SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way?
You don't need a time machine when common sense is good enough.
You sound like a victim blamer
The victim wasn't a dog, he/she was a trained professional.
We all know how to reflect on previous events to figure out what went wrong, (read: learning from your mistakes) but that doesn't change or help the fact that it already occurred and as such saying "you shouldn't have been standing there" is not helpful in any way regarding the current situation, and makes you sound like a child.
Doesn't sound to me like you know how to reflect on previous events. Once again, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing its job. If you want to understand these events, you need to be aware of the mistakes that security made here. That may be as far as it goes, or it may indicate that security had done other things wrong as well.
Probably because, as they mentioned, the press had already done that before. Not only that, but RGJ even admitted that it was their employees, mentioning that one of them has been working with them since 1998.
Hindsight is not foresight. You're a security guard and confronting trespassers who happen to have a vehicle with press ID decals. Why assume in the absence of any evidence aside from press decals which might not even belong to a real paper that they are members of the press?
And as we see, it wasn't a good idea to assume that they would be good drivers no matter what rationalization you choose to accept.
Here are the particulars of the Tesla story which you ignore. First, the guard was copying down the license plate. That indicates a relatively close proximity to the vehicle. Second, the injuries were slight. That indicates at the time of impact the vehicle wasn't going very fast. That plus the rest, indicates to me that the guard was behind the vehicle. And it is simply irrelevant to the guard's injuries what was in front of the reporters' vehicle. You shouldn't stand behind a running vehicle.
And yet you pretend that I was arguing something else!
I did not. Read the post.
Anyway, now that I have explained it all -- again -- and pointed out that there is an alternate scenario -- again
Scenarios are completely irrelevant here. You can't slowly back up in a car and hit someone unless they are behind you.
The newspaper did, in fact, publish an article "discussing the particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit".
No, they didn't. That's the point I'm making. Any newspaper could (and several probably did) have written what they did. It's impersonal and doesn't go beyond the basics of the story. Where are the statements from the reporters?
I never implied this was accidental, though it could have started that way. A driver doesn't magically understand everything around them and in this case may not have been aware of the person behind them.
If it was an accident the driver really needs to lose their license.
No. The first dude got hit because the driver backed into him after being caught trespassing.
Are you even thinking here? It is completely irrelevant to the security employee and the injuries he/she received whether the driver was trespassing or not. Standing behind a running car is a bad idea no matter what's going on. It's not magically different just because a crime was occurring.
Even if the security officers *did* stop the car, smash out the window with a rock, and cut the seat belt in order to drag the driver from the vehicle, they were completely within their rights to do so at that point.
Tesla say: "As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee"
You conclude: "the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out"
So the employee was standing somewhere else other than behind the vehicle when it backed up and hit them? You need to think about this some more.
Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?
Why would you assume that a driver who happens to be a member of the press is a perfect driver who will always look behind themselves when they back up? The same measures, namely, not being behind a running vehicle, would protect them from a driver who is not paying attention as one with hostile intentions.
Why would you assume that the presence of press decals is proof that they're in the press?
...and as a soldier you'd have defeated the Viet Cong single handed, as President you'd have ended poverty and the national debt etc etc we get that you think you're awesome and could do better than other people based on no real knowledge of the situation.
Because one has to be this AWESOME in order to figure out that standing behind a car which is pulling out is a bad idea.
While that is a fair point... Considering that both the people and the vehicle were marked as press and the security guards knew who they were, tells me that you also wouldn't expect such a thing.
I know that I would not expect reporters from the local newspaper with press-badges and a press-marked vehicle to assault me.
And why would my expectations justify me standing behind this vehicle? Hint: the first dude got hit because he was in the way. Even if everything was on the level, that could still happen just because the driver didn't look.
You can blame "physics", but they're not going to arrest "physics" for hitting those people.
And you can blame "drivers", but that doesn't keep people from getting injured by motor vehicles. Issues of blame and law are separate from how to avoid getting injured in the first place. Just because someone is breaking the law doesn't mean that you have to get injured in the process.
And yet RGJ discussed it in the form of publishing their own article which, by and large, corroborates the story Tesla tells. In fact, they go one step further than Tesla's story, which mentioned the Sheriff arresting their photographer, and actually quote the Sheriff commenting negatively about their photographer.
Note that we don't actually hear the story from the reporters' perspective.
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.
Well, buttercup, sometimes bad things happen to you through no fault of your own. But you can respond to those bad things in ways that makes them better or worse. Your choice.
As to your example of jaywalking. You can dart out in front of an 18 wheeler or you can decide not to. One choice will turn you into roadkill. The other won't.
Finally, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing their job. Their job didn't require them to stand in the way of someone playing bumper cars. It doesn't matter how illegal the action was. They could have acted in a way that made it hurt less for themselves.
Hint: when panicky people are trying to drive away, you may not be able to get in a good place to get a safe picture of their front license plate. And even if there's a bit more space and mobility to see the rear license plate, it helps to get close enough so your own hand shaking doesn't blur the photograph into uselessness, especially with a modest cell phone camera in poor lighting.
