Police stopped traffic, lining the road with potential victims, then directed a high speed chase into a device designed to make a speeding vehicle lose control. Traffic should have been stopped well away from the spike strip, not used like inanimate barriers to direct a chase.
Imo, this was 100% foreseeable and the only likely outcome of their plan.
That police force is likely going to pay those victims millions. They put those people in harm's way and they were harmed.

Look at the driver video. He DELIBERATELY cranks the wheel to the left. She had already stopped her assault for a moment. He was not distracted at the time, there was nothing in front to avoid.

He was going straight, and then she goes out of view and he suddenly swerves left ON PURPOSE.

You can see from the other dashcam, that there are no vehicles ahead of the bus that he was trying to avoid.

I think he was trying to get her to fall down and stop attacking him when the bus hit the barrier. I don't think he was expecting to go over the side. He was hoping the bus would just crash and she would maybe be ejected through the windshield, but he 100% purposely crashed the vehicle.

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

No language barrier here. CHING! CHING!

I think that's correct, or at least I've heard that explanation also. I probably heard it discussed on the BBC show QI?

I guess that would make it sort of like Pig Latin, although at least to me it seems like the barrier to entry into the "in" group of Cockney rhyming slang is massively higher than the one for Pig Latin.

I bet this happens frequently - look at all the concrete barriers and bollards in place. Being at the end of that curve is just asking for idiots to veer into your business.

This video's language and cultural differences are just too steep a barriers for this crowd to judge it's sift worthiness fairly.

I lived in Cape Canaveral for 35 years. I watched all but 5 shuttle launches and many Delta, Atlas and other rockets. Each unique in it's own way. This launch was spectacular in that the lighting helped illuminate the plume in a way that normally is unseen in a bright sky or total darkness.

Another cool effect when conditions are right during a launch is when a rocket breaks the sound barrier while penetrating thin clouds. It creates what's known as a Sun Dog. The shock wave creates a ripple effect that resembles ripples going across the surface of water. The effect at night can be illuminated by the rocket's bright plume rather than the sun.

Your video, I do not fear your barrier!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 217 Badge!

I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. It's just... hyperbole - using literally in a sentence that should not be taken literally. To me it's exactly like somebody saying "no exaggeration..." and then exaggerating wildly. Would people not expect to be called on that shit? It is too much like lying! It will turn into an arms race - we'll have to develop other means of saying "literally" when we really mean it and in turn those means will be turned against us until ALL LANGUAGE DIES!!!1

but then. Sarcasm. My standards are double. I can offer no defence.

but also, quantum leap. It might be an abrupt change, possible overcoming some sort of previously imagined impenetrable barrier... but it surely must still be a very small change

I'd like to see the video where he's treading water off the Great Barrier Reef and splashing diced Chum around him.

Your video, How dead is the Great Barrier Reef?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Alleged Drunk Driver Crash on H-1 Freeway Hits Barrier, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 141 Badge!

If this vid is an indication then instant deployment makes it very difficult to defeat i would guess. Also probably used in different places then compounds in dangerous areas where you often see cement block barriers. https://youtu.be/AcG4i29frXI

Its basically all in the video, there are physical barriers already out there, it is a long term problem that has been improving lately, there is probably not much more protection a big wall would provide over a symbolic fence (only effect is length of tunnel/ladder required). Everyone agrees on illegal vs. legal, prostitution and drugs can not be eradicated, only limited, by making the little girls illegal you push them in peril. One could improve the situation by cooperating with the government of Mexico and border states, border towns, by making the legal waiting line clear and bearable, Trump is the elephant in the porcelain shop on all of this, making things worse.

Simple solutions to complicated problems... never mind.

Are americans really competing with illegal immigrants for jobs?
Is it that hard to get an education in the US that would get you past the dish-washing stage? IDK.

Why are the rules for employing illegal imigrants so hard to uphold? Could it be because it is impossible? Because no-one else would be willing to do the work for the money available in the local economy? How would the overall situation change if rules on "legalising" some of these people were relaxed instead of tightened? If they can hold a job for months or years without commiting any law violations besides going past the validity of their work permit they deserve at the very least permanent residence over all the trash living on social security just because they were born a few miles north.

If they are living and working and not doing any wrong, you should keep them regardless of... whatever.

BTW I happen to agree with what you wrote about that commercial 100%, Bob. Just probably from a different point of view. Its propaganda fairy-telling without a good point.

If I really wanted to move to the US I would make absolutely sure I had a plan on what to do there. Not just get in at all costs. Like the Budweiser guy (but better beer).