Can I incriminate myself if I have a dash cam?

[mentadent]

Long sentence for doing something legal? Trollololol

 

[Dashmellow]

Pretty good example of why gun laws need tightening, presuming of course he has that legally, just emptied the clip through his own windows, moron, hope he gets a long sentence.
(ex pistol shooter and range officer)

Tightening gun laws wouldn't have helped this situation as you can't outlaw stupidity.

 

[DT MI]

...as you can't outlaw stupidity.

Well, you can but it won't work. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[mentadent]

He looked badass though

 

[thomas-dash]

This video was produced by the Daily Caller, a right wing propaganda outlet founded by Fox News far-right television pundit, firebrand and conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson. The Daily Caller has a well deserved reputation for publishing false and misleading stories, anti-black and antisemitic views, climate change denial, Covid-19 misinformation and political hatchet jobs often mixed in with more factual reporting.

I was going to respond to this, but there's too much to unpack. Left-leaning media websites/personalities are just as bad and I'm using the word "media" in place of "news" because it doesn't seem like news really gets reported anymore. Both left and right media outlets pretty much publish whatever they think will make them the most money.

Why is the girl in the first part of the video not the same woman arguing with the police in the second part of the video? Why is the car with front end damage after rear ending the other car in the first part of the video not damaged in the second part of the video (assuming it is the same car). What does a different driver of different race being accused of driving a stolen vehicle have to do with the car accident in the first part of the video? What exactly does the first part of the video clip have to do with the second part of the video and why are the two disparate videos being presented together implying that they are somehow related? What exactly is the "whole story" being presented here?

I'm not sure why they have the two videos together. They do appear to be separate instances. What @mentadent was referring to is the fact that the Lambo guy only posted the video of her rear-ending his car. He neglected to mention that he side-swapped her car by driving into the opposing lane of traffic to go around her when she didn't make a left-turn on yellow. He side-swiped her car while he was trying to avoid hitting a bicyclist during the maneuver:

Lamborghini 'Rear-ending' Woman May Be Exonerated by New TikTok Video

The woman posted a TikTok of her own saying, "Matt Heller went into oncoming traffic on a red light because I didn't turn left on yellow. And then almost hit a person. My lawyers will be serving him with slander."

www.newsweek.com

 

[mentadent]

Yes I only intended to point out that getting just part of the story in a short video clip can dangerously make a lot of people jump to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Dashmellow]

I was going to respond to this, but there's too much to unpack. Left-leaning media websites/personalities are just as bad and I'm using the word "media" in place of "news" because it doesn't seem like news really gets reported anymore. Both left and right media outlets pretty much publish whatever they think will make them the most money.



I'm not sure why they have the two videos together. They do appear to be separate instances. What @mentadent was referring to is the fact that the Lambo guy only posted the video of her rear-ending his car. He neglected to mention that he side-swapped her car by driving into the opposing lane of traffic to go around her when she didn't make a left-turn on yellow. He side-swiped her car while he was trying to avoid hitting a bicyclist during the maneuver:

Lamborghini 'Rear-ending' Woman May Be Exonerated by New TikTok Video

The woman posted a TikTok of her own saying, "Matt Heller went into oncoming traffic on a red light because I didn't turn left on yellow. And then almost hit a person. My lawyers will be serving him with slander."

www.newsweek.com

I feel you have misunderstood the original point I was making but I thank you for presenting a good explanation. The link you provided is from Newsweek Magazine where a well respected journalist is presenting the actual known facts about what happened regarding claims about the Lamborghini is the perfect example. In contrast, the Daily Caller has no interest in legitimate journalism. It is well known that the stock-and-trade of the Daily Caller is to routinely publish misleading or outright false information. Many of the articles on Daily Caller espouse white nationalist, racist, anti-black and antisemitic views often from well known commentators who regularly promote such views.

I'm not sure why they have the two videos together. They do appear to be separate instances.

I credit you for acknowledging that there are two disparate videos presented together and not understanding why that may be. The two videos are presented together like that for a purpose.

