No that isn't a story at all. Militaries kill people and break things. Its what they do its why you have them. Militaries try and win wars, you don't win by be afraid to shoot anyone because its possible they are not the enemy.
No, I agree with the original poster. The whole point of using smart weapons is that you deliver the force to the target you actually want to destroy. Such a high rate of incorrect targeting indicates you don't have the intelligence (in more ways than one maybe) to properly and effectively use smart weapons and yet choose to use them anyway.
The amount of material required to build such a thing exceeds what's available in a solar system.
As I note elsewhere, a cloud of solar power satellites or mirrors, say, 1-2 million km out from the Sun's center would suffice both for capturing the Sun's complete output and using far less mass. Mercury would have enough mass to cover this.
The math has been done and even rough estimates say that our solar system contains only about 1/100th of the material necessary to construct a full Dyson Sphere (ignoring the many other problems with such a construct - drift of the sphere wrt the star, no known material strong enough to withstand the compressive forces, etc).
Or we could use some of the mass of Mercury to build a cloud of orbiting solar power generators or mirrors for many orders of magnitude less mass. It's still a Dyson sphere (in fact of the form that Freeman Dyson original proposed!).
Well from what I keep hearing the argument is that if we don't focus on climate change now it will be too late to try in the future.
Funny, that's not in the actual research. What's actually being claimed is that if we don't want to experience any serious consequences of global warming, we need to keep temperature increase from 1850 below 2 C. I think that's exaggerated.
While the stuff he stated is true and those are important problems none will lead to the amount of death and extinction as climate change.
Except that high level of death and extinction is not predicted by actual research or modeling either. It's also worth noting here that habitat destruction, invasive species, and overharvesting are the primary causes of species extinction and they will remain so even in the face of high global warming.
You can't contribute to this discussion, if you aren't paying attention.
> that graph is deceptive because of this, this and this
My reply on the "rebuttal". The original analysis was straightforward comparing two temperature data sets to a large number of climate models and then smoothing it out a little with 5 year averaging. The year of 1983 was due to the satellite data starting at the end of 1978 with 1983 being the first year that you could get five year averaging for all of the data sets and models. Then the graph illustrated the change in temperature from that 1983 point to the near present. All of the graphs started at 0C because the graph was illustrating change in temperature from the starting point.
The claim that the graph was "deceptive" was based on advocating things that would break the procedure such as 20 year averaging (when there's only 40 years of data to start with due to the restriction of using satellite data - that longer averaging also introduces 15 more years of lag into the graphs) or offsetting the mean of the computer models by -0.3C which would just have the effect of hiding 0.3C of temperature increases predicted by the models.
That's an interesting conclusion when Sou showed exactly why the graph was deceptive.
You say that like it happened.
You claim it's the natural starting point, and it might be
I didn't say it was "the" natural starting point. There are other ways to interpret this data.
but it also produces incorrect results as demonstrated by Sou
What makes the result incorrect? There's nothing more correct about Sou's assertion that 20 or 30 year averages are better, or that one should shift the graphs around to diminish the change in temperature. They have their pluses and minuses. For example, if you use 20 year averaging, you end up with half the data points (about 15 instead of 30) and an additional 15 year lag in the predictions of the models.
Second, the point of starting all of the graphs at 0 C and measuring change in temperature is to study predictions of temperature increase rather than absolute temperature. How many degree per decade in temperature increase does each model predict? And how does that compare to actual temperature increases over the same time period?
As time goes on, whatever initial deviation from a proper temperature measurement goes on will be swamped by cumulative temperature increase. And it's worth noting here that the models increase in the later years faster than the actual temperature does just like they did in earlier years.
He chose the hottest possible year as the "baseline" to start the predictions from
Which happens to be the fifth year after the beginning of 1979 and the first five year averaging period which can use the data set I already mentioned.
The odds that this is deliberate deception are about 30:1.
Sounds good odds. How about sending a thousand dollars to the Cato Institute and think next time before you make bets you already lost?
The fact that you see unable to see this is just an indication that you are a close minded idiot.
I'd say rather that I actually looked at what was going on. It's not tough to figure out what Spencer was doing.
