posted
Weird story. I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something else for him to crash into besides another vehicle. That seemed incredible selfish. If the SUV would have had a young family in it that died in the crash, I imagine he'd have a hard time living with that fact-not to mention be in some serious legal trouble.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If any of that hypothetical family had been severely injured in that crash, the SUV driver should have been charged with willful endangerment for failing to make sure his passengers were properly secured: manslaughter if anyone in the SUV had died. Not the carjacked driver. That said, I too believe that his choice was poor. Throwing it into a lower-speed passenger-side/right-facing-forward sideways skid into oncoming traffic would have been better, and probably severely damaged the carjacker while lessening the effect on innocents. A front-end collision on the passenger side into a parked car or a more solid object would have caused the driver less damage while comparatively maximizing the damage-differential to the unseatbelted carjacker.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Weird story. I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something else for him to crash into besides another vehicle. That seemed incredible selfish. If the SUV would have had a young family in it that died in the crash, I imagine he'd have a hard time living with that fact-not to mention be in some serious legal trouble.
Being held by someone who is armed and threatening to kill you isn't exactly a time when you are going to be rational. He did what he had to do to make it out of the situation. It's a shame that he had to put other people at risk to do it, but to call him selfish is absolute garbage.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in complete agreement with ricree101 on this one. I can't blame the kid for what his thinking was. Yeah, due to some of the training I have had, I would have done different. However, not that much different.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am reminded of the scene in Last Action Hero. The hero plays chicken with a screen villian. Our hero is in a modern car, the villian in an old Taxi.
"Don't do it" the good kid yells. "He won't chicken out here."
"I know!" says Arnold/hero as he races forward.
Crash. Crunch. The two cars collide, but do not burst into a big hollywood fireball.
Hero/Arnold gets out of the car and jumps around. "I knew it. I knew it. Airbags!!!" Hero's new car had airbags. Villians creepy old taxi did not.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a terrible choice, I'm suprised the man with the gun allowed him to simply accelerate into a car. Perhaps the man with the gun didnt really have any intention to go through with it.
Either way its easy to judge these things in retrospect.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If any of that hypothetical family had been severely injured in that crash, the SUV driver should have been charged with willful endangerment for failing to make sure his passengers were properly secured: manslaughter if anyone in the SUV had died. Not the carjacked driver.
You know that people, especially children, can be severely injured or killed in a crash even if they are properly secured, right? And SUVs have a tendency to flip if hit in certain ways.
It would have been better to crash into a light pole or something if he had to crash, is my opinion.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree kq. Even if they weren't properly restrained the SUV driver should not be held solely responsible (in the hypothetical situation) in my opinion.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I am reminded of the scene in Last Action Hero. The hero plays chicken with a screen villian. Our hero is in a modern car, the villian in an old Taxi.
"Don't do it" the good kid yells. "He won't chicken out here."
"I know!" says Arnold/hero as he races forward.
Crash. Crunch. The two cars collide, but do not burst into a big hollywood fireball.
Hero/Arnold gets out of the car and jumps around. "I knew it. I knew it. Airbags!!!" Hero's new car had airbags. Villians creepy old taxi did not.
If you're going to quote a movie, quote it right...
quote:Jack Slater: Damn, that hurt. Danny Madigan: You are lucky to be alive, you dumb idiot! Jack Slater: '89 Mercury Sable, standard air bag. Checker cab, no air bag. Who is dumb?
You should know by now my inner movie geek is hard to tame.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would have been better to crash into a light pole or something if he had to crash, is my opinion.
kq, I think you are great, but please don't try to tell me that you would have thought that clearly at the time. Of course it would have been better if he had hit a light pole or something. However, he made the choice that he did. No one but the gunman was hurt so it wasn't that bad of a choice.
I can hear the "what if's" coming out now. There are a million "what if's." An' truly, they aren't worth discussing.
About what I said before, I carry a 26" expandable police baton on me. And am close to getting a concealed carry permit. With the baton I would've been able to break his leg at the least. An' yes, I would've thought it out a bit clearer. Tends to happen when you are trained to fight after being sprayed with pepper spray (I carry my certification on me). I don't recommend trying it though. that stuff burns. I don't care about a gun, but if you pull pepper spray on me...what do you want me to do? That stuff burns...a lot.
Btw, kq, I am not against your opinion. You're right. It would have been better. But when you are scared for your life, safety is often the last thing thought about.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not criticizing his decision, since no one was seriously hurt or killed it obviously was an okay one. I'm just saying that in the hypothetical, it would have been a bad decision.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I said I wasn't against your opinion. I'm not that great at articulating the english language. I know I could've done better, but I'm tired, mentally and physically right now.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
In some states, it would be possible for the kidnapper to sue the guy he kidnapped. In some states, he could be in serious trouble for not making sure his front seat passenger was buckled up.
But, really, I kind of admire his quick thinking and while I might wish he'd decided to hit something else, I think he was under extreme mental duress at the time and that has to count for something.
