Corrie's death ruled accidental

[guyser]

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 dont know the exacts. None of us do, however no matter how we cut this, the dozer guy will be on the losing end. For one he will have the deep pockets and will be guilty of vicarious liability at the least. (meaning the employer will be found guilty for operations of employee)

Number two, if the area is clear, then Corrie is not around. It is an either or scenario.

She either is clear and well away, or she isnt. If there is some doubt , then he does not move the dozer. It really is that simple

It may not be every time 100%, but I will tell you that it is damn close.

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.

No question it depends.

Most of what you read ( I suspect) is either work fatalaties of co-workers or on roadways with vehicles. Any having to do with negligent accidents,or involving the public found on construction sites will show for the majority that the operator is in the wrong.

Murder has to show intent as does to some degree of manslaughter. I would not think any operator had criminal intent, but if he rins over someone, then certainly negligence is applicable.

Rachel Corrie had no business being where she was and she knew that there were risks involved.

True!

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.

Not true.

Based on what we have deemed the evidence, I stick by my assertion.

RE-cap:

DO (dozer ooperator) knows protestors are present

DO still fires it up and moves it killing her.

Rachel certainly put herself there. But she did not place herself under the tracks, she merely put herself in the position to have it happen. BUt thats where her liability stops frankly.(tho she chould be found partially liable for this, but on the very low end.)

The onus is on the operator at all times

I know the conversations that operators on sites with hazards have.

"So we have these protestors, move em out now"

"We tried , but they keep coming back and jumping in front of the dozer"

"Make sure no one comes back"

But what should have been done is a shut down of the site, or a spotter. The solution to not killing someone lies with the professional operator , not a the member of public.

He has the mandatory obligation to ensure his path is clear Failure to do so results in his losing the lia case.

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.

The charge is immaterial for the discussion, however I assure you will be charged and 99 out of a 100 be found guilty.(likely for negligent discharge of a firearm)

Heres why, you knew a risk was present, you thought it was cleared, and it wasnt. What you thought and what you knew are incongruous.Abd thats where lawyers and courts get all of us.

Again, if laifd out how you say, meaning you knew protestors were present, you knew they were trying to stop the action at the shooting range

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.

Again, all true. But heres the caveat.

You and other shooters signed into the range and signed what you are doing there, accepting all the risks as it were.

But the protestor didnt. He is there to try and shut it down or whatever he is protesting about. The liability then shifts to the operator of the range to either remove the person, or failing that, shut the range down. The owner becomes vicariously liable for your shooting actions. It is why on most ranges a Range Officer or some such authority figure.

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.

Again, all true, at last the latter portion. If we want to stay alive , we need to be aware of all we do , and to not step in front of bulldozers.

But liability is different than you or I wanting to stay alive.

And this may be one most dont like to hear, but ....rarely are there any tragic accidents. Mainly negligent ones,with cars, houses, gun ranges, and construction sites and lots of others.

I do know this, it is 99.99% of all car accidents arent accidents, but negligence.

The ones that come to mind that arent are animal collisions (hitting deer/Moose etc)

[guyser]

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.

Egad!

And he still operated the thing?

Umm....I am more convinced now .

[Guest American Woman]

Egad!

And he still operated the thing?

Umm....I am more convinced now .

You're convinced by photos that were debunked? The photos were taken at different times, different locations, and different bulldozers. Note that Corrie isn't even wearing a bright orange jacket in the last photo.

[guyser]

You're convinced by photos that were debunked? The photos were taken at different times, different locations, and different bulldozers. Note that Corrie isn't even wearing a bright orange jacket in the last photo.

I p[osted that before seeing the debunking .

She is wearing the orange coat, you can see her right arm in the third photo, its orange.

That site you posted seems rather....one side-ish? Off to look

ETA: It appears so.

Edited September 7, 2012 by guyser

[bud]

the pictures weren't taken from inside the bulldozer, so you have no idea what the driver could see.

but you do because the israeli military that investigated itself says so.

thank you hasbara bot. Edited September 7, 2012 by bud

[GostHacked]

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.

That site is suspect to me, but I cannot put my finger on it for some reason. And though the last one claimes is photoshopped, however the shadow is cast by the dozer blade. Not her. And there is a grass mound that is blocking the view of the man's feet.

[Guest American Woman]

I p[osted that before seeing the debunking .

She is wearing the orange coat, you can see her right arm in the third photo, its orange.

I stand corrected. I missed that the first time around.

That site you posted seems rather....one side-ish? Off to look

ETA: It appears so.

As for the site, I only read what it had to say about the photos - which clearly show different times, locations, and bulldozers. I looked, read, and determined for myself.

Here is how CNN first ran the photos, then ran a "captions clarification," then removed the photos: link

The NY Times also originally ran the pictures the way CNN did, and then also ran a correction:

A picture caption on March 17 with an article about an American protester who was crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza referred incorrectly to the bulldozer shown. It was one that the protester, Rachel Corrie, had earlier tried to stop from destroying a Palestinian home. It was not the one that killed her.

[bud]

here is a good article that covers everything from eye-witnesses, to the bulldozer driver's testimony, to international law. the information rips apart the shammed ruling of the israeli court and its apologists. it discusses the pattern of impunity for Israeli military violations against civilians and human rights defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:

link