FBI hits man with car and then cites him for "Walking to create a hazzard".

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: Insane3D
IF you believe the agent driving the car ran over Hatfill's foot on purpose.
So, let me get this straight. I run over someone with my car. If I didn't mean to, it's ok, but if I did it is not? Cool. Sounds like it's time for a drive...there are too many old people walking the streets anyways.
So, if I intentionally put myself(or my foot) into the path of your vehicle the blame would lie with you?
Is it not just as likely Hatfill did this to embarass the FBI as it is likely the FBI agent targetted Hatfill with his car?

Why no independent witness accounts? Or no indepedent verification of injury?

BTW, yes, if you unintentionally (no intoxication, no speeding, no breaking traffic laws) strike someone with your vehicle it's 'ok'. Plenty of pedestrians are killed by cars through thier own fault and the drivers are not charged.

 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
I think it would be a better use of FBI agents for them to try and stop some terrorists from plotting whatever they are planning to do next instead of continuing to harrass this guy.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Perhaps irresponsible.... certainly not reckless endangerment IMHO. Hatfill was jaywalking. Hatfill deserves just as much, if not more, blame for the incident IMHO.
Again, I wonder if he was injured at all. There seems to be no independent verification of this yet.
Yes we don't know.


But to address your point about jay standing (he was standing), the FBI employee ACCELERATED into this pedestrain which was intentional and avoidable and the courts, from what I understand, usually side with the pedestrains in such cases because a pedestrain always has the right of way.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: Insane3D
IF you believe the agent driving the car ran over Hatfill's foot on purpose.
So, let me get this straight. I run over someone with my car. If I didn't mean to, it's ok, but if I did it is not? Cool. Sounds like it's time for a drive...there are too many old people walking the streets anyways.
So, if I intentionally put myself(or my foot) into the path of your vehicle the blame would lie with you?
Is it not just as likely Hatfill did this to embarass the FBI as it is likely the FBI agent targetted Hatfill with his car?

Why no independent witness accounts? Or no indepedent verification of injury?
Ok, let's use your logic. You are standing in front of my vehicle. I am parked, but am ready to leave because I'm late for work. You refuse to move from in front of my car and I can only go forward. If I decide to drive through you, that is ok right? I mean, you were the one in the way right? The severity of the injury is a moot point IMO. If you hit someone with your car, it is generally your fault. I think you are all forgetting this FBI agent's car was not moving when it was approached, he was parked. It's not like he jumped out in front of a moving vehicle, or crossed the street indiscriminately...the vehicle was parked.
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: Insane3D
IF you believe the agent driving the car ran over Hatfill's foot on purpose.
So, let me get this straight. I run over someone with my car. If I didn't mean to, it's ok, but if I did it is not? Cool. Sounds like it's time for a drive...there are too many old people walking the streets anyways.
So, if I intentionally put myself(or my foot) into the path of your vehicle the blame would lie with you?
Is it not just as likely Hatfill did this to embarass the FBI as it is likely the FBI agent targetted Hatfill with his car?

Why no independent witness accounts? Or no indepedent verification of injury?
Ok, let's use your logic. You are standing in front of my vehicle. I am parked, but am ready to leave because I'm late for work. You refuse to move from in front of my car and I can only go forward. If I decide to drive through you, that is ok right? I mean, you were the one in the way right? The severity of the injury is a moot point IMO. If you hit someone with your car, it is generally your fault. I think you are all forgetting this FBI agent's car was not moving when it was approached, he was parked. It's not like he jumped out in front of a moving vehicle, or crossed the street indiscriminately...the vehicle was parked.
It doesn't sound like Hatfill was standing in front of the car. If a person is standing to the side of my parked car YES you can start to drive.
Are you telling me it's illegal to exit a parking space and start driving if there are pedestrians anywhere on the street? If someone is standing to the side of my auto I must wait indefinitely for said person to leave?