I think because it has reached that point where it is so obviously true that anything denying it is clearly missing something or accepting something.
Dyson isn't denying it. I'm not denying it.
New heat records every month, more ice loss, the general overview of the world is changing along with all the other destructive ways (growing ocean dead zones, depleted fishing stock..).
Confirmation bias. It's the fad to attribute extreme weather and other problems to climate change. But it's remarkable how little of that has been shown to correlate to global warming or other climate change.
Sou's (debunker) reply to that was "I know! Thats the very reason it is deceitful!" and then re-explains how it is deceitful
No, he didn't. Let's read the paragraph in question because it is instructive:
Perhaps you will explain why you chose a "five year average" at the beginning of the record and not a thirty year average. Perhaps you will explain why, since you did pick a five year average instead of a thirty year average, you picked that particular five year period when UAH was abnormally high such that it distorted the difference (as I showed above) . Why did you pick 1979-2004 rather than, say 2001 to 2005. Why did you move away from your normal baseline of 1981 to 2010?
Notice the host of leading questions. There is no explanation here. Sou then follows up with the ad hominem attack I referred to:
Your deliberate deception works as a talking point with deniers and people who are mathematically challenged (as you can see in the comments). The rest of us are onto your game.
There has been at no time proof of deliberate deception. It is all asserted without evidence.
And aren't you ad hominmening? You just said "Nope" to a solid rebuttal with no justification and said the debunker merely attacks Roy's character when in fact he thoroughly details why Roy is wrong.
Nope. I just didn't bother to provide evidence at that time. As to the criticism, it's pretty clear that he's looking at rate of change starting with 1983, which is the first year that there are five year averages for the UAH lower troposphere statellite data set (it starts in December, 1978 according to Wikipedia).
So if you were going to plot five year averages with the UAH data set, you couldn't start any sooner than 1983. Similarly, if you were just interested in rate of change, starting all of the data sets at 0.0 C baseline would be natural - which was done. That's it. All this bullshit about Spencer's supposed deception ignores that the graphs were constructed in a straightforward way from natural starting points.
I find it telling that you just sucked up this hook, line, and sinker without considering the methodology of Spencer's approach. Now ask yourself why Sou didn't even bother with this basic reasoning that I just did and answer his own questions? And then jumped to the conclusion that Spencer was being deceptive?
In conclusion, Spencer's graph has not been rebutted by Sou.
You may not have noticed this, but it's kind of a hot issue these days.
I don't buy it, especially when all the original poster tried to do was discredit Dyson's opinions on climate change. Sounds more like a tribal thing. Chuck rocks and sticks at the Earth Burner tribe.
Which is why most gun owners should not have guns. If you are more afraid of the "government" than you are of the possible accidental shooting of someone with your legally purchased firearm, then you aren't paying attention.
Paying attention to what? If you screw up with your gun, you endanger the life of at most a few children. If government screws up, it can endanger the lives of 50 million children.
After doing a lot of reading about this man, I have come to this conclusion about his views: Basically he has said "you're {climate scientists} all wrong because I don't like your models and if you try to ask me about specific technical flaws in those models I will defer to my status as a physicist and not a climatologist" So which is it?
You did a lot of reading on Dyson and all you can talk about is his views on climate change? (Or rather all you can do is disparage his views on climate change.) Doesn't sound to me like you really did that reading.
As to the link you find interesting, I notice that Steve Connor, the journalist/editor interrogating Dyson via email, acts an awful lot like a lawyer trying to discredit a witness for the other side. That plus making the exchange public afterward indicates to me that he was grandstanding for the public which is a rather dishonest thing to do. For example:
Sorry you feel that way, I hope we can get back on track. I was only trying to find out where your problem lies with respect to the scientific consensus on global warming. As you know these models are used by large, prestigious science organisations such as Nasa, NOAA and the Met Office, which use them to make pretty accurate predictions about the weather every day. The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming. There is a scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are having a discernible influence on the global climate and I was attempting to find out more precisely why you part company from this consensus.
Notice this is just a series of baseless assertions coupled with several arguments from authority. The whole thing would be wrong, for example, if climate researchers didn't do as thorough a job as they claim they have done or the paleoclimate records are significantly wrong. Dyson replies:
When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener. It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.
Connor then repeats the argument from authority fallacy again.
So I guess my question would be, what if you are wrong? What if all the other scientists connected with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Met Office, NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organisation, and just about every reputable university and institute doing research on climate science, happen to be right? Isn't it a bit risky for me and the rest of the general public to dismiss this vast canon of climate science as just "fuss" about global warming when all I've got to go on is a minority opinion?
A little later. Dyson ends the email conversation when Connor compares climate skeptics to Flat Earthers.
And if all else seems to fail, the final line of argument of the "climate sc
Would you know how to legally perform a citizen's arrest? I've worked as a security guard and I don't. Hence, I would not do it. I'll note here the fact that two security personnel were hit by the reporters' vehicle indicates that they probably did not have the training to do a proper citizen's arrest. And even if they did have such training, they were taking excessive risks.
There are huge dangers to security guards playing cop. Sustaining avoidable injuries, as in this case, is one of those consequences.
Not when the property in question is a factory. For all the security personnel knew the reporters could actually have been disguised thieves, industrial spies or even saboteurs. Trespassers on industrial plants need to be taken in for questioning, not just shooed away.
No, they don't. This isn't Area 51. There are huge liability risks from playing cop. And I have to say, from the behavior of the security personnel involved, that it doesn't sound like they were trained to do citizen's arrest or whatever.
Which you can't possibly know until you've gone through every goddamn screw in the area. Which, of course, is impossible. That's why you need to take them into custody and hope they aren't willing to become martyrs for some retarded cause.
Hope is a pretty shitty thing to go on here. And let us keep in mind that hope got two employees injured and an ATV damaged.
I bet you can sit in on a rape trial and learn all sorts of grisly information that a rape victim would be horrified for you to know. A lot of information is not public information, but trials are pretty open. You will learn a lot about the crime no matter what.
"1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there."
Wrong. It is illegal to hit someone with your car when backing out of a location.
Bad != illegal. If you're standing where you can get hit by a slow moving vehicle, then you are doing something wrong. It may not be illegal, depending on circumstances, but it's definitely a bad idea.
"2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell."
So what if it was? You are not allowed to just hit things with your car because they are in your way.
You are, if you have a reasonable self defense case. I doubt that legal theory will fly here, but there's at least one exception here. And if the driver can convince a judge or jury that they were extremely rattled and confused to the point that they didn't know what they were doing, they probably can get off with a lighter sentence.
"3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb."
Maybe but your still not allowed to hit them with your car.
Why did 8-10 people in this thread assume because I stated these observations, that I felt it was ok for the driver to hit the security guard? Come on, think.
Because just after this post, you posted another reply saying that "physics trumps human law". That sure doesn't sound like something you'd say if you really are just saying that security could have been doing their job better.
Read the thread. And at the end, ask yourself what is more likely to keep you from getting hit by a car: behavior modification laws making it illegal for drivers to hit people with their cars or not being in the way of a moving car?
No one is saying otherwise, so I don't really understand why you felt the need to say this.
Let's review the thread. I observe that the statement made by Tesla indicates the first employee to be struck was behind the vehicle. They state the vehicle was backing up, the employee was recording the license plate in some way, and the employee received rather slight injuries for a car impact as a result. That indicates to me that the security guard was standing behind a running vehicle which is a bad idea no matter what is going on.
In response, this poster says:
On the other hand, you're not permitted to drive into people even if they shouldn't have been where they were standing.
This is a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the injuries that the security guard received as a result of where they were standing whether the driver was engaged in illegal activity or not. Hence, my reply:
Physics trumps human law. The illegality of hitting people with a car didn't stop these people from getting injured. Not being in the way of said car would have stopped these people from getting injured.
Slashdot Mirror
No that isn't a story at all. Militaries kill people and break things. Its what they do its why you have them. Militaries try and win wars, you don't win by be afraid to shoot anyone because its possible they are not the enemy.
No, I agree with the original poster. The whole point of using smart weapons is that you deliver the force to the target you actually want to destroy. Such a high rate of incorrect targeting indicates you don't have the intelligence (in more ways than one maybe) to properly and effectively use smart weapons and yet choose to use them anyway.
Why? Just spin it.
That doesn't work for material near the poles.
The amount of material required to build such a thing exceeds what's available in a solar system.
As I note elsewhere, a cloud of solar power satellites or mirrors, say, 1-2 million km out from the Sun's center would suffice both for capturing the Sun's complete output and using far less mass. Mercury would have enough mass to cover this.
The math has been done and even rough estimates say that our solar system contains only about 1/100th of the material necessary to construct a full Dyson Sphere (ignoring the many other problems with such a construct - drift of the sphere wrt the star, no known material strong enough to withstand the compressive forces, etc).
Or we could use some of the mass of Mercury to build a cloud of orbiting solar power generators or mirrors for many orders of magnitude less mass. It's still a Dyson sphere (in fact of the form that Freeman Dyson original proposed!).
He did not plot against an average of the temperature measurements, he chose a specific year.
The very first year which he could have chosen with the data sets he used.
Well from what I keep hearing the argument is that if we don't focus on climate change now it will be too late to try in the future.
Funny, that's not in the actual research. What's actually being claimed is that if we don't want to experience any serious consequences of global warming, we need to keep temperature increase from 1850 below 2 C. I think that's exaggerated.
While the stuff he stated is true and those are important problems none will lead to the amount of death and extinction as climate change.
Except that high level of death and extinction is not predicted by actual research or modeling either. It's also worth noting here that habitat destruction, invasive species, and overharvesting are the primary causes of species extinction and they will remain so even in the face of high global warming.
You can't contribute to this discussion, if you aren't paying attention.
> that graph is deceptive because of this, this and this
My reply on the "rebuttal". The original analysis was straightforward comparing two temperature data sets to a large number of climate models and then smoothing it out a little with 5 year averaging. The year of 1983 was due to the satellite data starting at the end of 1978 with 1983 being the first year that you could get five year averaging for all of the data sets and models. Then the graph illustrated the change in temperature from that 1983 point to the near present. All of the graphs started at 0C because the graph was illustrating change in temperature from the starting point.
The claim that the graph was "deceptive" was based on advocating things that would break the procedure such as 20 year averaging (when there's only 40 years of data to start with due to the restriction of using satellite data - that longer averaging also introduces 15 more years of lag into the graphs) or offsetting the mean of the computer models by -0.3C which would just have the effect of hiding 0.3C of temperature increases predicted by the models.
That's an interesting conclusion when Sou showed exactly why the graph was deceptive.
You say that like it happened.
You claim it's the natural starting point, and it might be
I didn't say it was "the" natural starting point. There are other ways to interpret this data.
but it also produces incorrect results as demonstrated by Sou
What makes the result incorrect? There's nothing more correct about Sou's assertion that 20 or 30 year averages are better, or that one should shift the graphs around to diminish the change in temperature. They have their pluses and minuses. For example, if you use 20 year averaging, you end up with half the data points (about 15 instead of 30) and an additional 15 year lag in the predictions of the models.
Second, the point of starting all of the graphs at 0 C and measuring change in temperature is to study predictions of temperature increase rather than absolute temperature. How many degree per decade in temperature increase does each model predict? And how does that compare to actual temperature increases over the same time period?
As time goes on, whatever initial deviation from a proper temperature measurement goes on will be swamped by cumulative temperature increase. And it's worth noting here that the models increase in the later years faster than the actual temperature does just like they did in earlier years.
He chose the hottest possible year as the "baseline" to start the predictions from
Which happens to be the fifth year after the beginning of 1979 and the first five year averaging period which can use the data set I already mentioned.
The odds that this is deliberate deception are about 30:1.
Sounds good odds. How about sending a thousand dollars to the Cato Institute and think next time before you make bets you already lost?
The fact that you see unable to see this is just an indication that you are a close minded idiot.
I'd say rather that I actually looked at what was going on. It's not tough to figure out what Spencer was doing.
I think because it has reached that point where it is so obviously true that anything denying it is clearly missing something or accepting something.
Dyson isn't denying it. I'm not denying it.
New heat records every month, more ice loss, the general overview of the world is changing along with all the other destructive ways (growing ocean dead zones, depleted fishing stock..).
