Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
Use this as a legal argument in a court and tell me how well it plays out. Sure, maybe you could make an argument of contributory negligence when you get sued for her injuries, but the reasoning behind these types of provisions is to prevent people from pulling the old Russian "lay down in the road and get hit for money" angle.
I just think it's funny that a 17 year old girl gets hit at a crosswalk and everyone is jumping on her for not paying attention - which we have absolutely no evidence of.
She wasn't paying attention because she was not looking at the car that just plowed into her? surely this is some of her fault and the man was in his right to get out an yell at her for contributing 50% to the accident....
|
Cappy, what is this, did you get into a competition with a neutron star to see who is the most dense? Because you're f-cking winning.
"I just think it's funny that a 17 year old girl gets hit at a crosswalk and
everyone is jumping on her for not paying attention - which we have absolutely no evidence of."
1. Please
go here and fix this problem.
2. We have a video where she doesn't even flinch. No one is 'jumping on her', we're simply remarking on the
video evidence that there was zero reaction by her whatsoever prior to the moment of impact.
No one, I repeat,
no one is excusing the driver, as evidenced by quotes in this thread stating he's 100% at fault... because he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
The “victim blaming” comments to those raising this are hilarious. Are yall unable to have multiple takeaways from an event?
|
That's the state of online discourse far too often and it's tiring and annoying. Multiple things can be true, having the ability to notice one thing doesn't negate the other.