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
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    You missed the point... I was disagreeing with the stupid idea that a driver is always to blame regardless of circumstance.

    I've re-read the thread and I can't see where anyone claimed a driver is "always to blame regardless of circumstance."

    The point I saw being made was this
    karma_ wrote: »
    If the driver is aware people are around he must make sure that his actions do not put them in harms way.

    I don't see anyone arguing the driver is still to blame even if he wasn't aware Rachel was there.


  • Options
    #123
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I believe he was aware that there were people in the vicinity, just as there are people in the vicinity of any construction or demolition site anywhere. Whether or not he was aware that there was someone in the direct path that his bulldozer was going is another matter. There were plenty of other protestors not in the path of the bulldozer, if they were all congregated together perhaps there might be a little warning bell going off in his head saying 'hmm... there were protestors here a minute ago, where did they all go?' (and they'd be easier to see than one individual who might be behind a blind spot).


  • Options
    #124
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Whether or not he was aware that there was someone in the direct path that his bulldozer was going is another matter.

    Well according to an eyewitness "it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it."


    Now remember, it was a clear day and rachel was standing in the drivers field of vision. Under those circumstances I think it's simply not plausible to suggest the driver would not have been aware she was there.


  • Options
    #125
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I wonder if the eyewitness has ever driven an armoured D9, or any armoured vehicle at all, for that matter. What may be inconceivable to him may yet be the truth. An Israeli soldier was run over and killed by another armoured vehicle two weeks ago as he slept, they are not built for close visibility and such incidents are not all that uncommon. I recall one training exercise in Louisiana when two US paratroopers (Not a group of people ordinarily familiar with the limitations of armoured vehicles) managed to get in the way of a tank and were killed. When cross-attached, I always gave a 'this is how not to get killed by a friendly armoured vehicle' brief, and this is to people who are already in the Army. Civilians generally have no idea the limitations.


  • Options
    #126
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I wonder if the eyewitness has ever driven an armoured D9, or any armoured vehicle at all, for that matter. What may be inconceivable to him may yet be the truth. An Israeli soldier was run over and killed by another armoured vehicle two weeks ago as he slept, they are not built for close visibility and such incidents are not all that uncommon. I recall one training exercise in Louisiana when two US paratroopers (Not a group of people ordinarily familiar with the limitations of armoured vehicles) managed to get in the way of a tank and were killed. When cross-attached, I always gave a 'this is how not to get killed by a friendly armoured vehicle' brief, and this is to people who are already in the Army. Civilians generally have no idea the limitations.

    I'm making the assumption that the driver of this vehicle, or any other large armoured vehicle has some form of forward view that enables him to see at least where he is driving. I don't need to have driven any kind of vehicle to make this assumption.

    Common sense dictates that if she was standing a 'distance' from the vehicle as it approached her then at some point along the way he must have seen her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Well according to an eyewitness "it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it."

    Now remember, it was a clear day and rachel was standing in the drivers field of vision. Under those circumstances I think it's simply not plausible to suggest the driver would not have been aware she was there.
    Given that even some of the protestors' "eyewitness" accounts don't match eachother, I'm skeptical as to their merit.

    Some said she was kneeling in front of the dozer, others said sitting, others said she was standing.

    Surely if any of these eyewitnesses were in a position to tell you that it was "inconceivable" that the driver could not see Rachel, then why do they disagree on such a fundamental piece of information such as whether she was on her knees, her bum or her feet? The only way to reconcile this is to suppose that some of the "eyewitness" accounts were given by people who couldn't really see what was going on - i.e. they couldn't see Rachel clearly, but claim that the driver must have.

    What is obvious is that at some point Corrie became aware that the driver could not see her, and rather than get out of the way, she climbed up onto the mound being pushed by the dozer. There is no arguing whatsoever that her actions were exceptionally risky and she has to take at least partial blame for the incident.


  • Options
    #128
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    seamus wrote: »
    Given that even some of the protestors' "eyewitness" accounts don't match eachother, I'm skeptical as to their merit.

    Some said she was kneeling in front of the dozer, others said sitting, others said she was standing.

    Surely if any of these eyewitnesses were in a position to tell you that it was "inconceivable" that the driver could not see Rachel, then why do they disagree on such a fundamental piece of information such as whether she was on her knees, her bum or her feet? The only way to reconcile this is to suppose that some of the "eyewitness" accounts were given by people who couldn't really see what was going on - i.e. they couldn't see Rachel clearly, but claim that the driver must have.

    What is obvious is that at some point Corrie became aware that the driver could not see her, and rather than get out of the way, she climbed up onto the mound being pushed by the dozer. There is no arguing whatsoever that her actions were exceptionally risky and she has to take at least partial blame for the incident.

    Either way, if she was sitting or standing the driver had to be aware of her presence. I'm guessing he in all likelihood did not intend to drive over her and he probably assumed she would move, and she likely did try to get out of the way when a fatal mistake occurred. What I have a major problem with is that he took an incredible risk to assume she would get out of the way and that had dire consequences.


  • Options
    #129
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    karma_ wrote: »
    Either way, if she was sitting or standing the driver had to be aware of her presence.
    Why?


  • Options
    #130
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    seamus wrote: »
    Why?

    Well she didn't just jump infront of the blade at the last second and sit down. Yes, I accept that there is a limited view from the machine, but not so limited he couldn't see potentially what was 20' or 30' in front of him.


  • Options
    #131
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    karma_ wrote: »
    What I have a major problem with is that he took an incredible risk to assume she would get out of the way and that had dire consequences.

    She took an incredible risk to assume that he had seen her and would stop.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Everyone should read Richard Silverstein's article about the Israeli court decision at thruth-out.org. He does an excellent job of dissecting the claims of the State.


Advertisement