So look at the beginning of the video, the car is lurching with periodic wheel spin. The engine revs fairly high, but it is not bouncing off of the rev limiter. Later on he is bouncing off the rev limiter, and then suddenly lurches forward into the other car. He’s either intentionally revving and “neutral dropping” the car, or he’s knocking it into neutral while he flails his arms around trying to turn the wheel.
The “smoke” is probably actually steam because he’s probably got a punctured radiator.
My point is, if he’d roasted his torque converter badly enough that he could get the engine up to redline with no wheel spin, the car would be immobilized, and he sure wouldn’t be making any “smoky” getaways. The only way he’d be able to rev the engine that high while in gear would be if the torque converter wasn’t getting any fluid, the fact that the guy goes from stationary revving to moving, to stationary revving, to moving, and ultimately driving away at considerable speed is pretty solid evidence that the guy was in neutral. We’re obviously arguing about something we can’t know for certain, but given the evidence at hand, my explanation is substantially more plausible than yours.
I think there’s a certain level of precaution going on when you see someone acting erratic in LA traffic. If it looks like someone is going through road rage, you don’t really want to be anywhere near them.
“The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. And I knew we’d get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. Probably at the next gas station.” – Hunter S. Thompson
Too bad he wasn’t an AT&T lineman or cable co. tech just doing their job… a responsible white gentleman could have just shot out all his tires in a fit of (more) rage. “I put a full clip thru the engine block as a matter of public safety”
I was wondering what’s up with the rapid spinning of the steering wheel and no tire movement. Also - look in there, see the tiny letters? D means ‘drive’ as in forward and R means ‘reverse’ or backward. N is neutral or numbskull which seems apropos (ok maybe he did hit his head, so allowances for that…)
I would not intervene in such a situation. Call the cops, sure. Take a quick snap of his license plate, maybe if I didn’t think he could see me do it, but he could very well have a gun and public safety is not my job.
Dunno about that but I’d have felt justified in knocking on his window. What does deadly force have to do with it?
It looked more to me like an unclear situation where action might have been helpful but where an overreaction could have made things worse. “Lives are in danger” is not the same as “he must be stopped at all costs or people will die”, but it’s still important enough that a reasonable person might take reasonable action to intervene. No?
Maybe I’m not following what you’re saying, but I know you’re someone who likes guns a lot and I have to say it sounds a little bit like “I’m not going to help unless I get to use deadly force.”
I don’t think there was a clear, imminent danger to lives at that point. When I posed the question if lethal force was acceptable, it was an attempt to make one at least quantify the statement that “lives were in danger”. I mean, technically, lives are in danger every minute on the road. Does what happen warrant immediate action or not? I suppose knocking on the window or even attempting to block him in is a viable option, but not one I would personally take. And I also won’t feel bad about it, as I am not a hero or a Walter Mitty type just waiting to save the day.
I said that if lives were in danger that I might then be compelled to act, to which I was told “lives were in danger”. Ok, - well - how much in danger? Because I am still not going to act unless it is an imminent danger. In an attempt to make one think about it, I asked if it was so dangerous, would the PRESENTATION of lethal force be warranted? Or even the possible follow through if one didn’t comply?
Instead of, “Oh, well, maybe it isn’t that dire of a situation for one to go to those lengths, and I can see why one wouldn’t intervene.” I got, “I’m not going to help unless I get to use deadly force.” So clearly I have failed.
Thank you for clarifying. I hope you know I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth or anything, I did try to make that clear but now @Grey_Devil has me worried.
Hey now, failing to communicate is a two person job. I deserve credit too.
You’re right, “how much danger” is important and should dictate “how much action”. Getting into a car-fight with him seems to me like it could make a moderate situation worse. I spend some of my free time dealing with violent people, sometimes drunk or drugged, and I think it’s generally not a good idea to say or do anything that could be construed as adversarial.
I think this is where you lost me the first time. I don’t have an opinion on whether presentation of lethal force would be warranted or not, it just sounds like an awful idea. I wouldn’t expect a guy in such an extreme state of disorientation to understand the gravity of a drawn weapon and hence follow orders, so I think presenting lethal force in this case probably means using it. But anyway, that wasn’t your point, and I’m sorry I gave you a hard time.
I think so too. I also don’t think knocking on his window or attempting to box him in would help either. Hence my stance of not getting involved directly.
Now, had there been say a person pinned by the car, partially under it, or in other imminent danger then yes, I could see trying to break his window, hitting his car with yours to stop him, or something else drastic to stop the other person from getting hurt further.
Yeah, threatening the guy with deadly force would have been completely pointless. Chances are pretty good that he’d suffered some kind of head trauma from the impact and airbag deploying, so the driver may not have even been fully conscious of what they were doing. It doesn’t excuse them from liability, or make their behavior okay, but it’s certainly a thing that could have been stopped without deadly force.
If the officer just really felt the need to discharge their weapon, a more useful thing to shoot would be a couple of the cars tires so the driver would be unable to get away. Ultimately, however, deescalation tactics would have probably been the best option. Toss stop sticks under the car and try to talk the driver down. Sure, it’s riskier than shooting the guy 7 times from 10 feet away, but part of one’s job as a police officer is to accept the fact that you might get hurt or die during your job.
Police look up the license plate, vehicle is a white Ford Gutless (POS edition) belonging to a Mr F*ckedup McIssues. Hope he’s okay, getting the help he needs and didn’t do anything stupid when the police caught up with him.
Given the number of fatalities caused recently by cars both intentionally and unintentionally running people over, I think there is definitely justification in trying to remove the ability of the driver to use his vehicle as a weapon.
However, what to do in that situation, justified or not, is something you can really only answer in the moment, and probably involves possible damage to your own vehicle at minimum, which understandably few people are willing to do. I’d like to think at minimum I’ve had tried to follow the guy at the end while on with 9-1-1 to help locate him and prevent further potential injury, but without being there it’s all conjecture.
In any scenario there’s a range of possible outcomes. You presented a possible best-case outcome, I was playing devil’s advocate and presenting the other end of the range. Chances are reality would fall somewhere in the middle and whomever boxed him in would merely be stuck with the repair bills, but…
