Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israeli ruling on Corrie death draws widespread condemnation

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    If your aunty had balls....

    If the driver had been more careful she'd still be alive. Ultimately it's his responsibility, he's the operator.

    Assuming he knew a person was there and that person was brain dead and couldn't get out of the way, then yes.


  • Options
    #93
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    One could literally say the exact same thing about Bloody Sunday protesters, that the burden of responsibility of them was to move when ordered to. Would you hold them more responsible than the military which chose to kill them anyway?

    One couldn't.


  • Options
    #94
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    Assuming he knew a person was there and that person was brain dead and couldn't get out of the way, then yes.

    Yet here you are, placing the emphasis on teh victim here, even though you agree with the premise of the operator being at fault.


  • Options
    #95
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    Yet here you are, placing the emphasis on teh victim here, even though you agree with the premise of the operator being at fault.

    Try reading teh post again.


  • Options
    #96
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    czx wrote: »
    Assuming he knew a person was there and that person was brain dead and couldn't get out of the way, then yes.
    czx wrote: »
    One couldn't.
    czx wrote: »
    Try reading teh post again.

    MOD NOTE:

    These kinds of one-liners don't really add to the discussion at all. If you don't actually want to engage with other posters, then don't bother posting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    karma_ wrote: »
    Regardless of where this happened, it still remains the drivers responsibility. If the driver is aware people are around he must make sure that his actions do not put them in harms way. If he's moving forward blind he has to ask himself, "Am I sure there is no one there?" If he is unsure then the one thing he should never do is move forward.

    This is an open and shut case to be honest, it is definitely the drivers fault. It could happen in any other country in the world and still be the drivers fault.
    That's not true at all. Everyone on any site in Ireland is trained to get a drivers attention before entering their immediate vicinity, and to always ensure they know where you are. People have been run over in Ireland for failing to do this and it has been acknowledged they were in the wrong.
    Everybody in an area where heavy machinery is operating shares responsibility in acting responsibly around it, I wouldn't even stand directly in front of a moving tractor without getting a signal from the driver, under normal circumstances it would be my own stupid fault if that ended badly, the rules for a car in a civilian area are not the same as for something inherently a hell of a lot more dangerous on a site/farm/whatever the hell you can call this.

    Not that I'm saying your conclusion is wrong, I have no idea about that, just that the logic you used to arrive at it is appalling, and the first evidence I've ever seen that the contents of health and safety courses isn't the common sense I assumed it to be.


  • Options
    #98
    brimal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭brimal


    karma_ wrote: »
    If his actions didn't put anyone in harms way, then how the hell is there a girl dead after being run over by one?

    You're just wrong on this one. Anyone operating a machine of that size and power absolutely must take the responsibility for injuring someone by driving forwards over them.

    For someone who is so sure of the laws regarding this sort of situation, you haven't provided any evidence that by law it is the driver's fault.

    Situations like this can be very complex and the law regarding who is at fault is not black and white. You can't simply bark out lines such as 'you're just wrong on this one' & 'it's an open and shut case'


    And for others comparing this to a child getting run over or the Bloody Sunday deaths, your comparison is pathetic as much as it is flawed.


    I'll say it again, the ISM are at fault here. They have a history of encouraging their volunteers to take part in this sort of dangerous behaviour.


  • Options
    #99
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    That's not true at all. Everyone on any site in Ireland is trained to get a drivers attention before entering their immediate vicinity, and to always ensure they know where you are. People have been run over in Ireland for failing to do this and it has been acknowledged they were in the wrong.
    Everybody in an area where heavy machinery is operating shares responsibility in acting responsibly around it, I wouldn't even stand directly in front of a moving tractor without getting a signal from the driver, under normal circumstances it would be my own stupid fault if that ended badly, the rules for a car in a civilian area are not the same as for something inherently a hell of a lot more dangerous on a site/farm/whatever the hell you can call this.

    Not that I'm saying your conclusion is wrong, I have no idea about that, just that the logic you used to arrive at it is appalling, and the first evidence I've ever seen that the contents of health and safety courses isn't the common sense I assumed it to be.

    This is a bit different. Sure for a construction worker who knew the risks, I'd accept that, however it would be very different if the heavy machinery hit a non-worker.


