Diplomatic car runs over crowd in Cairo. (Viewer discretion advised)

[mafia_boy]

It looked to me like it turned and aimed for a group of people to me.

+1. That's what I saw too, it had a clear path and the person veered to the right and accelerated and played human ten pin bowling!

The whole place should be made into a giant parking lot.

That is the most ridiculous and moronic comment I've seen in a long time and the internet should be shut off at the Wisconsin trailer park you must come from. They're having a riot, so let's turn a civilization of more than 4000 years that has provided some of the biggest insights of the ancient world into a parking lot.

This guy is a front runner for the 2011 GTP Darwin Award. 👍

 

[Keef]

I don't understand the vandalizing of the fence after the incident. A few people can make a whole mass of people look like an angry mob.

You're telling me you don't understand why people who just saw a maniac run over twenty people and leave want to destroy everything in sight? You're going to sit down and philosophize about sound money and libertarian mumbo jumbo when you see something as ridiculous as that?

Aren't you one cool-headed son of a gun.

It looked to me like it turned and aimed for a group of people to me.

It very clearly did. There are no barriers in the road, and in fact people were getting out of the road ahead of the van specifically because, you know, there was a van coming. Instead of taking the clear road the van veered right over a curb, onto the sidewalk, and into a crowd of people.

Could have just driven at a constant 20mph...

Even going 5 or ten a group of people wouldn't have done much damage and definitely not flipped it over. Would have given everybody plenty of time to get out of the way.

After seeing something this retarded I'd gladly join the crowd and break into some embassies and royally mess things up.

 

[a6m5]

Another similar incident.

Story I found regarding our youtube video:

The following video was supposedly shot on January 28, 2011. A street in Cairo is full of protesters milling about when all of a sudden a white van speeds down the street literally mowing down people. Without slowing down, it ploughs through the crowd hitting person after person then speeds off into the night.

CNN is now reporting that the van might belong to the United States Embassy. They are stating that 20 such vehicles have been stolen during the protests. The video above is one of three supposedly showing drivers deliberately ramming the vans into demonstrators.

The Daily Mail is saying the U.S. State Department is trying to confirm the information and contain the situation. The vans were definitely not driven by U.S. employees but nevertheless there are rumours floating around about U.S. involvement. A backlash could develop against America and the U.S. wants to make sure it is known they were not involved.

'Obviously, we've seen some of the reaction on YouTube and other forums, which is why we're trying to get out and knock this erroneous story down,' said U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner.

Later, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Egypt issued a joint statement which acknowledged the video of the incident, and said it 'injured dozens in Cairo'.

Mr Toner added: 'Since these vehicles were stolen, we have heard reports of their use in violent and criminal acts.

'If true, we deplore these acts and perpetrators. We are certain that no embassy employees or diplomats were involved.'

Instead of taking the clear road the van veered right over a curb, onto the sidewalk, and into a crowd of people.

The video is crappy, so I could be wrong, but I honestly don't see the van going onto the sidewalk. I see crosswalk(toward the end) covering the route this van took.

I know I keep sounding like I'm taking the side of the driver, but another thing I consider is the viewing angle. It is much easier to see where people are on the road from top of buildings. We also don't know for sure what prompted the driver to take the course he took. Maybe he caught sight of larger crowd from the other way, maybe he swerved from someone with a weapon. Even if the driver was a full on criminal, I just don't see the merit in plowing as many people as he can, risking his own escape by immobilizing the getaway vehicle.

 

[Keef]

The video is crappy, so I could be wrong, but I honestly don't see the van going onto the sidewalk. I see crosswalk(toward the end) covering the route this van took.

Ah, I mistook a center divider for the edge of the sidewalk. What he did was cross over the divider to the other side of the road.

I know I keep sounding like I'm taking the side of the driver, but another thing I consider is the viewing angle. It is much easier to see where people are on the road from top of buildings. We also don't know for sure what prompted the driver to take the course he took. Maybe he caught sight of larger crowd from the other way, maybe he swerved from someone with a weapon. Even if the driver was a full on criminal, I just don't see the merit in plowing as many people as he can, risking his own escape by immobilizing the getaway vehicle.

In the Chevy cargo van I drive at work I enjoy a seating position higher than most large SUVs on the road. As for risking the vehicle, do diplomats travel in standard cars? Why wouldn't they be armored? That point aside, do you think a van on a truck chassis and with steel bumpers is going to be immobilzed by flesh? We're not driving Camrys here, we're talking about an industrial work van with the "seats" option ticked.

Your article brings up an interesting idea though. If vans had indeed been stolen then this could have been some stupid criminal instead of a driver for an embassy.

I'm also considerate of the possibility this was an average person simply scared for their lives. It's possible. I can't say what I'd have done, but if it were my only option I would probably have gone barreling through the crowd. I can see fires burning behind the van so it may well have been the only way to get where they were going. But for some reason I feel differently if a government official were in the van...

