I don't give a fuck what the cause is or about.

Fucking with uninvolved peoples livelihoods just looking to get to work, get home, go about their
daily business, is no way to win hearts and minds.

Sorry that the struggle for equality and justice is such an inconvenience.

Reminds me of people complaining about traffic blocks at Occupy. And the 13 year old girl who got arrested.

or entrances to businesses, etc. Martin Luther King specifically requested that protesters wear their Sunday best, behave themselves and march on the side of the road or the sidewalk yielding to the right of way and in an orderly fashion specifically to not give any reason for public complaint. And it worked.

Unrest doesn't win public support and does turn public support against you that otherwise would have been with you.

was a man of God and a great leader. He was a good shepherd. I don't see any leaders like him today.

King was one in a gazillion. We so need someone even a fraction like him now. If only he could have been cloned several dozen times.

I cant support blocking major streets or highways....

I just heard that the Grand Jury is not going to reconven until Monday.

are greater assholes

The way people drive these days, you're going to get killed. All it takes is one driver looking at their phone and *SPLAT*.

Stay on the sidewalk.

There was a group of people behind the pole that could have easily been hit. It looks like the air bag deployed, so they were traveling at a good speed.

Same as jaywalkers or does the responsibility of the person increase because of their intent to block traffic?

Very few of the protesters live there.

I can see their point if they are obstructing the very people they came there to help.

Apparently a car drove on the wrong side of the street to go around the protestors and the car going the other way swerved to avoid the wrong way car and crashed in to the pole.

The car that drove on the wrong side of the street was obviously the cause of the accident, not the protestors.

Apart from questioning the credibility of a one of the protesters who may be at least partially at fault denying any responsibility, if the protesters were in fact marching, and therefore blocking, the road without an appropriate permit, thereby necessitating the one car alter lanes to avoid them, and subsequent swerve by the second car, the protesters' actions may be one of the proximate causes of the accident, although not solely responsible.

As Missouri appears to be a pure comparative negligence state, the protesters could certainly be found partially liable for the accident, assuming the driver who suffered damages insurance carrier wishes to pursue the matter.

Did the protesters wait for the police to provide identification and give their witness statements. If not, since they have been captured on camera, they should be easily identified and may be in trouble apart from any civil liability for the accident.

That is where you will see the protesters walking with traffic on the right-hand side of the street. At about the 18.50 minute mark, you don't see, but will hear the accident which occurred on the other side of the street. The camera didn't catch it because the marchers were not on that side.

That livestream video ends w/people talking among themselves regarding how it happened. They were saying that a white or silver Ford Focus with temporary plates pushed the other car into the pole and then took off. The video ends while they are standing around the car waiting for police.

You can then scroll up to the 3rd video. That is the aftermath where the protesters are mingling around the car, waiting for the police to arrive. Presumably, the occupants of the car involved are mingling w/them, because no one is in it when the police finally arrive. For whatever reason (?) it takes the police 25 minutes to respond to the accident.

Right wing social media sources have a bizarrely different account from what I saw on those videos.

Here they are. Again, just scroll to the 4rth one down to about the 18.00 minute mark. The 3rd one down shows the aftermath.
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/CG

Cars were driving on the wrong side of the street to get around which makes it much more dangerous for everybody involved.

But that may have happened, I don't know. I didn't watch all of the posted live stream videos.

It doesn't appear to be the case for the moments surrounding the time when the car hit the pole, though. Which happens to be the subject matter of this OP. I urge people to watch what I saw of moments when the car hit the pole, and tell me if I am wrong. My first post in this thread explains what portion of the video(s) one can find it in.

As far as the protesters being in the road; they probably shouldn't have been doing that. But I thought we were talking about the car accident here...

but it looks to me as if they were attempting to cross the street at a crosswalk at the time of the accident. Not willfully "blocking" traffic as has been asserted.

I watched it several times, therefore noticed that the group headed out too early since the light was still green (for traffic). But that, while a dumb thing to do (and possibly deserving of a ticket) is not uncommon. I see it all the time whenever in Manhattan. One, or several people start walking across the street too early, and everyone just follows.

Drivers should always beware of pedestrians in crosswalk locations.

The bottom line undeniable fact is that the driver of Car A cut off Car B in their haste. The driver of Car A is at fault here. It's a wonder they didn't kill somebody.

Here is the video in question.

Car A really had no choice but to swerve to avoid the protestors that were crossing against the light and car A had no time to stop.

However, car A should also have stopped since it was involved in the accident. I wonder if car A is guilty of hit and run even though car A didn't actually hit anything.