But hey, you just wave your wand and say "trunkium leviosum" to hold up the end of rhe car 3 feet off the ground so you can get a *really good* shot of the license plate.
Ok, then you don't get the license plate and don't get run over. If you're taking a bullet just to get a plate number, then you're doing it wrong.
Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.
It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit. Tesla could say more because they sound like they're on considerably stronger legal grounds (their guards sound like they committed some errors, but aside from being in the way, not to an extent to materially affect the actions of the driver who was hitting things).
But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.
Agreed. It's also supporting evidence that you were there and aware. "See judge, I copied the license plate down while speaking with the driver."
Cameras do not always capture plates well. This was security soon their job.
If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.
Tesla's security strikes me as being in the same boat as I was. They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property. The request to stay for police and to record the car's license plate was as far as they should have gone.
It sounds like multiple parties were at fault. There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because those should have been nowhere near the reporters' vehicle or path of egress.
Let's go over the Tesla blog entry in more detail:
The two RGJ employees and the Tesla employee were then met at the Jeep by a second safety manager at the Gigafactory. The two Gigafactory safety managers asked the RGJ employees to wait before departing, as security management and the Sheriffâ(TM)s Department were en route to the scene. Disregarding this request, the RGJ employees entered the Jeep. As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee, knocking him over, causing him to sustain a blow to the left hip, an approximate 2â bleeding laceration to his right forearm, a 3â bleeding laceration to his upper arm, and scrapes on both palms.
As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. When one of the safety managers dismounted the ATV and approached the Jeep, the driver of the Jeep accelerated into him, striking him in the waist.
So here's what I see right away:
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.
2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell.
3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb.
4) If the driver had intended to hurt someone, the injuries (the only damage from the vehicle described) would probably have been a lot more severe and likely the Sheriff's Department would have arrested the driver on a charge of assault and battery or even attempted murder rather than just assault. They may still do that, but the blog indicates a lesser charge was selected for some reason.
As I said earlier, we'll just have to see when the actual evidence comes out. I don't agree that we have reports from both sides. The reporters' stories are absent.
You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.
And maybe they are. I don't see that mentioned in the currently linked stories.
I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them.
There may have been more than one security guard involved.
the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.
I don't buy that here since even with the facts we know, the event could have happened in numerous ways. There seems to be a reasonable case that the reporters were committing trespassing, but that is not a felony.
We'll just have to see what happened. It could have been a straight forward case of assault and battery by the driver with the broken window and cut seat belt either not happening or done by the reporters afterward. Or it could be that a security guard assaulted the reporters first who then attempted to flee being unaware of a second guard behind the vehicle. Evidence on the scene should quickly narrow down who did what.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, dont blame the victim
I'm blaming the victim for what they did wrong. I'm not blaming them for the actions of the driver.
SO, what you're actually saying is, these security guards should have used a time machine to go back seconds before the vehicle impact, and warned themselves to get out of the way?
You don't need a time machine when common sense is good enough.
You sound like a victim blamer
The victim wasn't a dog, he/she was a trained professional.
We all know how to reflect on previous events to figure out what went wrong, (read: learning from your mistakes) but that doesn't change or help the fact that it already occurred and as such saying "you shouldn't have been standing there" is not helpful in any way regarding the current situation, and makes you sound like a child.
Doesn't sound to me like you know how to reflect on previous events. Once again, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing its job. If you want to understand these events, you need to be aware of the mistakes that security made here. That may be as far as it goes, or it may indicate that security had done other things wrong as well.
Probably because, as they mentioned, the press had already done that before. Not only that, but RGJ even admitted that it was their employees, mentioning that one of them has been working with them since 1998.
Hindsight is not foresight. You're a security guard and confronting trespassers who happen to have a vehicle with press ID decals. Why assume in the absence of any evidence aside from press decals which might not even belong to a real paper that they are members of the press?
And as we see, it wasn't a good idea to assume that they would be good drivers no matter what rationalization you choose to accept.
And yet you pretend that I was arguing something else!
I did not. Read the post.
Anyway, now that I have explained it all -- again -- and pointed out that there is an alternate scenario -- again
Scenarios are completely irrelevant here. You can't slowly back up in a car and hit someone unless they are behind you.
The newspaper did, in fact, publish an article "discussing the particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit".
No, they didn't. That's the point I'm making. Any newspaper could (and several probably did) have written what they did. It's impersonal and doesn't go beyond the basics of the story. Where are the statements from the reporters?
If it was an accident the driver really needs to lose their license.
Sure.
No. The first dude got hit because the driver backed into him after being caught trespassing.
Are you even thinking here? It is completely irrelevant to the security employee and the injuries he/she received whether the driver was trespassing or not. Standing behind a running car is a bad idea no matter what's going on. It's not magically different just because a crime was occurring.
Even if the security officers *did* stop the car, smash out the window with a rock, and cut the seat belt in order to drag the driver from the vehicle, they were completely within their rights to do so at that point.
For a trespass misdemeanor? No way.
Tesla say: "As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee"
You conclude: "the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out"
So the employee was standing somewhere else other than behind the vehicle when it backed up and hit them? You need to think about this some more.
It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit.
The main reason one should never flee a store when being detained for shoplifting is simple logistics for the accused.
