Corrie's death ruled accidental

[jbg]

I am going to sum up my views.

It is sad that a naive young woman, Rachel Corrie, died. She attempted, apparently motivated by very human concerns, to help the families of Arab fighters whose homes the IDF was demolishing. She made a decision to try to manually, with her own body, stop a bulldozer and she died in the process.

There has been microscopic investigation of this human tragedy by international and Israeli agencies. More attention has gone to this death than pretty much all flat-out atrocities taking place in the Arab world. Why doesn't someone start a microscopic investigation of either the Sbarro Pizza bombing, or attacks on celebrations?

Those aren't even close in terms of egregiousness.

[Black Dog]

I am going to sum up my views.

It is sad that a naive young woman, Rachel Corrie, died. She attempted, apparently motivated by very human concerns, to help the families of Arab fighters whose homes the IDF was demolishing. She made a decision to try to manually, with her own body, stop a bulldozer and she died in the process.

There has been microscopic investigation of this human tragedy by international and Israeli agencies. More attention has gone to this death than pretty much all flat-out atrocities taking place in the Arab world. Why doesn't someone start a microscopic investigation of either the Sbarro Pizza bombing, or attacks on celebrations?

Those aren't even close in terms of egregiousness.

You don't understand why the actions of a western-aligned democracy get a more thorough seeing-to than the actions of a terrorist or terrorist group? For real?

[guyser]

Was this even a case for strict liability? I doubt either Black Dog or Bud even know what strict liability is, and when that standard is used but it is not used in situations where someone deliberately places themselves in harms way and knowing does something negligent and could have prevented the harm. This is not a product liability case. This is not a civilian airline crash. This is not a case where a tire blows out on a bus. This was a foreseeable event of peril that could have been prevented by Corrie.

Best stick to other things and leave strict liability to others.

With the exception of the war zone area and its limitation on this, it can be nothing but a liability loss to the bull dozer driver/owner.

He cant see the front of his dozer? He gets a spotter. No spotter? He is guilty.

You confirm this here....

She knew the bulldozer had limited vision. She could clearly see the driver would not see her. She thought because he could not see her he would just stop. What she did not know was if he even saw her in the first place.

The geniuses like Black Dog and Bud have supposed the bulldozer driver saw her and so should have stopped. The facts show otherwise, that he never saw her. Therein lies the tragedy. Her own stupidity killed her.

Yes and no. She was dumb for putting herself there, however the idiot running the machine knows hi limitations and drove recklessly. No two ways about it.

But hey, do your own experiment. Back a large semi truck up and over some people.

Claim..."Hey I couldnt see them" You'll win of course

[bud]

- is it okay to bulldoze the homes of IDF soldiers' families. how about bulldozing the homes of the bulldozers' family? collective punishment ftw!

- how can a bulldozer driver not see in front of him? is it a design flaw in the vehicle or is it all b.s.?

- how does anyone explain: "... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."?

[Guest American Woman]

But hey, do your own experiment. Back a large semi truck up and over some people.

Claim..."Hey I couldnt see them" You'll win of course

You forgot to add "do it in another country's war zone (I could suggest a few) where the people have repeatedly been told to leave so semi truck driver believes that they have left." I'm sure leaving that out was just an oversight on your part, so happy to help you out.

[bud]

You forgot to add "do it in another country's war zone (I could suggest a few) where the people have repeatedly been told to leave so semi truck driver believes that they have left." I'm sure leaving that out was just an oversight on your part, so happy to help you out.

kangaroo court:

Yesh Din

"... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."

Edited September 7, 2012 by bud

[guyser]

You forgot to add "do it in another country's war zone (I could suggest a few) where the people have repeatedly been told to leave so semi truck driver believes that they have left." I'm sure leaving that out was just an oversight on your part, so happy to help you out.

No, it was part and parcel of my post.

Even with that, if chargeable then he would be held liable.

[Guest American Woman]

kangaroo court:

Yesh Din

"... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."

So you can't deny or refute the differences between the two situations, eh? - because what you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[Guest American Woman]

No, it was part and parcel of my post.

Even with that, if chargeable then he would be held liable.

He wasn't charged, though. So what makes you think it was chargeable? Furthermore, not everyone "charged" is found guilty.

[bud]

So you can't deny or refute the differences between the two situations, eh? - because what you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

what i posted is that the israeli so-called justice system in the occupied territories is a sham. israeli and international human rights organizations and the u.s. government all agree that the investigation into corrie's death lacked transparency and credibility, which is what the judge in the case relied on.

[guyser]

He wasn't charged, though. So what makes you think it was chargeable? Furthermore, not everyone "charged" is found guilty.

All true but the gist was to refute a silly assertion that strict liability was not known by another poster.

The charges if they were to come (and they wont), would be a virtual slam dunk. Run something over and you are done.