I'm impressed at how survivable 45 mph crashes are these days. To be honest, I would've run into a wall if I was thinking about it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've thought about it before, actually, and mentally evaluated different options for what to run into. My favorite, although by far the most dangerous, is to jump the car off a bridge into a river. Mostly because I occasionally feel an inexplicable urge to do that, anyway.
posted
I've actually read a story that was something like that. Guy picked up a hitchhiker who turned out to have a gun. HH threatens driver, driver acts suicidal and says wife left him, he's going to drive into oncoming traffic or support pillars of over pass. HH says "let me out." Driver pulls onto left shoulder (four-lane highway, so he'll have to cross fast traffic) and lets out HH. Driver goes home to loving wife (I don't recall if he calls police or anything.
Anyway, not that I would pick up hitchhikers or anything, but it seemed like a plan if I ever found myself in a similar situation. I always wear my seatbelt. I also insist that my passengers do, too. But if I was in that situation, I would (try to remember to) slam the right side of my car into something solid and immovable. If I'm able to think logically and not panic. Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Story is right...as in it only happens in bad scripts in which the writer is the god who warps reality to suit the goal of keeping the protagonist alive.
Bad plan. The instant a driver is stopped, the driver is weaponless. The instant a driver tells the carjacker that being in control of a moving vehicle automaticly makes the driver armed&dangerous, the carjacker has strong motive to immediately kill the driver. After the driver is dead, the carjacker can just grab the steering wheel and pop the car into neutral. If not already buckled up, the carjacker certainly will be after the warning.
Neverplay chicken with a criminal with a gun. The only defense that a victim has is surprise. All that you would be doing is giving the criminal time and freedom to aim the gun for an immediate kill.
BTW: That link is a typical example of a confrontation in which one person is armed, and the other says "I dare you..." Ask the police and they'll tell you that it is the leading cause of murder, at least according to the perpetrators.
quote: But the defense argued that the gun went off accidentally during the shoving match
I love this part. Well, not really. There is no such thing as an accidental discharge. The gun was loaded, safety was off and his finger was on the trigger. He intended to shoot someone. Guns were made to kill.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the kidnapt driver guy did the right thing. If I'm in fear for my life, and the only thing I have to use is the car for a few minutes before I'm put in a trunk and shot, you'd better believe I'd do anything to avoid that. Huzza.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre: I can't remember the details of the story but think it was something like this: driver had HH so convinced he was crazy suicidal that he would crash car, HH may have handed over gun or thrown it out the window or something - but he really, really didn't want to be in same car with that driver at that point ... anyway, HH must have been disarmed somehow when driver dropped him off on the shoulder of the fast lane. Something like that. (trying to remember what book that story was in ... )
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's something else we're not thinking about here:
- wall, rather obvious. The attacker almost certainly would have stopped him. - light post: not always handy. If he was about to be put into the trunk he probably went after the the first thing he saw. Again, even if one was handy, it'd be a little too obvious, give the attacker too much time to react.
In the case of an on coming car you can appear to just be accelerating down the street and then swerve into it at the last second, giving the attacker 0 time to react. Maybe a second at most, before impact.
On coming car: best choice in terms of chance of success and saving his life. Worst in terms of safety of others. But when you have a gun to your head... you're probably not thinking too much about the safety of others.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if the road had more than two lanes, he would have likely had to cross more than one lane in order to get to any sort of stationary object that he could run into. If the attacker had his gun out, there almost certainly wouldn't be enough time to make it over before getting shot.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I probably would have done the same or similar. I guess that makes me selfish too.
The poor guy was young, had only just learnt how to drive and he really really thought he was going to die.
Without training most people can't think rationally in that situation. What if there really were no close objects around that he could of crashed into and he had to decide which car to crash into to save his life?
Would you have taken the time to consider each car coming towards you?
That car has kids....that car had an old lady.... that car is too small the passenger could easily get killed.... the person driving that car is very young.... nope kids again... BANG
I guess you just got shot in the head, but at least you weren't selfish....
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being held by someone who is armed and threatening to kill you isn't exactly a time when you are going to be rational.
I agree. Sure, it's not the best decision in the world. But I think with a gun to your head, your perspective changes a lot.
The fact that he smashed into a SUV- not into something smaller, although I don't know if it was intentional, is at least something.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Indeed! An unselfish person such as yourself would have obediently crawled into the trunk, been driven to a distant quay, shot, and dumped in the ocean, thereby inconveniencing NO ONE!
How genuinely thoughtless of this individual to attempt to preserve his own life!
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that it's in any way related, but I once did make the choice of a forced collision or death. Brakes of my car became nonresponsive, so I either roll in to the middle of US-1, without stopping at about 20-30MPH, in the middle of the day or... I don't. So I veered into a tree.
You can't imagine how much criticism I got for doing that. At the time, I was fearful for my life; had I rolled out in to oncoming traffic I would have been crushed. But nobody else seemed to think of that as a "life threatening situation."
But emphasis that I picked an INANIMATE object. Yes, my life might have been at risk, but I wasn't about to risk the lives of others. Plowing headlong in to an oncoming car is a hell of a risk, and you might save yourself but you risk being charged for vehicular manslaughter if you kill the other passengers; at that point, it doesn't matter if you had a dozen guns pointed at your head.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't he specifically say he wanted people to help? If you hit a tree, you have a whole lot less chance of getting witnesses. If you hit a car, you have atleast one person stopped, usually more.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