The video posted by @mentadent from the Daily Caller makes no attempt at actual journalism. It merely stitches together two completely unrelated videos that make no attempt to explore what really happened. Instead, the video attempts to smear a black woman with innuendo, who is vehemently denying the allegation that she stole a car. No facts are established about the woman, the people around her, the allegedly stolen car, whether the car is the same car that is in the first part of the video and no facts are established connecting the situation with the claims regarding the Lamborghini in the first part of the video, which coincidentally are also unconfirmed. The only thing the Daily Caller has done here is combine two viral videos found on the internet and use the result to add an element of racial discord by promoting false, implied assumptions. This is not journalism. This is merely attempting to create a negative false narrative using the inferences that emerge from combining those two videos. This is the very definition of propaganda.

People can argue about the media on the left or the right and who does or doesn't get their facts straight but whether one is liberal or conservative we should all expect and demand actual journalism. Most of what the Daily Caller does is anything but authentic journalism. Instead what they do is designed to stir up anger and divisiveness on an emotional, gut level in the service of the far right. And there is far too much of this in the "media" these days. People should do their best to use critical thinking with whatever they read on the internet, and see on TV, especially these days, but unfortunately we don't often see much critical thinking nowadays.

 

[Dashmellow]

Yes I only intended to point out that getting just part of the story in a short video clip can dangerously make a lot of people jump to an incorrect conclusion.

You had it exactly right in your original post. I was merely pointing out the source of the clip you posted and explaining some context about the source.

I wish to note that we don't get to see the whole story in a short clip like that.

Like this video makes it look like an open and shut case it was the ladies' fault, but it wasn't:

 

[thomas-dash]

In contrast, the Daily Caller has no interest in legitimate journalism. It is well known that the stock-and-trade of the Daily Caller is to routinely publish misleading or outright false information.

I found the page on their website that links to their YouTube video. They actually updated the page and made it clear that there was an update:

Guy Gets Rear-Ended In His Lamborghini, Woman Accuses Him Of Causing The Crash In Hilarious Video

One guy is making the rounds online after he was rear-ended in his Lamborghini. Matt Heller posted a video of himself after his vehicle was hit.

dailycaller.com

This is actually something that most of the Democrat "news"/media sites don't do. They'll publish false/misleading "news" or "news" with no factual basis and then stealth edit their "news" articles on their website without mentioning the edit itself.

The two videos are presented together like that for a purpose.

I certainly don't think they are trying to convey the woman in the second video is the woman from the first video. Maybe you can send the Daily Caller an email and ask what their intention was for editing the two clips together?

Instead what they do is designed to stir up anger and divisiveness on an emotional, gut level in the service of the far right.

I would agree with this statement if you replaced "the far right" with "their respective target audiences". There are many so called "news" outlets that have a heavy left/Democrat slant that are guilty of the very same things you accuse the Daily Caller of doing. I think part of the problem is most of these sites allow third-party columnist to write opinion articles with very little or no editorial oversight.

I would just take the video for what it appears to be: something designed to get clicks and eyeballs to generate ad revenue. This is something that is done across the political spectrum and I think it's unfair to call out the Daily Caller without calling out all the other "news" and media outlets.

 

[Dashmellow]

I found the page on their website that links to their YouTube video. They actually updated the page and made it clear that there was an update:

Guy Gets Rear-Ended In His Lamborghini, Woman Accuses Him Of Causing The Crash In Hilarious Video

One guy is making the rounds online after he was rear-ended in his Lamborghini. Matt Heller posted a video of himself after his vehicle was hit.

dailycaller.com

This is actually something that most of the Democrat "news"/media sites don't do. They'll publish false/misleading "news" or "news" with no factual basis and then stealth edit their "news" articles on their website without mentioning the edit itself.


I certainly don't think they are trying to convey the woman in the second video is the woman from the first video. Maybe you can send the Daily Caller an email and ask what their intention was for editing the two clips together?



I would agree with this statement if you replaced "the far right" with "their respective target audiences". There are many so called "news" outlets that have a heavy left/Democrat slant that are guilty of the very same things you accuse the Daily Caller of doing. I think part of the problem is most of these sites allow third-party columnist to write opinion articles with very little or no editorial oversight.

