5 ms·
At least 10 killed after vehicle hits crowd of people in New Orleans
- ReptileMan 2y agoI guess it was one of the new self driving vehicles. It is not as if someone drove that vehicle into the crowd.
- pentaphobe 2y agoSucks that you're getting downvoted - it's an interesting point that the headline appears to blame an inanimate object Does seem like a trend too - not sure it can be attributed to headline brevity
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoIt was a "truck-involved collision"
- CalRobert 2y agoThis is a huge problem with how automobile incidents are reported. "Vehicle hits crowd" is bizarre, considering we don't write "Man injured in knife-related collision" or "bullet strikes CEO". This was a very intentional campaign on the part of car companies to normalize their products about a century ago, and it worked.
- fithisux 2y agoHe opened fire though.
- ReptileMan 2y agoSo it was a military drone /s The media always report those kinds of terrorist act way too passively.
- selimthegrim 2y agoI was a couple blocks from the scene in an office. There were cops on every block even before the incident so we can be sure they tried immediately to stop the vehicle. A key point is that the main barriers at Bourbon and Canal are normally just sawhorses. The bollards on the side just served to narrow traffic. I didn’t see the extra barriers at issue tonight but apparently there were some. e: national news is reporting no steel barricades
- bhouston 2y agoHuh? > Mayor LaToya Cantrell described the incident as a "terrorist attack" but FBI special agent Alethea Duncan later said it is "not a terrorist event", instead saying there have been "improvised explosive devices" found in the area. Running over people and having improvised explosive devices is not a terrorist event?
- not_your_vase 2y ago(grammar nazi mode on) Terrorists usually have a goal (whether good or bad), to extort something from the terrorized person/group. A non-terrorist does does things without expecting much from the victims.
- LaundroMat 2y agoShouldn't that be "vocabulary nazi mode"? :p
- eesmith 2y ago"Terrorist" is a political designation, and does not have such a clear definition. Dylann Roof and Anderson Lee Aldrich were not charged with terrorism. Luigi Mangione was. How does your grammar National Socialist mode distinguish between them?
- not_your_vase 2y agoWhat I wrote is the general understanding of the word, whether you agree with it or not. On who and how it is applied, that's a totally different thing - that is a political designation, if you ask me (especially when it comes to domestic affairs). Though I'd like to believe that in this case, at least early on in the investigation, the feds have contradicted the mayor only to make this distinction before they can say it without guessing - once you call someone a terrorist in an official communication, it's hard to take it back.
- eesmith 2y agoExcept there isn't a good general understanding. Quoting [3] from Wikipedia's entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism : > "The ordinary current use of the word terrorism is much too wide. That is to say, if we list all the different phenomena which are at one time or another described as terrorism in ordinary conversation, or in ordinary newspapers, or by ordinary politicians, we will end up with a huge rag-bag of not very similar items . . The disadvantages of trying to construct an ordinary-language definition based on current usage can be seen, too, in the plethora of conflicting definitions occurring in philosophical and political literature. Thus philosophers for instance disagree about whether or not terrorism is wrong by definition or wrong just as a matter of fact; they disagree about whether terrorism should be defined in terms of its aims, or its methods, or both, or neither; they disagree about whether or not states can perpetrate terrorism; they even disagree about the importance or otherwise of terror for a definition of terrorism." If you're going to be pick at nits, you need to be aware of the nits. Violence used to extort money from a person/group of people is not generally considered terrorism, but your definition says it would be. Violence against combatants is not generally considered terrorism, but your definition says it would be.
- metalman 2y ago[flagged]
- selimthegrim 2y agoThe suspect is dead.
- metalman 2y agoAnd now a "terrorist"...again...officialy?... the fact of the incident is truely horific the acceptance of politisising it while people are fighting for there lives is not ok the naked infighting of different agencys schemantisists, working to get the right "tone" , so that the oportunity isnt missed, makes the whole thing surreal
- selimthegrim 2y agoHe appears to be a American-born Black man, by the way.
- NerdSniper9001 2y ago[dead]