[Guest American Woman]

All true but the gist was to refute a silly assertion that strict liability was not known by another poster.

The charges if they were to come (and they wont), would be a virtual slam dunk. Run something over and you are done.

No, it's not a slam dunk. Sometimes the person who was run over is found to have behaved negligently. In other words, "charged with" and "guilty" are not synonymous.

[guyser]

No, it's not a slam dunk.

Sorry AW, in this case it would be.

I deal with liability cases daily, this one would be a slam dunk (apart from the war zone implications)

Sometimes the person who was run over is found to have behaved negligently. In other words, "charged with" and "guilty" are not synonymous.

Only if they threw themselves under and even at that, most cases would apply a degree of liability to the operator, a degree (percentage) to the 'throwee'

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry AW, in this case it would be.

I'm sorry, but that's only your opinion, which wouldn't take the place of a trial if such a charge were made.

I deal with liability cases daily, this one would be a slam dunk (apart from the war zone implications)

The "war zone" implications are a biggie, but I know of a tragic case where a local teen was 'playing chicken' with a semi on his bike, and he got too close and was sucked under and killed. The driver wasn't held accountable, nor should he have been, IMO. Sometimes, by negligence or the decision to assumes a risk, one's decisions and actions play into the outcome.

Only if they threw themselves under and even at that, most cases would apply a degree of liability to the operator, a degree (percentage) to the 'throwee'

Again, you cannot speak for every situation. It's why we have courts and trials.

[guyser]

I'm sorry, but that's only your opinion, which wouldn't take the place of a trial if such a charge were made.

True but as a liability expert, I know what I speak. I get paid for my opinion , and mu opinion is this, slam dunk loss is what id say to my client the bulldozer owner.

The "war zone" implications are a biggie, but I know of a tragic case where a local teen was 'playing chicken' with a semi on his bike, and he got too close and was sucked under and killed. The driver wasn't held accountable, nor should he have been, IMO. Sometimes, by negligence or the decision to assumes a risk, one's decisions and actions play into the outcome.

Not even slightly comparable.

Bulldozer + blind spot=total disregard for person ...

vs

kid on bike + sucked under and kiled = Not guilty since physics pulled him under .

It boils down to what a reasonable and prudent person should do in the particular situation.

Dozer operator knows to have a lookout.

Truck driver is on marked highway in his lane and can affect the physics of his truck about as well as he can stop the rain.

Again, you cannot speak for every situation. It's why we have courts and trials.

I know, but I also deal with these types of things on an almost daily basis.

Edited September 7, 2012 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

True but as a liability expert, I know what I speak. I get paid for my opinion , and mu opinion is this, slam dunk loss is what id say to my client the bulldozer owner.

Many "experts" lose court cases. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what you'd say to your client doesn't mean any more legally than what lawyers on opposing sides say to theirs if a case goes to trial. Furthermore, experts often disagree, and both sides of a law suit will have experts speaking of the rightness of their client, both sides believing that they are right.

Not even slightly comparable.

Bulldozer + blind spot=total disregard for person ...

vs

kid on bike + sucked under and kiled = Not guilty since physics pulled him under .

His actions, his decision to play chicken, is what resulted in his being pulled under. Corrie's actions, her decision to be where she was in spite of the warnings, in spite of the existence of blind spots, is ultimately why she died. She in effect chose to play chicken with the bulldozer.

I know, but I also deal with these types of things on an almost daily basis.

Not in a war zone you don't, and I know that you've qualified that, but quite frankly, in spite of what you deal with every day, you can't "know" the outcome of every case/situation.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[guyser]

Many "experts" lose court cases. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what you'd say to your client doesn't mean any more legally than what lawyers on opposing sides say to theirs if a case goes to trial. Furthermore, experts often disagree, and both sides of a law suit will have experts speaking of the rightness of their client, both sides believing that they are right.

Again, all true.

But then again, I can assure you with 100% conviction exactly how this one would play out. Accidents on construction sites where someone gets run over is de facto guilt.

His actions, his decision to play chicken, is what resulted in his being pulled under.

No it did not. Physics pulled him under.

He could have been pulled under by merely being on the dividing line in which case his actions are not the end result. So likely some culpability.

Stupid games get stupid results, dont get me wrong, the kid was an idiot.

Corrie's actions, her decision to be where she was in spite of the warnings, in spite of the existence of blind spots, is ultimately why she died. She in effect chose to play chicken with the bulldozer.

Absent a war zone, the court would concentrate on "is there a blind spot and what did you do to mitigate it?"

Answer? Nothing.

Uh oh...

Edited September 7, 2012 by guyser

[jbg]

Sorry AW, in this case it would be.