I would just take the video for what it appears to be: something designed to get clicks and eyeballs to generate ad revenue. This is something that is done across the political spectrum and I think it's unfair to call out the Daily Caller without calling out all the other "news" and media outlets.

What "update"? The "update" doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, nor does it resolve the question about why the original video that the Daily Caller posted inexplicably jumps to the black woman at a different location arguing with the police that her car is not stolen. Curiously, that same video is still there on the update page you've linked. Interesting that a so called "update" still includes that video.

Also curious is that the original video was posted by Matt Heller on YouTube on October 1, 2021. The video from Maddy, the girl in the car accident was posted to TikTok on October 4th, 2021 and as we know, it doesn't actually prove anything at all, it's merely her allegation of "slander" and her own interpretation of what happened. The edited video from The Daily Caller was posted to YouTube on October 6th, 2021, the same date as the "update" you posted. So if it was posted by The Daily Caller on the same day as their video, how is this an update actually? Finally, the author of the piece is David Hookstead, who has a reputation for often posting controversial and racially charged material, especially about certain black athletes like Colin Kaepernick.

Based on your accusations and claims about "Democrat news/media" allegedly behaving like these right wing sites that put out bigoted material like this it seems you are apparently the target audience for such material. Your "analysis" here and the fact that you perceive such a manufactured video that arbitrarily combines two disparate stories tacking on video of white police officers confronting a black woman and black bystanders to be nothing more than "revenue generating click bait" speaks volumes. As I said in my last post, critical thinking is sorely lacking in much of the population these days.

 

[thomas-dash]

it seems you are apparently the target audience for such material.

It seems you're the target audience for all the bigoted material put out by the Democrat news/media. The left needs to stop with the "anyone who has a different opinion than me is racist" tripe. It's way overplayed at this point and boring.

Your "analysis" here and the fact that you perceive such a manufactured video that arbitrarily combines two disparate stories tacking on video of white police officers confronting a black woman and black bystanders to be nothing more than "revenue generating click bait" speaks volumes

This is certainly a hot take on what I wrote. Videos like the two that were combined together are widely known to gain a lot of attention. Why else would they post videos that went viral if not to improve their bottom line? At the end of the day media companies don't exist to improve society, they exist to improve the financial positions of their shareholders and owners.

Finally, the author of the piece is David Hookstead, who has a reputation for often posting controversial and racially charged material, especially about certain black athletes like Colin Kaepernick.

It seems you know more about David Hookstead and follow him more than I do. Maybe you have an "outrage porn" addiction?

 

[Dashmellow]

It seems you're the target audience for all the bigoted material put out by the Democrat news/media. The left needs to stop with the "anyone who has a different opinion than me is racist" tripe. It's way overplayed at this point and boring.

Not particularly. But anyone taking a truly objective look at the current media landscape would hardly describe the" Democrat news/media" as bigoted, especially when compared to the incessant drumbeat of xenophobic, racist vitriol and political commentary spewing from right wing and far-right wing outlets on a daily basis.

Videos like the two that were combined together are widely known to gain a lot of attention. Why else would they post videos that went viral if not to improve their bottom line? At the end of the day media companies don't exist to improve society, they exist to improve the financial positions of their shareholders and owners.

As before you apparently believe that manufacturing viral racist smear videos as a means of generating profits and garnering attention is a legitimate tactic for a so called "news" outlet. The fact that you approve if this kind of material is a sad commentary on your views. Despite your allegations, we just don't see videos of this nature emanating from the left and I seriously doubt that you could provide an example.

It seems you know more about David Hookstead and follow him more than I do. Maybe you have an "outrage porn" addiction?

If you're going to try to insult me with adolescent accusations you'll have to do better than this.

Until yesterday, I had no idea who David Hookstead was. Nevertheless, when I saw that he was the author of the link to the Daily Caller you posted in a vain effort to make your case, I went to the trouble of doing some research into who he is, where he's from, what his background is, who he works for and the nature of the articles and features he writes. I would not have described him as often posting controversial and racially charged material if I hadn't confirmed it. This is precisely what I was talking about when I spoke of the need to use critical thinking in regard to what we see in today's media landscape. Obviously, critical thinking is something that eludes you.