Crossing against the light is never a good idea. However, I am not familiar with the particulars of the law in circumstances such as this. I'd be interested to know how someone familiar with Missouri traffic laws would view the incident.

On the other hand, as you rightly point out, Car A should have stopped and faced up to whatever consequences (if any) there might be.

Also, it's always a good idea to be extra cautious while driving in pedestrian crossing areas. Car A seemed to be going a bit fast.

But my original bottom line point remains... I don't think this would amount to a willful blocking of traffic by the protesters, since their intent appears to have been to cross the street.

we were taught that the pedestrian always has the right of way, not the vehicle.

To the extent this accident ever reaches a court, which I highly doubt, and since Missouri is comparative liability state, any or all of the protesters could be found (partially) liable by a jury.

As a practical matter, unless additional facts are discovered, insurance will likely pay for any damages, no lawsuits will be filed, and since no violence or other major disturbances ensued, the protesters will face little more than some bad press.

Next time, however, I would recommend that the protesters get a permit to march and then police be assigned to direct traffic, particularly since a protester or other innocent could be victim or fatality of another accident in similar circumstances.

just because their thoughts differ from yours.

or anywhere else on DU. That's a bullshit accusation. You should edit that out.

The whining stinks.

Three cars involved. No ambulance needed. No DU report.
Last week a moose cause a minor accident by standing in the road. Nobody reported on it anywhere.
Did anybody litter in Ferguson? Or shop lift? Or Jaywalk?

I suppose you want all those jaywalkers to get out of the street. Such criminals. I hope the police can control themselves and not get all Judge Dredd on them like Wilson.

For heaven's sake can we finally stop pretending that his robbing the store moments beforehand had nothing to do with it? It had EVERYTHING to do with it. It was the whole reason why Wilson stopped them a second time after letting them go on their way after the initial stop concerning their walking in the street - not jaywalking.

The only reason to be walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk is to be an obnoxious git forcing drivers to wait on your strolling ass that has no business thwarting traffic and causing unnecessary danger.

Jaywalking is crossing a street between intersections or outside a designated crosswalk. It is illegal in most jurisdictions though outside of big cities it's generally overlooked as long as the pedestrian yields to traffic because designated crosswalks and intersections in close proximity to each other aren't the norm in suburbia... one can walk for miles before coming to an intersection, and even the main roads can go for a mile or more between intersections. In big cities though you may very well be stopped by police for jaywalking or crossing against a light because of the much higher level of danger to pedestrians and drivers especially on most big city streets where available parking is dear in order to cross the street between intersections one would need to step immediately into traffic from between parked cars.

I've seen people many times in Philly attempting to jaywalk or cross against the light when thankfully even strangers have yanked them back on the sidewalk before they got smeared all over the road. You take your life in your hands jaywalking or crossing against a light in big cities, and police will stop you for it if they catch you. Though I've never heard of anyone being arrested for it I have overheard the police "What the hell, do you have a death wish?" lecture more than once.

Interesting you compared shop-lifting (robbery) to littering or jaywalking. Just so happens that Brown committed a robbery just before the incident with Wilson. And his "shop-lifting" (yeah it's just some minor thing like littering or jaywalking... pfffttt) included physically threatening the clerk in the store that tried to stop the robbery which makes his strong-arm robbery a felony.

So when Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson because he realized that Brown fit the description of the person that just robbed the store which one of them had the most interest in not having to confront the other? Brown and Johnson would have known why Wilson stopped them the second time whether he said anything about it or not, and Brown had every reason to not be arrested for a felony robbery seeing as what that would do to his immediate future not to mention the rest of his life. Having to go to prison for a felony rather puts a damper on one's future both short and long term. But we're supposed to believe that Brown who only moments before being stopped by Wilson just physically assaulted a store clerk in order to leave the store with what he'd stolen that it was Wilson for no reason at all attacked Brown as Johnson claimed. Yeah, right.

I'd bet my last dime that it was Brown that assaulted Wilson in the cop car in an attempt to avoid arrest hence why shot/s were fired inside the car and would explain Wilson's minor injuries in which case the shots fired inside the car were justified. As for the shots fired out on the street after Brown was shot once or twice in the police car we still don't know what happened. But we do know that Brown didn't commit some minor "shop-lifting" crime similar to littering or jaywalking and we also know that his strong-arm robbery 10 minutes before he was killed had everything to do with the incident and not some jaywalking or walking in the street nuttery.

He stopped him for jaywalking. The police chief said that the alleged robbery had nothing to do with the shooting. Stop making stuff up. We have no police report from officer wilson saying he stopped Mr. Brown for robbery.

But hey, no agenda on your part. Nice try.

Car B hit a pole trying to avoid car A. Protestors startrd the chain of events.