3 ms·

I think Tesla's entire account sounded like the truth washed with as much bias and bullshit as their legal department could get away with. I'm not trying to exc

by Steko 11y ago

I think Tesla's entire account sounded like the truth washed with as much bias and bullshit as their legal department could get away with. I'm not trying to excuse the actions of the RGJ employees here, they should be prosecuted appropriately for both crimes. > 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 I'd suggest it's more likely that reversing out was required to leave and the security officer moved behind primarily to stop them from leaving. Again it's still illegal to drive over human beings but it can also be a nearly simultaneous thing not necessarily a premeditated and psychotic choice on the part of the driver. > As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. Wait I thought he was on the ground bleeding out from his multiple 2-3" lacerations? Is it also possible that the ATV struck the jeep or drove in front on the jeep and caused the collision because the security wanted to detain them? Perhaps the ATV catching up to a fleeing jeep was not engaging in the safest behavior? > 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. I'm sorry this reminds me too much of dozens of police reports of "driver tried to run over officer, officer forced to use his gun" which is sometimes true but it far too many cases turns out to be complete bullshit. Again I don't want to apologize for the illegal and dangerous actions of the RGJ employees here but (1) this isn't the whole story and (2) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Tesla has their secur-- err "safety" staff heading people off at the pass in ATV's and risking their lives over some illegal photos. It's also possible that my skepticism is misplaced and Tesla is not exaggerating here and RGJ employees engaged in exactly the behavior described.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
>> As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. > Wait I thought he was on the ground bleeding out from his multiple 2-3" lacerations? How about: one officer down, other inside the ATV which was parked, maybe or maybe not blocking off the jeep? > I'm sorry this reminds me too much of dozens of police reports of "driver tried to run over officer, officer forced to use his gun". Except here it's the officers who got hurt. Damage was pretty one-directional. I guess I trust Tesla on this one so far - they have pretty much a perfect record of being honest-to-God and fair, which is quite unusual as companies go. Definitely not trusting the journalists though. Ultimately, we'll see how this plays out in court. Also, I wonder what Elon has to say about it. He also has a track record of being honest, so this would be a good data point.
- Steko 11y ago
  > I guess I trust Tesla on this one so far - Tesla is a party to the incident and has a reason to spin it as far in their favor as possible. Their account also completely omits any mention of the window of the jeep being broken with a rock and the driver's side seat belt being severed so idk why we should just swallow their account on it's face. How about trusting a source that doesn't have a dog in the race? Here's ars technica's writeup: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/tesla-says-reno-journalist-struck-security-guards-on-gigafactory-grounds/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/tesla-says-reno-j... You can read that and see it's a lot more neutral than Tesla's blog post. It reports tesla's side and also info from RGJ's article and supplements that with comments from the sheriff. > they have pretty much a perfect record of being honest-to-God and fair The hero worship is real.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Tesla is a party to the incident and has a reason to spin it as far in their favor as possible. They have, but the reason many people, myself included, trust them is that they didn't follow such reasons in the past. Honesty is being accurate even if you have a reason to spin. > Their account also completely omits any mention of the window of the jeep being broken with a rock and the driver's side seat belt being severed so idk why we should just swallow their account on it's face. That's why I say we'll see how it plays out in court. Facts will (hopefully) be uncovered. I'm not assuming Tesla is definitely 100% right; this may be the case when they start bullshitting like every other company. I'm only trusting they're honest here given that they've been honest before, which is not industry-standard practice. > The hero worship is real. It's not hero worship, it's trusting those who've proven themselves trustworthy.
    - Steko 11y ago
      > it's trusting those who've proven themselves trustworthy. Tesla has a long history of exaggeration and broken promises and describing them as having a 'perfect record of being honest-to-God' borders on the farcial. http://jalopnik.com/what-will-tesla-and-elon-musk-over-promise-next-1672402636 http://jalopnik.com/what-will-tesla-and-elon-musk-over-promi...
Natsu 11y ago
> Wait I thought he was on the ground bleeding out from his multiple 2-3" lacerations? There were at least three people present, the one behind them was there all along, the two in the ATV came later. The person with the lacerations and injured palms was behind the car when, according to Tesla, they accelerated into him. The two people in the ATV were in front of the car. It becomes more difficult to claim the injuries inflicted were accidental when they manage two separate 'accidents' in a small amount of time, but we'll have to see the accident reconstruction to see whose claims hold up. > Again I don't want to apologize for the illegal and dangerous actions of the RGJ employees here but (1) this isn't the whole story and (2) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Tesla has their secur-- err "safety" staff heading people off at the pass in ATV's and risking their lives over some illegal photos. It's also possible that my skepticism is misplaced and Tesla is not exaggerating here and RGJ employees engaged in exactly the behavior described. Wanting to read both accounts is reasonable and fair. RGJ has their own account which you can read here: http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/10/09/rgj-photographer-arrested-after-altercation-withtesla-security-guards/73693850/ http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/10/09/rgj-photographer-ar... While you're right that security should be trained not to do dangerous things like this over simple trespass for this exact reason, the big problem here is that both accounts of the story say that the RGJ journalists hit Tesla employees with a car. That's lethal force. Unless they can show something like being in reasonable fear for their lives (or grievous bodily injury), the driver is in big trouble. Nobody has alleged that the Tesla guards were trying to kill or maim the journalists. There's a mention that a rock was used on a window and a seat belt was cut, but neither side alleges any injury to the journalists or a threat thereof. So it is sort of like when you have someone 'resisting arrest' and only one side is injured. But here, only the cops are injured. I would normally give the injured side the benefit of any doubt when only one side shows injury, but that's only when there's doubt and they can show evidence to overcome that burden. The Tesla guards were injured and they had lethal force used against them. While we should wait to see what new facts come to light, the uncontested parts of the two stories paint spell serious legal trouble for the driver. Neither account disputes that the RGJ driver used lethal force against and caused injury to Tesla security guards in an altercation over claims of trespass. That's worrisome.