People should do their best to use critical thinking with whatever they read on the internet, and see on TV, especially these days, but unfortunately we don't often see much critical thinking nowadays.

 

[Dan S]

It seems to me that this individual was not shooting. It was just a moron most likely was high on substance and would like to listen to fire cracks. Do not need to mention one of the four basic principles “know your target and beyond”. It was more like a gangster-style operation. By the way, they could easily get their guns at a corner of street for a quarter of price than those from a gun store.

 

[Dashmellow]

It seems to me that this individual was not shooting. It was just a moron most likely was high on substance and would like to listen to fire cracks. Do not need to mention one of the four basic principles “know your target and beyond”. It was more like a gangster-style operation. By the way, they could easily get their guns at a corner of street for a quarter of price than those from a gun store.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people running around with firearms these days (many purchased legally) who have no training or experience with them. Their whole mindset surrounding guns is what they see in the movies and in video games. The guy in the video strikes me as one of these types.

 

[Dan S]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people running around with firearms these days (many purchased legally) who have no training or experience with them. Their whole mindset surrounding guns is what they see in the movies and in video games. The guy in the video strikes me as one of these types.

With surge of gun sales, especially last year, many first-time gun buyers/owners really need to have some knowledge of handling firearms. It would be beneficial for everybody.

 

[Dashmellow]

With surge of gun sales, especially last year, many first-time gun buyers/owners really need to have some knowledge of handling firearms. It would be beneficial for everybody.

Several years ago an Iraq war veteran wrote a letter to one of our local newspapers regarding his thoughts on licensing firearms purchases. As a long time gun owner I was so impressed with the letter I found a link and bookmarked it. It's a worthy read.

Letter: Why no filter for gun purchase?​

 

[Dan S]

Several years ago an Iraq war veteran wrote a letter to one of our local newspapers regarding his thoughts on licensing firearms purchases. As a long time gun owner I was so impressed with the letter I found a link and bookmarked it. It's a worthy read.

Letter: Why no filter for gun purchase?​

Rational thinking, certain people should not own firearms, I mean legally, excluding those obtaining guns from corner of street. However, this would open a can of worms. The bottom-line is that owning/operating a vehicle is a privilege in this country and governments can regulate it. Doesn’t matter what individual’s opinion on this, owning a firearm in this country is a right. US Supreme Court has ruled multiple times on this. That’s the way it is.

Look back history of earlier settlers, firearms were the essential just like food. The revolutionary war again British ruling started with British troop tried to confiscate firearms from militia.

Today, with so many guns around us, there is no way to really control it. For average individuals, just need to live with it and to decide whether or not to be a (legal) gun owner.

 

[Dashmellow]

The bottom-line is that owning/operating a vehicle is a privilege in this country and governments can regulate it. Doesn’t matter what individual’s opinion on this, owning a firearm in this country is a right. US Supreme Court has ruled multiple times on this. That’s the way it is.

That's a big discussion; one that probably doesn't belong in this thread, but I understand the point you are making about the constitution. Then again, many jurisdictions require permits or a license to carry and that is still constitutional. Here in Vermont, anyone of legal age who is not a convicted felon can buy and carry a concealed weapon practically anywhere one wants. No permits are required. I can walk into a bank with a loaded unlicensed gun hidden on my person or on full display and it would be perfectly legal. There are a few exceptions, such as in a court of law or a hospital. I don't know any gun owner who has a problem with that. Vermont is a state with some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation and yet we have one of the very lowest rates of violent crime in the country.

I'm of the opinion that the Constitution is a living document that needs to evolve with society as the Founders could never have imagined the kind of world we live in today. Rampant gun violence is an increasingly serious problem in this country and I've come around to thinking that requiring some training wouldn't be such a bad idea. I'll bet that militia members back in the revolutionary period got some firearms training at a very minimum. That guy in the video I posted who shot up his own car had more firepower in his pistol than a whole squad of revolutionary war soldiers and he definitely didn't have any training.

 

[DashCamMan]

This thread has veered off into a political discussion and now with the turn to a gun debate, I am locking the thread. Unfortunately dashcamtalk is not the place to have these debates.