Again, no independent witnesses... no independent verification of injuries... how do you know Hatfill didn't step into the path of the car as it was pulling away? Seems just as likely to me.
Like I said, the old 'Ouch you ran over my foot!' gag. :)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,384
11,534
136
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I think it would be a better use of FBI agents for them to try and stop some terrorists from plotting whatever they are planning to do next instead of continuing to harrass this guy.
LOL... yathink? :p Unfortunately, our law enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI, do not operate that way. Why else do you think they want that national database so that they can harrass everybody?
Essentially, their skills in law enforcement lie in 2 key points: (1) we're all guilty of something so it's okay if they get someone convicted of something that they were actually innocent of, and (2) through enough harrassment and coercion we'll all confess.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Again, no independent witnesses... no independent verification of injuries... how do you know Hatfill didn't step into the path of the car as it was pulling away? Seems just as likely to me.
While possible, I think it is highly unlikely. Most people would prefer to not get hit by a car. This guy is not some fruitcake IIRC.

It doesn't sound like Hatfill was standing in front of the car. If a person is standing to the side of my parked car YES you can start to drive.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is more likely than him putting himself in the path of the vehicle to purposely injure himself. Let me ask you this. If you want to take a picture of someone in a car, where would you get a better shot? The front or the side?


Are you telling me it's illegal to exit a parking space and start driving if there are pedestrians anywhere on the street? If someone is standing to the side of my auto I must wait indefinitely for said person to leave?
Now you are oversimplifying things. Of course it is not illegal to drive off when there are pedestrians in the area. However, if you drive out of a parking space at say a mall, and you hit someone that is on the side of your vehicle, that does not make it ok. Generally, it is the driver of the vehicle that has the responsibility to avoid pedestrians, not the other way around. Given how slow the speed of the car likely was since it was leaving from a parked state, it should have been even easier to avoid someone than at normal driving speeds.

Guess we just see things differently on this..

:)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: Insane3D
IF you believe the agent driving the car ran over Hatfill's foot on purpose.
So, let me get this straight. I run over someone with my car. If I didn't mean to, it's ok, but if I did it is not? Cool. Sounds like it's time for a drive...there are too many old people walking the streets anyways.
So, if I intentionally put myself(or my foot) into the path of your vehicle the blame would lie with you?
Is it not just as likely Hatfill did this to embarass the FBI as it is likely the FBI agent targetted Hatfill with his car?

Why no independent witness accounts? Or no indepedent verification of injury?
Ok, let's use your logic. You are standing in front of my vehicle. I am parked, but am ready to leave because I'm late for work. You refuse to move from in front of my car and I can only go forward. If I decide to drive through you, that is ok right? I mean, you were the one in the way right? The severity of the injury is a moot point IMO. If you hit someone with your car, it is generally your fault. I think you are all forgetting this FBI agent's car was not moving when it was approached, he was parked. It's not like he jumped out in front of a moving vehicle, or crossed the street indiscriminately...the vehicle was parked.
I'd give up with these people. These are the same people that believe a written word (DSLModemsDirect) means I just spammed you. You don't have to click on it, you don't have to look at it but somehow the word is still spamming you. One day soon these people will be in prison for flushing the toilet after 11 pm and wonder how did I get in here?



 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Dammit! Stop spamming me!! I don't need a damn DSL modem! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! :disgust:


;) :)

Hehe. :)
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Insane3D
You guys are interesting to say the least. He walked up to a parked car to take a picture of the occupant...perfectly legal. He was not impeding traffic..the car was parked. The individual in the car decides to drive off, and hits him...but it's his fault? Who logic is faulty here? Are you guys really that blind? Oh wait...this is AT..silly me.
One of the rare times I agree with you, Insane3d.

Must be a sign of the apocalypse, or something...
I was wondering when someone who actually understood what the constitution means would come into the thread. Seems all those that posted when I had to leave didn't come back after the people that don't give law enforcement a double standard came into the thread. If anyone in this forum that isn't a cop ran over someone elses foot at the minimum they would be charged with failure to yeild (because pedestrians always have the right-of-way even when breaking the law). Instead the officer gets off without a single charge and the pedestrian is cited. That is a double standard and a very dangerous precedent to set. It's for incidents just like this that prove the FBI should be dismantled.

Hatfield is undoubtably another olympic park bomber (an innocent man targeted because they don't have a clue who did it). Just like the supposed Olympic park bomber they publicly denounced him as the lead suspect and got him fired from his job, they searched his home half a dozen times and questioned him more than a dozen times and just like the supposed olympic park bomber they don't have a shred of substantial evidence to indite him for the crime. And just like the gentleman from Atlanta they will continue to harass him until the real person falls into their laps. And that harrasment apparently includes running over the guy if he tries to take pictures of the agents following him.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY