No doubt that, on some level, she knew that. It’s her right to do so if she wishes.
But: The IDF people on the scene (or person, if that was the case) are human beings, who (in my estimation) made a decision at some point to run a bulldozer into another human being. As far as I’m concerned, that should be actionable.
And it’s repellent. Such is war.
Yep, such is war. There’s another thing about war. It takes more than one human being to fight one. One of the tactics of war is retreat. When properly applied, it can be used to gain an advantage. Corrie missed that part.