Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------
> > He stole some food, and tried to speed off. The
> > car was ALREADY MOVING when the dumbshit cop
> > placed himself in front of it. Go study
> momementum
> > and reaction-time. Cars don't automatically
> stop
> > as soon as an obstruction appears.
>
> What ruins your rather poorly crafted argument to
> excuse the driver's actions is the fact that
> eye-witness reports as well as physical evidence
> at the scene prove that it's NOT that the driver
> "couldn't stop in time". It's been proven that he
> NEVER EVEN TRIED.
>
> He not only DID NOT TRY TO HIT THE BRAKES with a
> Cop standing in front of his vehicle, HE
> ACCELERATED AT THE COP. What part of this is
> difficult for you to grasp?
>
> I know that you'd prefer to believe that the
> tragic driver simply couldn't stop the car in time
> because the evil Officer "jumped out in front of
> him" when it was too late to bring the vehicle to
> a complete halt. That doesn't excuse NOT at least
> TRYING to stop the car. It doesn't excuse
> ACCELERATING YOUR RATE OF SPEED toward the Cop,
> and it certainly doesn't excuse SWERVING TOWARD
> THE OFFICER with your vehicle.
>
> One of the people IN the car stated that she
> screamed out, "Oh my GOD! You're going to KILL
> that Cop. STOP!"
>
> When you consider the lack of brakeing, the
> descision to actually accelerate, the act of
> "aiming" at the Cop, and enough time elapsing for
> a passenger inside the car to see what was
> happening, evaluate the situation, and call out
> for the driver to "STOP THE CAR, it doesn't seem
> like quite the innocent, "split second" situation
> that you would like to pretend it was.