Confirmation bias. It's the fad to attribute extreme weather and other problems to climate change. But it's remarkable how little of that has been shown to correlate to global warming or other climate change.
Sou's (debunker) reply to that was "I know! Thats the very reason it is deceitful!" and then re-explains how it is deceitful
No, he didn't. Let's read the paragraph in question because it is instructive:
Perhaps you will explain why you chose a "five year average" at the beginning of the record and not a thirty year average. Perhaps you will explain why, since you did pick a five year average instead of a thirty year average, you picked that particular five year period when UAH was abnormally high such that it distorted the difference (as I showed above) . Why did you pick 1979-2004 rather than, say 2001 to 2005. Why did you move away from your normal baseline of 1981 to 2010?
Notice the host of leading questions. There is no explanation here. Sou then follows up with the ad hominem attack I referred to:
Your deliberate deception works as a talking point with deniers and people who are mathematically challenged (as you can see in the comments). The rest of us are onto your game.
There has been at no time proof of deliberate deception. It is all asserted without evidence.
And aren't you ad hominmening? You just said "Nope" to a solid rebuttal with no justification and said the debunker merely attacks Roy's character when in fact he thoroughly details why Roy is wrong.
Nope. I just didn't bother to provide evidence at that time. As to the criticism, it's pretty clear that he's looking at rate of change starting with 1983, which is the first year that there are five year averages for the UAH lower troposphere statellite data set (it starts in December, 1978 according to Wikipedia).
So if you were going to plot five year averages with the UAH data set, you couldn't start any sooner than 1983. Similarly, if you were just interested in rate of change, starting all of the data sets at 0.0 C baseline would be natural - which was done. That's it. All this bullshit about Spencer's supposed deception ignores that the graphs were constructed in a straightforward way from natural starting points.
I find it telling that you just sucked up this hook, line, and sinker without considering the methodology of Spencer's approach. Now ask yourself why Sou didn't even bother with this basic reasoning that I just did and answer his own questions? And then jumped to the conclusion that Spencer was being deceptive?
In conclusion, Spencer's graph has not been rebutted by Sou.
Paying attention to the fact that the government rarely uses it's firearms compared to the number of citizens who use them.
Don't buy that at all.
That wasn't her subsidy and she couldn't use the subsidy to buy those bed nets.
You may not have noticed this, but it's kind of a hot issue these days.
I don't buy it, especially when all the original poster tried to do was discredit Dyson's opinions on climate change. Sounds more like a tribal thing. Chuck rocks and sticks at the Earth Burner tribe.
And before anyone pulls up the "95% of climate models are wrong graph", that was thoroughly debunked here:
Nope, it remains a valid example. I notice the "debunker" follows up with ad hominem attacks when Roy Spencer defends his work.
Which is why most gun owners should not have guns. If you are more afraid of the "government" than you are of the possible accidental shooting of someone with your legally purchased firearm, then you aren't paying attention.
Paying attention to what? If you screw up with your gun, you endanger the life of at most a few children. If government screws up, it can endanger the lives of 50 million children.
After doing a lot of reading about this man, I have come to this conclusion about his views: Basically he has said "you're {climate scientists} all wrong because I don't like your models and if you try to ask me about specific technical flaws in those models I will defer to my status as a physicist and not a climatologist" So which is it?
You did a lot of reading on Dyson and all you can talk about is his views on climate change? (Or rather all you can do is disparage his views on climate change.) Doesn't sound to me like you really did that reading.
As to the link you find interesting, I notice that Steve Connor, the journalist/editor interrogating Dyson via email, acts an awful lot like a lawyer trying to discredit a witness for the other side. That plus making the exchange public afterward indicates to me that he was grandstanding for the public which is a rather dishonest thing to do. For example:
Sorry you feel that way, I hope we can get back on track. I was only trying to find out where your problem lies with respect to the scientific consensus on global warming. As you know these models are used by large, prestigious science organisations such as Nasa, NOAA and the Met Office, which use them to make pretty accurate predictions about the weather every day. The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming. There is a scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are having a discernible influence on the global climate and I was attempting to find out more precisely why you part company from this consensus.