 

[a6m5]

In the Chevy cargo van I drive at work I enjoy a seating position higher than most large SUVs on the road. As for risking the vehicle, do diplomats travel in standard cars? Why wouldn't they be armored? That point aside, do you think a van on a truck chassis and with steel bumpers is going to be immobilzed by flesh? We're not driving Camrys here, we're talking about an industrial work van with the "seats" option ticked.

I agree with you completely regarding the elevated view from the seats of full-size vans. However, I think we can all agree that it was far worse than the vantage of the cameraman. I'm not saying the driver didn't have good enough view. I'm just suggesting we don't know what the driver saw(as stated in my previous post).

I do think that you are underestimating what running over objects can do, even to a tough, full-size vehicle. If I was driving that van, my main concern would be driving over whatever obstacle(cones, people, bikes, etc.) might get stuck in the lower steering system, forcing the vehicle to be able to turn only one way. Once that happens, I'd be as good as dead. Even if it happened momentarily, it could easily cause a crash at that kind of speed.

Edit: I'm not Stevisiov!

 

[blaaah]

I am concerned the US state department reads Youtube comments, and even more concerned that it effects their policy and actions.
..................
By the way all the driver has to do to escape any action is to say the throttle felt a bit sticky and he didn't know how to turn the engine off. That way the manufacturer becomes 100% responsible under US law and they must pay billions compensation then be given lethal injections starting with the managing director all the way down to the apprentice mechanics that might have installed throttle pedals.

 

[Omnis]

Conversely, 3-4 people dragged out of a car and beaten to death would do the same. If someone got out of the car or if it was tipped over, it would have been a feeding frenzy.

Google "Reginald Denny" to see what a much smaller mob is capable of doing when a car is stopped.

I would have done the same thing as the driver of that car/limo. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Yeah, I mean, when you have riots and unrest and mobs of people, you have to expect that something like this could happen.

You're telling me you don't understand why people who just saw a maniac run over twenty people and leave want to destroy everything in sight? You're going to sit down and philosophize about sound money and libertarian mumbo jumbo when you see something as ridiculous as that?

Aren't you one cool-headed son of a gun.

I would be chasing that van down or helping the mowed-down victims, not opening a can of whoopass on some poor gas station owner's fence.

 

[SuperShouden]

Such an event as this would be excellent in a game, but I dont think this is anything like GTA. This is a volatile mass of people, there is no authority around , you the driver are likely extremely anxious, anything could happen. I think it would make a popular PS3 title. More dramatic than GTA, but I would say less premeditated darkness, in GTA you can slowly date a girl, then one random day take her for a joyride then shoot her once in the ankle, and follow her.

I don't know, GTA 4 and it's episodes were pretty serious. And you can drive through thick crowds along the water front or in the parks. I mean, it just seemed like something you'd see in GTA, like the driver of the van had been just playing it and decided to be a stupid American and act out something he saw in GTA.

 

[terminator363]

That was truly horrible, as for the You Tube, no comment.

 

[Keef]

I would be chasing that van down or helping the mowed-down victims, not opening a can of whoopass on some poor gas station owner's fence.

I'd like to think I'd be doing that, but you never know in a crazy crowd like that. Actually, I probably wouldn't even be on the street. I'd be the guy with the camera.

 

[anominus]

Thats just awful.

 

[TT3AZ]

Well, as we all know, the intelligence agencies in US are known for doing questionable things, more I cant say, because im affraid of the west.

 

[Lain]

I doubt the driver was thinking "Hey, let's see how many people I can take out!".

But damn, that's terrible.

 

[blaaah]

Which is worse for a man to say and given the same situation may arise again?:

"yeah I did it for fun to see how many I could kill, but now it's over, I feel really sorry and bad about it, I will help in anyway I can and nothing will ever make me do something like that again."

Or:
"It was done while I was under extreme stress and I panicked and went too fast, I just get too scared in a situation like that."

Or:
"I did what I had to do to escape the area of threat, it was dangerous and I acted in the quickest way I could for self defence, I would do the same again if required."

 

[Moglet]

Which is worse for a man to say and given the same situation may arise again?:

"yeah I did it for fun to see how many I could kill, but now it's over, I feel really sorry and bad about it, I will help in anyway I can and nothing will ever make me do something like that again."

Or:
"It was done while I was under extreme stress and I panicked and went too fast, I just get too scared in a situation like that."

Or:
"I did what I had to do to escape the area of threat, it was dangerous and I acted in the quickest way I could for self defence, I would do the same again if required."

None of them would excuse that sort of behaviour.

 

[lbsf1]

Which is worse for a man to say and given the same situation may arise again?:

"yeah I did it for fun to see how many I could kill, but now it's over, I feel really sorry and bad about it, I will help in anyway I can and nothing will ever make me do something like that again."

Or:
"It was done while I was under extreme stress and I panicked and went too fast, I just get too scared in a situation like that."

Or:
"I did what I had to do to escape the area of threat, it was dangerous and I acted in the quickest way I could for self defence, I would do the same again if required."

The first would probably end up with him in court.
The second might end up in court but he would probably be sacked cause staying calm is just his job. However people would be more simpathetic than one.
The last is the formal excuse you are likely to hear, however probably not the real reason, just to keep him out of trouble.