Sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out, right? (I’m not attacking you btw, that just sounded neat)
What ticks me off is that people have to pay to defend themselves from these asinine suits. Caterpllar shouldn’t have to pay one cent, they should just send the janitor down to the court to tell these morons to fuck off.
And I think Patton said that war wasn’t about dying for your country (or cause in this case), it’s making the other guy die for his. She evidently didn’t read any Patton, either.
You nailed it on the head right there. It was her choice to stand in front of the 'dozer. Why should anyone have to pay for her stupidity?
Aw, crap. I knew my lack of completeness on that would come back to bite me. Lindyhopper correctly interpreted my remarks. I’m unaware if subsequent to Ms. Corrie’s death the protestors changed their tactics, the IDF changed its tactics (though I do know they added some mirrors to the 'dozers), or what. I was simply saying that it seems unlikely to me that IDF intentionally and secretly changed its tactics in a way that resulted in the death of a photogenic American in full view of dozens of witnesses and at least one camera. Why risk a slap from the State Department (which they got) and the negative publicity (which they also got)?
Not, not really. The IDF people on the scene made a decision to run a bulldozer into a building. Some retarded student CHOSE to stand in front of it and not move knowing full well the consequences of her actions. Why should other people be responsible for her life when she wasn’t? It was her choice that her life was less important than her cause, if she didn’t care to save herself why should anyone else be held responsible?
These things are straight out of Mad Max, look at the pictures to see the size. My understanding is that the line of sight is such that is someone is closer then 30 feet, the operator can’t see them. You just don’t stand in front of these things.
True enough.
I think you are all missing the point.
Evidently this poor young lady’s shoe laces were untied, and she tripped over them while trying to get out of the way of the 'dozer.
So it wasn’t her fault she was killed.
It was the shoe manufacturer’s, for not having a selection of laceless, velcro sneakers.
I guess I’m not really saying they should be financially responsible, given the state of the law. However, the fact that they would feel such a lack of responsibility as to kill her with a bulldozer really creeps me out.
Well, I’m used to Canadian-style costs rules - basically, loser pays.
That helps to limit the frivolous lawsuit - if they are frivolous, it carries the risk of paying the other guy’s costs.
My first thought when I heard this story on the news this morning was “what a bunch of dumbasses.” Well, except for Caterpillar; I’ve been though one of their manufacturing facilities (I’ve got a hat and a t-shirt to prove it!), and they’re pretty cool.
Hmm. On reflection, my post sounds a little fuzzy-wuzzy (and backpedal-y). What I tried to say is that I’m really less concerned with the legal/financial aspects of the case than with the moral/ethical aspects. I might concede that the IDF has no actual legal/financial responsibility, but I personally believe that they should feel a sense of responsibility for having killed a noncombatant (in the sense that she, personally, posed no danger to the bulldozer operator or any other IDF person; I’ll grant, as per manhattan, that if the building had housed a tunnel entrance, there could have been dire consequences to not knocking over the building).
Come to think of it, that sounded pretty fuzzy-wuzzy too. Oh, well. At least it helped me clarify my thoughts. 
The bulldozer posed no threat to her. All she had to do was move.
Mebbe he was thinking she would move away at the last minute.
Just like she was thinkingthat it’d stop at the last moment…oops
IIRC from the last thread about this, the driver thought she did move. She was in front of it yelling into a megaphone. Due to the armor he was having trouble seeing her so he went by voice. She slipped and dropped the megaphone. He couldn’t see and figured that she moved.
I think the thread was in great debates, but its 4am and my sick self isn’t asleep and my dope search fu ain’t working. :smack:
So lindyhopper, it sounds like there was no malice on the part of the driver. This was a tragic accident.
Woohoo, double post. :smack:
Found the thread. Here’s a better picture of the dozer in question. Here is the article I was thinking of.
I was off on the megaphone part, but it looks like she did lose her footing and the driver likely had trouble seeing her.
Quoted from Tom Dale
Also worth noting is this.
This is bullshit. Some of you are suggesting that the bulldozer driver murdered her. That seems pretty ridiculous to me. I don’t know about you but I know of nobody who would willingly run someone over with a bulldozer. It sounds way more likely that it was an accident.
Ummm…yes.
It’s called terminal stupidity, or Darwinism in action. If someone is stupid enough to walk in front of a moving bulldozer and really expect to not be injured or killed, then one should be prepared to accept the consequences. And if the parents raised somebody to be that stupid, they should be suing themselves.
A lot of people commenting here seem to be unfamiliar with the circumstances, so I’d urge them to read some of the previous threads or do a google search. (Read the indymedia and littlegreenfootballs versions to cancel out the inevitable slants.)
Eyewitness reports are conflicting, but basically the girl was spending much of the day playing chicken with the bulldozer. Even wearing high visibility gear, that’s a low percentage game to be playing. If the IDF was negligent, it was for allowing the protestors to be in the area at all (and I don’t know what their legal right to do so was).