Notice this is just a series of baseless assertions coupled with several arguments from authority. The whole thing would be wrong, for example, if climate researchers didn't do as thorough a job as they claim they have done or the paleoclimate records are significantly wrong. Dyson replies:
When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener. It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.
Connor then repeats the argument from authority fallacy again.
So I guess my question would be, what if you are wrong? What if all the other scientists connected with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Met Office, NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organisation, and just about every reputable university and institute doing research on climate science, happen to be right? Isn't it a bit risky for me and the rest of the general public to dismiss this vast canon of climate science as just "fuss" about global warming when all I've got to go on is a minority opinion?
A little later. Dyson ends the email conversation when Connor compares climate skeptics to Flat Earthers.
And if all else seems to fail, the final line of argument of the "climate sc
I suppose. There were also two managers there, which would be more likely to know what they were supposed to be doing.
Would you know how to legally perform a citizen's arrest? I've worked as a security guard and I don't. Hence, I would not do it. I'll note here the fact that two security personnel were hit by the reporters' vehicle indicates that they probably did not have the training to do a proper citizen's arrest. And even if they did have such training, they were taking excessive risks.
There are huge dangers to security guards playing cop. Sustaining avoidable injuries, as in this case, is one of those consequences.
Works fine until you shoot someone's grandma with Alzheimer's or some dumb kids looking for a place to get drunk.
Not when the property in question is a factory. For all the security personnel knew the reporters could actually have been disguised thieves, industrial spies or even saboteurs. Trespassers on industrial plants need to be taken in for questioning, not just shooed away.
No, they don't. This isn't Area 51. There are huge liability risks from playing cop. And I have to say, from the behavior of the security personnel involved, that it doesn't sound like they were trained to do citizen's arrest or whatever.
Which you can't possibly know until you've gone through every goddamn screw in the area. Which, of course, is impossible. That's why you need to take them into custody and hope they aren't willing to become martyrs for some retarded cause.
Hope is a pretty shitty thing to go on here. And let us keep in mind that hope got two employees injured and an ATV damaged.
I bet you can sit in on a rape trial and learn all sorts of grisly information that a rape victim would be horrified for you to know. A lot of information is not public information, but trials are pretty open. You will learn a lot about the crime no matter what.
"1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there."
Wrong. It is illegal to hit someone with your car when backing out of a location.
Bad != illegal. If you're standing where you can get hit by a slow moving vehicle, then you are doing something wrong. It may not be illegal, depending on circumstances, but it's definitely a bad idea.
"2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell."
So what if it was? You are not allowed to just hit things with your car because they are in your way.
You are, if you have a reasonable self defense case. I doubt that legal theory will fly here, but there's at least one exception here. And if the driver can convince a judge or jury that they were extremely rattled and confused to the point that they didn't know what they were doing, they probably can get off with a lighter sentence.
"3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb."
Maybe but your still not allowed to hit them with your car.
Why did 8-10 people in this thread assume because I stated these observations, that I felt it was ok for the driver to hit the security guard? Come on, think.
Because just after this post, you posted another reply saying that "physics trumps human law". That sure doesn't sound like something you'd say if you really are just saying that security could have been doing their job better.
Read the thread. And at the end, ask yourself what is more likely to keep you from getting hit by a car: behavior modification laws making it illegal for drivers to hit people with their cars or not being in the way of a moving car?
No one is saying otherwise, so I don't really understand why you felt the need to say this.
Let's review the thread. I observe that the statement made by Tesla indicates the first employee to be struck was behind the vehicle. They state the vehicle was backing up, the employee was recording the license plate in some way, and the employee received rather slight injuries for a car impact as a result. That indicates to me that the security guard was standing behind a running vehicle which is a bad idea no matter what is going on.
In response, this poster says:
On the other hand, you're not permitted to drive into people even if they shouldn't have been where they were standing.
This is a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the injuries that the security guard received as a result of where they were standing whether the driver was engaged in illegal activity or not. Hence, my reply:
Physics trumps human law. The illegality of hitting people with a car didn't stop these people from getting injured. Not being in the way of said car would have stopped these people from getting injured.
Do you understand now?