|
On April 25 2012 05:37 Cutlery wrote:
most of that would not have held in a real court, would it? Witnesses speculating about the intents of someone behind a wheel? If they were sooooo scared of him and his car, why did they put their foot in front of his wheels? Why did they flock to his car? haha... Also the judge allowed hearsay on terrorist charges in his past, didn't he? What a weird thing to do. There's the truth, and there's the truth; but that judge has an IQ of about 87 and wouldn't know the truth eitherway, i mean, hearsay? comeon haha. He was just searching for more ways to nail this guy. Come on. Nothing here made sense at all. Even a 3 year old could tell it made no sense. "Oh mr you can't park here!" WAIT YOU ARE RUNNING OVER MY CHILD. NO, DON'T PARK! WAIT IM SCARED I THINK WE SHOULD STEP CLOSER TO THE CAR WITH THE TEMPORARILY INSANE DRIVER. oh and there is anger!
I don't see how it makes sense to assume every person in the story except the guy and his mother are insane based on the little information we have.
|
On April 25 2012 05:43 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:40 seedfreedom wrote:On April 25 2012 05:39 Madkipz wrote:On April 25 2012 05:33 seedfreedom wrote:On April 25 2012 05:29 Madkipz wrote:On April 25 2012 05:16 SafeAsCheese wrote:On April 24 2012 19:51 Unreliablex wrote:On April 24 2012 16:57 SafeAsCheese wrote:On April 24 2012 16:47 screamingpalm wrote:
Any source for this?
No It's an extremely long pile of horseshit. At best, most of it is false and spun heavily. Must suck to be wrong. I just read this on one of Norways biggest newspapers internettpage, and it disgusted me like fuck. I do not understand how this is possible, at all. The normal thing to do if someone drives in the wrong direction with the car is to tell them to turn around, not to act like inconsiderate idiots. Oh my, I am so sorry. They must never ever have any wrong or biased "facts". I apologize for not trusting almighty Norway. The fact that you can sit there, and doubt the integrity of his mother whom sat next to him when those american witnesses sat in court and basically acted out emotional trauma means a lot to me. Comon: One person got hit on the toe as a result of a scared norwegian flooring his car in reverse, who initially had no intention of hurting anyone and was merely frightened to death by being hit in straight in the face by the leader of an increasingly angry mob. Witness claims: He tried to kill 6 people by backing into them with his car. The mother and the kids are now emotionally damaged and the father punched the student to "disarm" him of his car. because the mother of the accused is definitely the most un-biased person in the room and the evil Americans are only out to get foreigners... also the guy wasnt punched in the face UNTIL HE ALMOST RAN OVER AND KILLED THE MANS WIFE AND KIDS. way to leave out a very crucial detail. Almost is a big deal here, he had no intention of hurting anyone and nobody died. This in no way constitutes to fucking 7.5 years in jail. your right. the almost is what stops this from being manslaughter. doesnt get the guy off the hook. Sounds weird. Everytime you drive by a pedestrian, do you almost kill him? If you, by accident, get one wheel half atop the sidewalk, do you almost kill someone? When kids play in the street and you are driving 2 miles per hour, do you almost kill them? I mean, you are in-fact holding a weapon pretty close to their heads.
i am also not driving the wrong way on a street and refusing to stop and pull over, get some help if i cant handle the situation instead of saying "fuck it i'll just keep going and not worry about who i hit". im also not driving on crowded streets with pedestrians and stay in areas people expect cars to be.
On April 25 2012 05:42 overt wrote:
Depends on state laws, and I don't know Arizona laws, but he probably could've argued that it was self-defense.
this^ the dad would probably get off for self defense, if hes even charged with anything. Again, its about control. Hes in a vehicle and can do significant damage to the people around him. He rolls up the windows he cant get hurt. the dad can give him a punch, but thats about the worst they can do. when your driving you need to be in complete control of your vehicle. I can walk in the middle of the street, through a red light and cars will stop for me. they will honk and shit but not a single one dares to hit me. why? because i can sue the crap out of them. they should be in control while driving, even if i do something wrong. i cant hurt them or their car in any significant way, they can.
|
How do you allow a system like this to actually exist???
|
On April 25 2012 05:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Sounds weird. Everytime you drive by a pedestrian, do you almost kill him? If you, by accident, get one wheel half atop the sidewalk, do you almost kill someone? When kids play in the street and you are driving 2 miles per hour, do you almost kill them? I mean, you are in-fact holding a weapon pretty close to their heads. Is that supposed to be serious?...