Unless, of course, you won't get caught as a result.
Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?
Why would you assume that a driver who happens to be a member of the press is a perfect driver who will always look behind themselves when they back up? The same measures, namely, not being behind a running vehicle, would protect them from a driver who is not paying attention as one with hostile intentions.
Why would you assume that the presence of press decals is proof that they're in the press?
...and as a soldier you'd have defeated the Viet Cong single handed, as President you'd have ended poverty and the national debt etc etc we get that you think you're awesome and could do better than other people based on no real knowledge of the situation.
Because one has to be this AWESOME in order to figure out that standing behind a car which is pulling out is a bad idea.
While that is a fair point... Considering that both the people and the vehicle were marked as press and the security guards knew who they were, tells me that you also wouldn't expect such a thing.
I know that I would not expect reporters from the local newspaper with press-badges and a press-marked vehicle to assault me.
And why would my expectations justify me standing behind this vehicle? Hint: the first dude got hit because he was in the way. Even if everything was on the level, that could still happen just because the driver didn't look.
It doesn't matter. All it boils down is you hit someone with a car.
It matters a great deal to the people who got hit by the car.
You can blame "physics", but they're not going to arrest "physics" for hitting those people.
And you can blame "drivers", but that doesn't keep people from getting injured by motor vehicles. Issues of blame and law are separate from how to avoid getting injured in the first place. Just because someone is breaking the law doesn't mean that you have to get injured in the process.
And yet RGJ discussed it in the form of publishing their own article which, by and large, corroborates the story Tesla tells. In fact, they go one step further than Tesla's story, which mentioned the Sheriff arresting their photographer, and actually quote the Sheriff commenting negatively about their photographer.
Note that we don't actually hear the story from the reporters' perspective.
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.
Well, buttercup, sometimes bad things happen to you through no fault of your own. But you can respond to those bad things in ways that makes them better or worse. Your choice.
As to your example of jaywalking. You can dart out in front of an 18 wheeler or you can decide not to. One choice will turn you into roadkill. The other won't.
Finally, I was rebutting the claim that security was doing their job. Their job didn't require them to stand in the way of someone playing bumper cars. It doesn't matter how illegal the action was. They could have acted in a way that made it hurt less for themselves.
Wasn't in the blog statement. The blog statement is what Tesla claims happened.
Hint: when panicky people are trying to drive away, you may not be able to get in a good place to get a safe picture of their front license plate. And even if there's a bit more space and mobility to see the rear license plate, it helps to get close enough so your own hand shaking doesn't blur the photograph into uselessness, especially with a modest cell phone camera in poor lighting.
But hey, you just wave your wand and say "trunkium leviosum" to hold up the end of rhe car 3 feet off the ground so you can get a *really good* shot of the license plate.
Ok, then you don't get the license plate and don't get run over. If you're taking a bullet just to get a plate number, then you're doing it wrong.
Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.
It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit. Tesla could say more because they sound like they're on considerably stronger legal grounds (their guards sound like they committed some errors, but aside from being in the way, not to an extent to materially affect the actions of the driver who was hitting things).
But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.
Agreed. It's also supporting evidence that you were there and aware. "See judge, I copied the license plate down while speaking with the driver."
Cameras do not always capture plates well. This was security soon their job.
If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.
Tesla's security strikes me as being in the same boat as I was. They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property. The request to stay for police and to record the car's license plate was as far as they should have gone.
It sounds like multiple parties were at fault. There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because those should have been nowhere near the reporters' vehicle or path of egress.
Let's go over the Tesla blog entry in more detail:
The two RGJ employees and the Tesla employee were then met at the Jeep by a second safety manager at the Gigafactory. The two Gigafactory safety managers asked the RGJ employees to wait before departing, as security management and the Sheriffâ(TM)s Department were en route to the scene. Disregarding this request, the RGJ employees entered the Jeep. As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee, knocking him over, causing him to sustain a blow to the left hip, an approximate 2â bleeding laceration to his right forearm, a 3â bleeding laceration to his upper arm, and scrapes on both palms.
As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. When one of the safety managers dismounted the ATV and approached the Jeep, the driver of the Jeep accelerated into him, striking him in the waist.
So here's what I see right away:
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.
2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell.
3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb.
4) If the driver had intended to hurt someone, the injuries (the only damage from the vehicle described) would probably have been a lot more severe and likely the Sheriff's Department would have arrested the driver on a charge of assault and battery or even attempted murder rather than just assault. They may still do that, but the blog indicates a lesser charge was selected for some reason.
You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.
And maybe they are. I don't see that mentioned in the currently linked stories.
I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them.
There may have been more than one security guard involved.
the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.
I don't buy that here since even with the facts we know, the event could have happened in numerous ways. There seems to be a reasonable case that the reporters were committing trespassing, but that is not a felony.
We'll just have to see what happened. It could have been a straight forward case of assault and battery by the driver with the broken window and cut seat belt either not happening or done by the reporters afterward. Or it could be that a security guard assaulted the reporters first who then attempted to flee being unaware of a second guard behind the vehicle. Evidence on the scene should quickly narrow down who did what.