by Steko 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

>> As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. > Wait I thought he was on the ground bleeding out from his multiple 2-3" lacerations? How about: one officer down, other inside the ATV which was parked, maybe or maybe not blocking off the jeep? > I'm sorry this reminds me too much of dozens of police reports of "driver tried to run over officer, officer forced to use his gun". Except here it's the officers who got hurt. Damage was pretty one-directional. I guess I trust Tesla on this one so far - they have pretty much a perfect record of being honest-to-God and fair, which is quite unusual as companies go. Definitely not trusting the journalists though. Ultimately, we'll see how this plays out in court. Also, I wonder what Elon has to say about it. He also has a track record of being honest, so this would be a good data point.

Steko 11y ago
> I guess I trust Tesla on this one so far - Tesla is a party to the incident and has a reason to spin it as far in their favor as possible. Their account also completely omits any mention of the window of the jeep being broken with a rock and the driver's side seat belt being severed so idk why we should just swallow their account on it's face. How about trusting a source that doesn't have a dog in the race? Here's ars technica's writeup: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/tesla-says-reno-journalist-struck-security-guards-on-gigafactory-grounds/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/tesla-says-reno-j... You can read that and see it's a lot more neutral than Tesla's blog post. It reports tesla's side and also info from RGJ's article and supplements that with comments from the sheriff. > they have pretty much a perfect record of being honest-to-God and fair The hero worship is real.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Tesla is a party to the incident and has a reason to spin it as far in their favor as possible. They have, but the reason many people, myself included, trust them is that they didn't follow such reasons in the past. Honesty is being accurate even if you have a reason to spin. > Their account also completely omits any mention of the window of the jeep being broken with a rock and the driver's side seat belt being severed so idk why we should just swallow their account on it's face. That's why I say we'll see how it plays out in court. Facts will (hopefully) be uncovered. I'm not assuming Tesla is definitely 100% right; this may be the case when they start bullshitting like every other company. I'm only trusting they're honest here given that they've been honest before, which is not industry-standard practice. > The hero worship is real. It's not hero worship, it's trusting those who've proven themselves trustworthy.
  - Steko 11y ago
    > it's trusting those who've proven themselves trustworthy. Tesla has a long history of exaggeration and broken promises and describing them as having a 'perfect record of being honest-to-God' borders on the farcial. http://jalopnik.com/what-will-tesla-and-elon-musk-over-promise-next-1672402636 http://jalopnik.com/what-will-tesla-and-elon-musk-over-promi...

Natsu 11y ago

> Wait I thought he was on the ground bleeding out from his multiple 2-3" lacerations? There were at least three people present, the one behind them was there all along, the two in the ATV came later. The person with the lacerations and injured palms was behind the car when, according to Tesla, they accelerated into him. The two people in the ATV were in front of the car. It becomes more difficult to claim the injuries inflicted were accidental when they manage two separate 'accidents' in a small amount of time, but we'll have to see the accident reconstruction to see whose claims hold up. > Again I don't want to apologize for the illegal and dangerous actions of the RGJ employees here but (1) this isn't the whole story and (2) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Tesla has their secur-- err "safety" staff heading people off at the pass in ATV's and risking their lives over some illegal photos. It's also possible that my skepticism is misplaced and Tesla is not exaggerating here and RGJ employees engaged in exactly the behavior described. Wanting to read both accounts is reasonable and fair. RGJ has their own account which you can read here: http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/10/09/rgj-photographer-arrested-after-altercation-withtesla-security-guards/73693850/ http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/10/09/rgj-photographer-ar... While you're right that security should be trained not to do dangerous things like this over simple trespass for this exact reason, the big problem here is that both accounts of the story say that the RGJ journalists hit Tesla employees with a car. That's lethal force. Unless they can show something like being in reasonable fear for their lives (or grievous bodily injury), the driver is in big trouble. Nobody has alleged that the Tesla guards were trying to kill or maim the journalists. There's a mention that a rock was used on a window and a seat belt was cut, but neither side alleges any injury to the journalists or a threat thereof. So it is sort of like when you have someone 'resisting arrest' and only one side is injured. But here, only the cops are injured. I would normally give the injured side the benefit of any doubt when only one side shows injury, but that's only when there's doubt and they can show evidence to overcome that burden. The Tesla guards were injured and they had lethal force used against them. While we should wait to see what new facts come to light, the uncontested parts of the two stories paint spell serious legal trouble for the driver. Neither account disputes that the RGJ driver used lethal force against and caused injury to Tesla security guards in an altercation over claims of trespass. That's worrisome.