  • Options
    #100
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    This is a bit different. Sure for a construction worker who knew the risks, I'd accept that, however it would be very different if the heavy machinery hit a non-worker.

    A non-worker who knowingly stepped in front of a moving the bulldozer. Also, you don't have to be familiar with bulldozers to know that they are dangerous.


  • Options
    #101
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    czx wrote: »
    One couldn't.

    Why not...?
    In both scenarios, protesters were protesting something they regarded as illegitimate, the army ordered them to desist, they refused, and were subsequently killed.

    How is refusing to move when a British soldier orders you to any different to refusing to move when an Israeli soldier orders you to?

    Had the Brits had bulldozers on Bloody Sunday would that have made it acceptable? Don't really understand your argument here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    karma_ wrote: »
    This is a bit different. Sure for a construction worker who knew the risks, I'd accept that, however it would be very different if the heavy machinery hit a non-worker.
    I would agree it is a bit different, but only in that I can understand why she took such a risk, but it was still hers to take, it would be neither practical or possible to shift that entirely to the vehicles operator.

    Again I'm not blaming anyone I'm just saying I find this particular avenue of argumentation a tad ridiculous, if the driver saw her or was aware of her presence then he is to blame, if he was in a working environment where protesters were expendable the state is to blame, if he didn't see her it was a very unfortunate accident in a senario where such accidents were likely.

    At any rate I don't think the incident itself is what people should be focusing on, rather the way it was subsequently handled. Accidents happen, and horrific things happen in conflict, comparable incidents have happened involving British and American forces but there was transparency and accountability in dealing with them, the lack of these is all that makes this different.


  • Options
    #103
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Everyone on any site in Ireland is trained to get a drivers attention before entering their immediate vicinity, and to always ensure they know where you are. People have been run over in Ireland for failing to do this and it has been acknowledged they were in the wrong.

    Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the bulldozer wearing an orange fluorescent jacket and speaking to the driver through a megaphone. She did more than enough to get the drivers attention.


  • Options
    #104
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    czx wrote: »
    A non-worker who knowingly stepped in front of a moving the bulldozer.

    Rachel Corrie didn't step in front of a moving bulldozer. Eyewitnesses said Rachel stood unmoving a distance from the bulldozer. The driver of the Bulldozer then approached Rachel's position and drove straight over her.


  • Options
    #105
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Why not...?
    In both scenarios, protesters were protesting something they regarded as illegitimate, the army ordered them to desist, they refused, and were subsequently killed.

    How is refusing to move when a British soldier orders you to any different to refusing to move when an Israeli soldier orders you to?

    Had the Brits had bulldozers on Bloody Sunday would that have made it acceptable? Don't really understand your argument here.

    The difference is as clear as day. Why can't you just talk about the topic at hand?


  • Options
    #106
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Rachel Corrie didn't step in front of a moving bulldozer. Eyewitnesses said Rachel stood unmoving a distance from the bulldozer. The driver of the Bulldozer then approached Rachel's position and drove straight over her.

    So you're saying the bulldozer changed direction to hit her?


  • Options
    #107
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    So you're saying the bulldozer changed direction to hit her?

    How did you read what the poster typed and come to that conclusion?


  • Options
    #108
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    How did you read what the poster typed and come to that conclusion?

    They said she didn't step in front of the bulldozer but stood unmoving and the bulldozer approached her. If she stood unmoving the bulldozer must of changed position or else she was the one to step into its path. Which is it?


  • Options
    #109
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    They said she didn't step in front of the bulldozer but stood unmoving and the bulldozer approached her. If she stood unmoving the bulldozer must of changed position or else she was the one to step into its path. Which is it?

    I see where you're going with this. however, standing stationary some distance from an approaching vehicle is hardly the same as flinging yourself in it's path at the last second. If the eyewitness is to be believed then it would be literally impossible for the driver NOT to have seen her which doesn't quite marry with what you're saying.


  • Options
    #110
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    czx wrote: »
    The difference is as clear as day. Why can't you just talk about the topic at hand?

    The difference is not even remotely clear, why can't you answer a simple question?