I deal with liability cases daily, this one would be a slam dunk (apart from the war zone implications)

Only if they threw themselves under and even at that, most cases would apply a degree of liability to the operator, a degree (percentage) to the 'throwee'

Are you saying that if someone runs out onto the 401 at an hour when traffic is flying can hold a motorist that strikes him liable? Particularly if he was intending to interfere with the highway's normal operation?

[guyser]

Are you saying that if someone runs out onto the 401 at an hour when traffic is flying can hold a motorist that strikes him liable? Particularly if he was intending to interfere with the highway's normal operation?

No I am not. That is a entirely different scenario.

But what I can say is that there will be some liability ascribed the motorist under the insurance agreements.

[bleeding heart]

Bleeding Heart I will explain./

You have repeatedly advocated on Bud's behalf. As well you made it clear in another thread about Israel arming nukes, thread 27 to be exact, last paragraph that you will criticize "Western Democracy" terrorism but not be so quick to do the same with others. You said that not I.

I don't know what to what "thread 27" refers, I'm afraid.

As to my point, I think it's a slight misreading: I have said repeatedly that a moral posiiton is more meaningful when we condemn the terrorist actions of our own states and our allies than if we criticize the terrorist actions of others, especially official enemies.

That's not to say that their terrorism isn't real, or doesn't deserve condemnation; only that, in a democratic society, speaking out against our own bad behaviour has the reasonable chance of success; condemning others has less rational expectations of good effect.

Edited September 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Absent a war zone, the court would concentrate on "is there a blind spot and what did you do to mitigate it?"

Answer? Nothing.

Uh oh...

They didn't "do nothing." They warned the protesters repeatedly to get out. If people are repeatedly warned of a danger and refuse to heed the warning, then they ultimately have to take responsibility for the consequences of their choice.

Edited September 7, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

They didn't "do nothing." They warned the protesters repeatedly to get out. If people are repeatedly warned of a danger and refuse to heed the warning, then they are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their choice.

Someimtes we wish that were true.

In a case like this it would not be anywhere near that.

The protestors exist and are interfering, ergo the operator stops work and gets the sight cleared. He didnt (in this imginary case)and suffers the consequences of a court case.

The problem existed before he fired up the dozer. He drove the dozer with reckless endagerment and ran over someone.

You own a gun, you warn all those protestors standing down range near the targets that you are about to shoot.

You warn them again and again.....

and now you fire and kill someone.

Whats going to happen to you?

[Guest American Woman]

Someimtes we wish that were true.

In a case like this it would not be anywhere near that.

The protestors exist and are interfering, ergo the operator stops work and gets the sight cleared. He didnt (in this imginary case)and suffers the consequences of a court case.

The problem existed before he fired up the dozer. He drove the dozer with reckless endagerment and ran over someone.

How do we know what the exact circumstances were? How do we know that the area he was bulldozing wasn't clear when he started forward and then Corrie ran in front of the bulldozer, expecting him to stop? Only he couldn't see her.

I have read a bit about blind spots and work fatalities since starting our exchange, and such accidents do happen, and I haven't found anything to suggest that the drivers of all the vehicles were charged, much less found guilty of murder or manslaughter. As I said, it depends on the circumstances.

Rachel Corrie had no business being where she was and she knew that there were risks involved. You seem to gloss over that fact as if people knowingly, deliberately placing themselves in harm's way have no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

You own a gun, you warn all those protestors standing down range near the targets that you are about to shoot.

You warn them again and again.....

and now you fire and kill someone.

Whats going to happen to you?

If I were on a shooting range* with demonstrators protesting me, and I thought they were all off to the side where they would be out of my range, and someone from said demonstration ran and stood behind my target unbeknownst to me, outside of my view, behind a target that they knew I was shooting at, I wouldn't think I would be guilty of murder - or manslaughter.

I have a right to be on the shooting range. Other people on the shooting range have an obligation to be knowledgeable of the risks of being on a shooting range and act accordingly.

Sometimes a tragic accident is just that - a tragic accident - especially in a volatile situation. I would say that under the circumstances, one has as much an obligation to take steps to ensure their own safety as the next person does.

*Not that I would ever be on a shooting range.

[GostHacked]

Based on these photos, i'll conclude that dozer driver did see her.

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=21404

The dozer has visibility, she was wearing a bright orange jacket. With a bullhorn.

[Guest American Woman]

Based on these photos, i'll conclude that dozer driver did see her.

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=21404

The dozer has visibility, she was wearing a bright orange jacket. With a bullhorn.

Those pictures are all from different settings. She doesn't have a bright orange jacket on in the bottom photo. Furthermore, the pictures weren't taken from inside the bulldozer, so you have no idea what the driver could see. And one last thing. What color she has on is of no relevance regarding a "blind spot."

Edited to add link - the photos have been debunked.

Edited September 7, 2012 by American Woman