urbanMSP

Well, legally, it may or may not matter. But the photos make it look quite different than the initial breathless reports, which suggested somebody madly careening through a crowd of people.

As I said before, it was clearly a bad idea and shame on him. But to the extent that anybody was actually hurt, it certainly appears that they had plenty of opportunities to not get hurt.

Watch the full YouTube video from the helicopter, and it becomes much more clear what happened. This thug motorist intentionally drove into a crowd of protestors, and therefore we can assume that his intent was to inflict bodily harm. Attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and a hate crime.

From the aerial footage the guy wastes no time in driving through the crowd. Not even a pause to him plowing the demonstrators. Apparently he really needed to get home and spend some qt with his mom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiziJBg4Odc

Seeing the video, he was clearly going faster than what the photos suggested.

But to the extent that anybody was actually hurt

The woman was injured.

The most damning for the guy is the video shows there is impromptu traffic control to the side where a stream of cars are being directed around the crowd by some of the protesters. Cars are all leaving in that direction but this driver takes the choice of pushing his vehicle relentlessly through the crowd of people.

The fact he made that choice, I don't think, mitigates that the protesters might have provoked his panic rush into the crowd because they frightened him by mobbing his car and pounded it.

The fact he made that choice, I don't think, mitigates that the protesters might have provoked his panic rush into the crowd because they frightened him by mobbing his car and pounded it.

As far as I can tell, there was no pounding until he accelerated the first time which hit the girl. Watching the multiple video angles, it's clear he purposely antagonized the crowd by slowly plowing into them. The crowd responded non-violently by a few of them getting on top of the hood and laying on it. I'm sure this pissed the driver off even more, potentially scared him (LA riots maybe went through his head, which definitely begs the question of why he'd deliberately drive into them in the first place), which is why he lunged the first time, hitting a girls who had neither crawled on the car nor crowded around him. At THAT point, the crowd get violent, then the driver lurched forward again, hitting a few people who were attacking the car.

Charges "weighed" against guy who ran over a woman on Lake Street.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 54471.html

I'd suggest we all write impact statements to the county attorney, noting how it would make us feel if we were to know that motorists could intentionally run into and injure non-motorists free from repercussion.

This seems like pretty typical journalism language and what happens after a police investigation. Probably no need to write any impact statements here.

Couldn't think of a better thread for this, and this this certainly lighter than full "crime", but SLP's environmental coordinator had a *r*ant published about horrific driving practices that are out of control.

http://sailor.mnsun.com/2015/01/18/what ... hese-days/

What about crosswalks? Who has time to stop for anyone in those things? They should remove them; after all, we are a car-first culture, with little patience for folks walking, jogging or biking on the street. They shouldn’t be on the road anyway – the road is for cars!

I weep to think of how many readers won't realize this is sarcasm.

He's wrong about the protocol for crosswalks, though. You don't have to wait until the person has crossed the entire street. You have to wait until they clear your lane.

Personally, I would prefer the former, as it would make drivers much more aware of how wide their stroads are.

St. Paul woman, 66, dies after being hit by vehicle
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/289822261.html

Even if the driver isn't deemed to be "criminal," the design of this street is criminal.

Thought about posting this link in the Bicycling Designs and Innovations, or Guerrilla Urbanism thread. A cyclist has put up three video camera on his helmet so when he catches drivers doing illegal maneuvers, hitting him, attacking him, he presents the video to law enforcement and has gotten the rogue drivers fined.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rists.html

Bicyclists with helmet cams always seem to get into way more accidents and experience much more abuse than me...

You probably have to be biking more or less all of the time to make that kind of investment worth it.

If you're looking for trouble, you're more likely to find it.

Does that mean a watched pot always boils?

Minneapolis woman gets 15 years for running down man in Uptown
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/291087551.html
"Winbush remains in a coma with a serious brain injury."

Sad.

Putting this out there, could this thread include "parking crime"? Thinking of the current headline parking dispute murders in Chapel Hill...

Another ...

http://www.startribune.com/local/291529131.html
"Authorities have released a sketch of a man suspected of sexually assaulting a 23-year-old woman along Interstate Hwy. 35 south of Duluth late at night last week after the victim stopped to help him with what she thought was a disabled pickup truck."