Idk, arizona law tell me. Explain it to me. Because his wheel touched the sidewalk, he almost killed 2 kids? How fast could he have driven if he managed to stop on a whim; and why the fuck is his car a weapon -_-
I'm not saying this guy is picture perfect, but 7.5 years for nothing . . . What factual evidence, what motive and what aggravasion and insanity did they base 7.5 friggin years on? Oh right, a witness speculating about the motives of someone they can't see is enough. Silly me.
|
This is complete fucking bullshit.
His car is a few meters away from someones wife and kids, the husband who assumes he was trying to kill his family runs up to his car and PUNCHES him in the face after which the student gets scared and drives away.
If you are surrounded by an angry mob hurling abuse your way and then get punched by one of them you are NOT going to drive safely away from there, for all he knew the mob could've been trying to drag him out of the car to beat him up.
So, one dumb woman who most likely were standing right next to a car with a frightened driver in it had her toes ran over, and then the story adds up to... him getting 7,5 years in jail? As i said, complete fucking bullshit, i cant even believe this is happening in a country whos population again and again refers to their nation as the "Land of Freedom".
|
I´m presently in Norway although not Norwegian. The story is making all the headlines here. If there is another side to the story it is not being presented and I'm pretty sure some of the media outlets would present it, if was there.
Just looks like a mob attacked a guy for making a simple enough mistake, he panicked and the mob attacks him again and again he panicked. I have read about so many travesties of justice from the states that I usually just always side with whoever is on the receiving side.... and I'm automatically right more often than not.
|
On April 25 2012 05:47 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:42 overt wrote:On April 25 2012 05:40 freewareplayer wrote:On April 25 2012 05:33 seedfreedom wrote:On April 25 2012 05:29 Madkipz wrote:On April 25 2012 05:16 SafeAsCheese wrote:On April 24 2012 19:51 Unreliablex wrote:On April 24 2012 16:57 SafeAsCheese wrote:On April 24 2012 16:47 screamingpalm wrote:
Any source for this?
No It's an extremely long pile of horseshit. At best, most of it is false and spun heavily. Must suck to be wrong. I just read this on one of Norways biggest newspapers internettpage, and it disgusted me like fuck. I do not understand how this is possible, at all. The normal thing to do if someone drives in the wrong direction with the car is to tell them to turn around, not to act like inconsiderate idiots. Oh my, I am so sorry. They must never ever have any wrong or biased "facts". I apologize for not trusting almighty Norway. The fact that you can sit there, and doubt the integrity of his mother whom sat next to him when those american witnesses sat in court and basically acted out emotional trauma means a lot to me. Comon: One person got hit on the toe as a result of a scared norwegian flooring his car in reverse, who initially had no intention of hurting anyone and was merely frightened to death by being hit in straight in the face by the leader of an increasingly angry mob. Witness claims: He tried to kill 6 people by backing into them with his car. The mother and the kids are now emotionally damaged and the father punched the student to "disarm" him of his car. because the mother of the accused is definitely the most un-biased person in the room and the evil Americans are only out to get foreigners... also the guy wasnt punched in the face UNTIL HE ALMOST RAN OVER AND KILLED THE MANS WIFE AND KIDS. way to leave out a very crucial detail. Technicly, even if he wouldve ran over the wife and kid, that doesnt give the man the right to assault him. Morally yes, legally no. But then again they werent harmed. Still understandable, but not all right. Anyone knows whether the dad that threw the punch got convicted? Legally he commitated a crime, so they better charge that guy too if the driver gets 7,5 years. Depends on state laws, and I don't know Arizona laws, but he probably could've argued that it was self-defense. Well he couldve argued it but the word " SELF-defense" hardly applies to other people. If someone hurts your family and you retaliate by assaulting the person that braught them harm, but currently isnt doing so any more thats being a vigilante lol. And the family didnt even get hurt....
Like I said, it depends on state-law...
In some states if someone is 'posing a threat' you can inflict bodily harm upon them. If the guy who punched the defendant proved to the law that he acted in self-defense then he wouldn't be charged.
Semi-off topic but there are some seriously fucked up laws in some states. If you're interested do a Google search of Castle doctrine (or just click here). In certain circumstances, in some states, you can actually kill an unarmed person who breaks into your home and not be charged (although it's likely that an investigation will be done).
edit:
And while I would like for more facts to develop as there just seems to be a lot of Norweigan outrage and very few facts, I will say that I do think 7.5 years is too harsh.
|
I just find it really hard to believe that he tried to kill them. I mean if he actually wanted to wouldn't he have easily been able to? It's not like it's hard to hit someone with a car if they are just standing there.
Edit* I just find it kind of funny that he is not allowed to have the handcuffs etc removed while in norway not even Breivik needs to have handcuffs on during trial.
|
On April 25 2012 05:51 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sounds weird. Everytime you drive by a pedestrian, do you almost kill him? If you, by accident, get one wheel half atop the sidewalk, do you almost kill someone? When kids play in the street and you are driving 2 miles per hour, do you almost kill them? I mean, you are in-fact holding a weapon pretty close to their heads. Is that supposed to be serious?... Idk, arizona law tell me. Explain it to me. Because his wheel touched the sidewalk, he almost killed 2 kids? How fast could he have driven if he managed to stop on a whim; and why the fuck is his car a weapon -_- I'm not saying this guy is picture perfect, but 7.5 years for nothing . . .
Well, none of us really know what happened exactly (All this outrage and there is ONE article on this in the WORLD?) but if you know you are in a crowded area (there was a festival apparently going on) deciding to ever just hit the gas in any direction is probably a very very bad idea.
|
Some few people in this topic, deserve, if they ever get sued, to have that prosecution/jury/judge whom they so wholeheartly agree with against them.
|
On April 25 2012 05:49 TheBanana wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:37 Cutlery wrote:
most of that would not have held in a real court, would it? Witnesses speculating about the intents of someone behind a wheel? If they were sooooo scared of him and his car, why did they put their foot in front of his wheels? Why did they flock to his car? haha... Also the judge allowed hearsay on terrorist charges in his past, didn't he? What a weird thing to do. There's the truth, and there's the truth; but that judge has an IQ of about 87 and wouldn't know the truth eitherway, i mean, hearsay? comeon haha. He was just searching for more ways to nail this guy. Come on. Nothing here made sense at all. Even a 3 year old could tell it made no sense. "Oh mr you can't park here!" WAIT YOU ARE RUNNING OVER MY CHILD. NO, DON'T PARK! WAIT IM SCARED I THINK WE SHOULD STEP CLOSER TO THE CAR WITH THE TEMPORARILY INSANE DRIVER. oh and there is anger! I don't see how it makes sense to assume every person in the story except the guy and his mother are insane based on the little information we have.
What little information? What? We saw in court, the guy that assaulted him left and flipped him the bird. His mother cried tears and acted as if the world had ended and her children wont ever recover. SO yes, of all the witnesses. He appears to be the only sane person.
|
On April 25 2012 05:48 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:40 seedfreedom wrote:On April 25 2012 05:39 Madkipz wrote:On April 25 2012 05:33 seedfreedom wrote:On April 25 2012 05:29 Madkipz wrote:On April 25 2012 05:16 SafeAsCheese wrote:On April 24 2012 19:51 Unreliablex wrote:On April 24 2012 16:57 SafeAsCheese wrote:On April 24 2012 16:47 screamingpalm wrote:
Any source for this?
No It's an extremely long pile of horseshit. At best, most of it is false and spun heavily. Must suck to be wrong. I just read this on one of Norways biggest newspapers internettpage, and it disgusted me like fuck. I do not understand how this is possible, at all. The normal thing to do if someone drives in the wrong direction with the car is to tell them to turn around, not to act like inconsiderate idiots. Oh my, I am so sorry. They must never ever have any wrong or biased "facts". I apologize for not trusting almighty Norway. The fact that you can sit there, and doubt the integrity of his mother whom sat next to him when those american witnesses sat in court and basically acted out emotional trauma means a lot to me. Comon: One person got hit on the toe as a result of a scared norwegian flooring his car in reverse, who initially had no intention of hurting anyone and was merely frightened to death by being hit in straight in the face by the leader of an increasingly angry mob. Witness claims: He tried to kill 6 people by backing into them with his car. The mother and the kids are now emotionally damaged and the father punched the student to "disarm" him of his car. because the mother of the accused is definitely the most un-biased person in the room and the evil Americans are only out to get foreigners... also the guy wasnt punched in the face UNTIL HE ALMOST RAN OVER AND KILLED THE MANS WIFE AND KIDS. way to leave out a very crucial detail. Almost is a big deal here, he had no intention of hurting anyone and nobody died. This in no way constitutes to fucking 7.5 years in jail. your right. the almost is what stops this from being manslaughter. doesnt get the guy off the hook. look, im not american, but im also not Norwegian. i dont have patriot blinds for either side but i have to call it as it is. this guy should not be driving and put people in danger. he actually hurt other people. hes in a car, in a place hes not suppose to be driving. they cant hurt him unless he rolls his windows down and lets himself get hurt. they can shake their fist all they want at him but hes the one who should be in control and he lost it. There's no defense. I agree in part, but it sounds stupid when you claim that he should not be driving on the road. Yes it was one-way; still people shouldn't stand in the street even if it is one way.
what im saying is driving is a privileged, not a right. you dont get to drive until you mess up and get in an accident and get your license taken away. they give you a license on the assumption you can drive properly and take it away when they see it was mistake. this guy was not in control of his vehicle and cannot be trusted to handle tough situations while in control of a vehicle. he should not have a license.
|
Idk, arizona law tell me. Explain it to me. Because his wheel touched the sidewalk, he almost killed 2 kids? How fast could he have driven if he managed to stop on a whim; and why the fuck is his car a weapon -_-
Was he convicted of that? Was that the charge he was tried for? Almost killing two kids? No. So, what exactly does your rant have to do with the reality of the case?
|
On April 25 2012 05:38 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:31 Voltaire wrote:On April 25 2012 05:29 overt wrote:On April 25 2012 05:22 Voltaire wrote:On April 25 2012 05:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 25 2012 05:13 Voltaire wrote:
I wonder if the DoJ is going to get involved. I'm sure the Norwegian authorities aren't going to be pleased about this. The DoJ has no standing to get involved unless his civil rights were violated in some way which they weren't... since it is a State and not Federal matter Washington can't do much except shrug its shoulders and I think Arizona's response to any Norwegian government actions will be a trollface. I think the DoJ can make a pretty good case that his civil rights were violated. I think there is a strong argument that the sentence constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." Also, Arizona receives a lot of federal funding (as do all states), so the federal government can easily put pressure on Arizona if it chooses to. I'm not sure you understand how the US justice system works. The federal government almost never gets involved in cases like this. People should really wait for more facts to develop before jumping to conclusions about America's legal system too. Isn't this basically what is happening with Trayvon Martin, though? The DoJ is conducting its own investigation in that case. The Trayvon Martin case is also extremely high profile with groups on either side threatning violence, etc. There are also pretty serious questions as to the integrity of the police investigation. This case, however, has not made a single US news outlett. Kind of a big difference there.
I think this case is going to be getting A LOT more media attention now that the sentence has been dished out. Just look at the way people in this thread are reacting.
|
On April 25 2012 05:54 Roflhaxx wrote:
I just find it really hard to believe that he tried to kill them. I mean if he actually wanted to wouldn't he have easily been able to? It's not like it's hard to hit someone with a car if they are just standing there. It is more than obvious that there are some inbred southerners involved.
I don't know how the situation started but when he was in it I believe he tried to provoke a situation were he later could sue someone. I don't think he actually tried to kill anyone, but that he purposely riled up the people by mimicing that he would.
Since he stuck to playing an innocent victim, he crushed his own trustworthiness in the eyes of the court.
That is my theory.
|
From what the story says, this sounds outrageous. But without any other sources, I have to assume that this is, even if just a little, a biased article. John sounds way too innocent in this story (which he might indeed be), and the community sounds way too violent. That being said, 5 years minimum is more than outrageous. Maybe one person had minor injuries from getting a foot run over, but five years in prison is just stupid.
|
On April 25 2012 05:53 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I´m presently in Norway although not Norwegian. The story is making all the headlines here. If there is another side to the story it is not being presented and I'm pretty sure some of the media outlets would present it, if was there.
Just looks like a mob attacked a guy for making a simple enough mistake, he panicked and the mob attacks him again and again he panicked. I have read about so many travesties of justice from the states that I usually just always side with whoever is on the receiving side.... and I'm automatically right more often than not.
wait what mob? you mean the people trying to enjoy a festival only to have some guy drive up the wrong side of a street? the people who are in more danger than the guy in the car and are probably more worried for their own safety than about trying to cause harm? the people who realized this guy doesnt give a shit and kept on driving even though everyone was trying to get the guy to realize hes not where hes suppose to be?
no that cant possibly be. must be racism. only logical explanation right?
On April 25 2012 05:54 Roflhaxx wrote:
I just find it really hard to believe that he tried to kill them. I mean if he actually wanted to wouldn't he have easily been able to? It's not like it's hard to hit someone with a car if they are just standing there. It is more than obvious that there are some inbred southerners involved.
i want you to look up the us law definition of reckless endangerment. actually i already did it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_endangerment
please note the line where it says the accused need not to act intentionally.
|
On April 25 2012 05:53 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I´m presently in Norway although not Norwegian. The story is making all the headlines here. If there is another side to the story it is not being presented and I'm pretty sure some of the media outlets would present it, if was there.
Just looks like a mob attacked a guy for making a simple enough mistake, he panicked and the mob attacks him again and again he panicked. I have read about so many travesties of justice from the states that I usually just always side with whoever is on the receiving side.... and I'm automatically right more often than not.
I don't know the real story but aren't we long past thinking newspapers always report all sides of a story? This reminds me of a similar case with a swedish woman convicted of murder in the US and all swedish newspaper reported her as a "victim" of the US justice system while either purposefully or incompetently failed to report a non-biased version of the events. It wasn't until the media storm had settled we started to get the full picture (for those that managed to catch the follow up articles far back in the papers) of the story. For that case and maybe for this in question you might think the sentancing is harsh but it's most likely not as one sided as things come across initially.
One of the major reason this is often the case in events like this is that even a lot of newspapers write about a story like this, most of them get their source from the same place, basically just repeating the same limited information over and over again. How many of those newspapers have been there at the court? How many have done research more than reporting the superficial evidence that's out there?
Wait a few days/weeks and I bet you there will be more information about this that doesn't fall into line with everthing written today.
|
On April 25 2012 06:06 seedfreedom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 05:53 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I´m presently in Norway although not Norwegian. The story is making all the headlines here. If there is another side to the story it is not being presented and I'm pretty sure some of the media outlets would present it, if was there.
Just looks like a mob attacked a guy for making a simple enough mistake, he panicked and the mob attacks him again and again he panicked. I have read about so many travesties of justice from the states that I usually just always side with whoever is on the receiving side.... and I'm automatically right more often than not. wait what mob? you mean the people trying to enjoy a festival only to have some guy drive up the wrong side of a street? the people who are in more danger than the guy in the car and are probably more worried for their own safety than about trying to cause harm? the people who realized this guy doesnt give a shit and kept on driving even though everyone was trying to get the guy to realize hes not where hes suppose to be? no that cant possibly be. must be racism. only logical explanation right?
Yes, the best way to tell someone they are driving wrong is to go and punch him in the face..
Edit* @Nihlon, the norwegian newspaper that has been linked to earlier actually has journalists in the court room.
|
On April 25 2012 06:10 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 06:06 seedfreedom wrote:On April 25 2012 05:53 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I´m presently in Norway although not Norwegian. The story is making all the headlines here. If there is another side to the story it is not being presented and I'm pretty sure some of the media outlets would present it, if was there.
Just looks like a mob attacked a guy for making a simple enough mistake, he panicked and the mob attacks him again and again he panicked. I have read about so many travesties of justice from the states that I usually just always side with whoever is on the receiving side.... and I'm automatically right more often than not. wait what mob? you mean the people trying to enjoy a festival only to have some guy drive up the wrong side of a street? the people who are in more danger than the guy in the car and are probably more worried for their own safety than about trying to cause harm? the people who realized this guy doesnt give a shit and kept on driving even though everyone was trying to get the guy to realize hes not where hes suppose to be? no that cant possibly be. must be racism. only logical explanation right? Yes, the best way to tell someone they are driving wrong is to go and punch him in the face..
they yelled at him at first to get him to get out. he wasnt punched until he almost ran over a woman and her kids.
the Norwegian source said it themselves
"John drives slowly but some people still hurl abuse and make threatening gestures towards the car.
When he tried to turn into the Auto Shop where his Volvo was towed, a crowd surrounded the car and his mother panicked and told him to get out of there. He backed up against a curb and got a flat tire. He stopped a few meters away from a hot dog stand. There is a woman and her kids inside the hot dog stand, the car never made any contact with them or the stand. Many of the witnessess thinks this is deadly dangerous driving. "
i know they want to make it look like the guy was being harassed, but it just makes him look less caring about the well being of others. seriously, people are gesturing to your car and yelling at you and your first though is "huh thats weird. let me in no way try to understand why this random group of people are angry and continue on driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
