[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Paul

Thats not the person who fired the shots.
Since the window is fully down, they couldnt be trapped by it anyway.

(and if they were, shooting the driver just made it worse, as the the car went down the street anyway, out of control, so would have dragged anyone "trapped").

I really dont understand why you're so desperate to make this shooting seem ok.

I know that's not the person, who fired the shots. THAT'S MY POINT. Technically that officer was ALSO potentially at risk, as demonstrated by the previous actual experience of the officer who fired.
How is possible to put your hand inside the vehicle, if the window was open?
If you look at the 2 still images on the BBC article, the 1st is with the window only starting to open and would be impossible to reach in and open the door. The 2nd where he is being dragged along, his arm is further down and trapped.

Ross reached into Muñoz's vehicle with his right hand and attempted to unlock the driver's door. Muñoz drove up on the kerb and accelerated away. Ross's right arm was caught in the vehicle and he was dragged along with it.

As it is, the officer reaching in to open the door was pulled around by the car reversing. He still could've been injured in that situation. Completely undeniable.


And how could anybody have known which direction the vehicle was eventually going to go? The "drive, baby, drive" shout from the wife could be seen as telling the driver to drive away quickly. It's intention might've been a less aggressive "don't wait for me", rather than "run him over". Hindsight allows for consideration of different interpretations, a split-second reaction doesn't. In the real world and in real time, there's no "what ifs" or redos.
At the point in time, she was pointed straight ahead and changed from reverse to drive and was urged to "drive, baby, drive". If you look at that factual description of events in isolation, without regard to this actual incident, what would you say was possibly going to happen to somebody in front of the vehicle? Your conclusion would be that the person was at risk of being run over. It you were watching a film with that as a scene, your immediate thought would be "is he going to get knocked over?".
You have to look at the apparent situation at that precise moment in time, without having any idea of what any intentions were. Bear in mind, the women were intentionally being obnoxious and awkward and weren't calmly complying with instructions. Their actions and intentions were more on the aggressive side of things, rather than being compliant.


I can't see what isn't there. Eg the wheels WERE pointed straight ahead AND the car was moving forwards. I ask questions and try to find the answers, whatever those answers may be. I DON'T simply accept something, whichever side it comes from.


It is unbelievable, mind-boggling, and outright SINISTER, that so many people deny the reality of moving objects. Eg People deny that when reversing and turning, the viewpoint of the driver changes. IE something that was to the left or right of the driver can up end being in front, without that something having to move. Eg somehow the wheels can be pointed left and go to point right, without pointing straight ahead at some stage. People prefer physical IMPOSSIBILITIES to justify the views that they have blindly chosen. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect doesn't come into it.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Confess I was a bit confused by that one as well but thought it was just me! The US highway code seems a bit simpler - shoot first, ask questions afterwards.

Nonsense. That "swinging out" is unavoidable when reversing with a turn. That line from the UK highway code simply is a warning as to the REALITY of what happens to the front of car when it reverses with a turn. It's not a phenomenon restricted to the UK or to cars. It happens to people EACH AND EVERY DAY, in and out of cars. If you walk forwards and then turn, whatever was in front of you, is now to the side and then behind you. Those objects don't have to have moved. If you walk towards a simple straight wall, but then turn left or right, is the wall in right in front of you or to the side? It's no longer in right in front of you, but it hasn't moved.