  • Options
    #111
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    I see where you're going with this. however, standing stationary some distance from an approaching vehicle is hardly the same as flinging yourself in it's path at the last second. If the eyewitness is to be believed then it would be literally impossible for the driver NOT to have seen her which doesn't quite marry with what you're saying.

    Literally impossible? You would really have to define the last second. From when the field of view of the operator became obstructed would be more apt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    The difference is not even remotely clear, why can't you answer a simple question?

    The question is charged. This thread is about the bulldozer scenario. Deal with it.


  • Options
    #113
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    Literally impossible? You would really have to define the last second. From when the field of view of the operator became obstructed would be more apt.

    To be honest mate, you're just changing your narrative every post at this stage, it's almost impossible to follow what your trying to say and I really don;t believe you want to discuss this rationally at all.


  • Options
    #114
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    One could literally say the exact same thing about Bloody Sunday protesters, that the burden of responsibility of them was to move when ordered to. Would you hold them more responsible than the military which chose to kill them anyway?

    Rubbish, bullets travelling at 2000 feet per second and bulldozers moving at 5 miles per hours are entirely different. Despite what you see in movies you can't duck out of the way of a speeding bullet.


  • Options
    #115
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Rubbish, bullets travelling at 2000 feet per second and bulldozers moving at 5 miles per hours are entirely different. Despite what you see in movies you can't duck out of the way of a speeding bullet.

    But they could have dispersed when ordered to by the Brits, or not protested at all when their protest was declared "illegal" beforehand.

    That's not relevant, the reason it's relevant is that in one context people seem to be saying protesters should not make a stand on principle, in another context people seem to be saying they should be.

    Either it's ok to protest an illegitimate military force or it isn't. Standing your ground is standing your ground. Doesn't matter if you're being threatened with a bulldozer or a rifle, you're ignoring an order from the military because you regard it as immoral.

    Either both are ok or neither, IMO. Don't see how you can have your cake and eat it on this.


  • Options
    #116
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    To be honest mate, you're just changing your narrative every post at this stage, it's almost impossible to follow what your trying to say and I really don;t believe you want to discuss this rationally at all.

    My point has been pretty clear. She chose to stand in front of the bulldozer, which is a dangerous thing to do.


  • Options
    #117
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    czx wrote: »
    My point has been pretty clear. She chose to stand in front of the bulldozer, which is a dangerous thing to do.

    Rachel was standing a safe distance from the bulldozer. She was not in any danger where she was standing. Witnessses say she did not approach the bulldozer, the danger arose when the driver of the bulldozer adavanced on Rachel in much the same way the tanks advanced on the protestor in Tiananmen square in 1989. The difference is the Chinese tanks stopped when they got too close to the protestor whereas the Israeli bulldozer kept going and drove right over rachel and crushed her to death.


  • Options
    #118
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Rachel was standing a safe distance from the bulldozer. She was not in any danger where she was standing. Witnessses say she did not approach the bulldozer, the danger arose when the driver of the bulldozer adavanced on Rachel in much the same way the tanks advanced on the protestor in Tiananmen square in 1989. The difference is the Chinese tanks stopped when they got too close to the protestor whereas the Israeli bulldozer kept going and drove right over rachel and crushed her to death.

    So she stood in the path of the bulldozer, yes?


  • Options
    #119
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    czx wrote: »
    So she stood in the path of the bulldozer, yes?

    Now you're just repeating yourself with some pedantic point about which no one is even disputing.


  • Options
    #120
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    Now you're just repeating yourself with some pedantic point about which no one is even disputing.

    Just wanted to be clear that she chose to stand in the path of the bulldozer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the bulldozer wearing an orange fluorescent jacket and speaking to the driver through a megaphone. She did more than enough to get the drivers attention.

    You get a drivers attention before you enter the area of the vehicle and you know you have it when they acknowledge your presence, obviously in a protest situation that's a silly ask but without doing it you can't guarentee a driver is aware you are there, even in a hi viz carrying a PA system.

    You missed the point though, you seem to be insisting he saw her, not what I was disagreeing with, I don't know that either way, I was disagreeing with the stupid idea that a driver is always to blame regardless of circumstance.


Advertisement