I was 18, barely supporting myself working at dominoes pizza. I felt sure I couldn't get a lawyer to talk to me without a video and hospital record, much less do something. I didn't have serious injuries, just some scrapes and dirty clothes, and a well earned lifelong distrust of cops.
This was the 80's when people didn't get paid big bucks for civil rights violations they could prove, and all I had was my punk kid word against an entire police force. That wasn't opening any doors.
When I couldn't even make a record of the incident, I dropped it. After all, the cop did tell me he had my address so I should just walk away and not make trouble for myself, and his superior was clearly going to have his back 100%, to the point of refusing to take my complaint, aggressively. I really just wanted the cop to be reprimanded for being so threatening even after realizing it was all his mistake, I didn't see a winnable case or dollar signs.

In thumbnail sees girl doing a floor routine, and reads "breaks both legs" in title.

Oh, hell no! That's a hard pass for me

(edit) Most search results say broke legs, but It seems she actually dislocated her knees and tore some ligaments. https://www.nola.com/lsu/2019/04/auburn-gymnastics-coach-gives-update-samantha-cerios-injuries.html
Still not watching

Via: https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/b85jb3/glider_crash_in_poland/

Passenger (front seat) : 1 broken arm

Pilot (back seat) : minor injuries

The article they link however doesn't list injuries: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6863975/Terrifying-moment-glider-clips-tree-nosedives-ground.html

Now, while I'd love to learn to fly a glider (beyond money, the best place "locally" is Caesar Creek Soaring Club, which is about 3 1/2 hours from me), and I might be out of my element here... it looks like he was going way too fast on his approach. Not sure what the situation was that caused him to come in that fast.

Also looks like he should have went down from the field a bit further, then turned to it, as it seems like he still had enough height left to go another few hundred yards down, turn around, and get lined up.

The video doesn't show if he had the wing spoilers deployed or not. Now I know some say don't deploy spoilers on the turn (though this guy seems to debunk that to some degree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC-Yqp-uHo0), so he'd have had to make the turn, then deploy at the last second... again getting to the fact the turn to the landing strip was made too early.

Again, I'm probably out of my element here, but I'd think, had he waited to make the turn to the landing strop, lined up, then deployed the wing spoilers, he'd have been able to bring her down a bit easier... of course he'd probably still have too much speed. That's what I want to know, where was the speed coming from, did he bring her down super fast, was he or the passenger on a time crunch?

*wtf

Why isn't there anything on the bottom to prevent injuries and possible deaths?

I don't know if you've seen the sort of thing I'm talking about, but the usual formula is you see a video with a title like "Bully picks on the wrong guy" or something, then you watch the video and what you see is someone getting their head kicked in, and you feel good. Then you have an entire comment section with "That's what you get for being a bully" etc. But nothing in the video actually shows him being a bully.

So if the title had been "Man is attacked completely unprovoked and suffers life changing injuries" the judgement would be very different. Maybe you just watched a crime and enjoyed it.

I find it really strange that people will argue back and forward about the details of the content of the video, but never question the framing. It's "a given" he was a bully etc. because some text at the top said so, we just discuss whether it was appropriate.

So in this video, maybe the situation was exactly as described, but I don't know what information I'd use to get to that conclusion. And nobody in the comment section really seems to be trying.

Why don't we see him asking for his grade to be marked up? Wouldn't that be the money shot here? Kid makes outrageous request, which for some reason I edited out, then behaved terribly... maybe they didn't get their phone out in time... who knows? Not me.

This is not one of those 'instant karma' videos I mean, I'm just drawing the parallel with the context free clip, followed by collective righteous feeling and judgement.

I don't know if you've seen the sort of thing I'm talking about, but the usual formula is you see a video with a title like "Bully picks on the wrong guy" or something, then you watch the video and what you see is someone getting their head kicked in, and you feel good. Then you have an entire comment section with "That's what you get for being a bully" etc. But nothing in the video actually shows him being a bully.

So if the title had been "Man is attacked completely unprovoked and suffers life changing injuries" the judgement would be very different. Maybe you just watched a crime and enjoyed it.

I find it really strange that people will argue back and forward about the details of the content of the video, but never question the framing. It's "a given" he was a bully etc. because some text at the top said so.

So in this video, maybe the situation was exactly as described, but I don't know what information I'd use to get to that conclusion. And nobody in the comment section really seems to be trying.

Why don't we see him asking for his grade to be marked up? Wouldn't that be the money shot here? Kid makes outrageous request, which for some reason I edited out, then behaved terribly... maybe they didn't get their phone out in time... who knows? Not me.

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.

FIRST thing I thought too. Spinal Injury. But, I guess if you don't do it you are only living a boring life.

Whatever it was that caused your injury I'm sure it would have made a top 15 video. I hope that makes you feel better.

Soooo.... uh, when is your next date, I mean appointment with groper lady?

Uh, swallowed and then crushed by the concrete that collapses on them.
Lucky it was minor injuries; looks like hundred of pounds of concrete.

I have to agree somewhat. My first comment was about the command they were giving. I can't tell for sure if they are saying "Get on your back" or "Get off your back".

I seem to hear "Get on your back" which he already is. I believe what the police wanted was "Get on your stomach" but if the command was "Get off your back" I can see where confusion might come into play for the black man especially after having continuous stunning.

If the command was indeed "Get on your back" then that makes all the difference as he was already on his back and following commands.

BTW, the black man drove directly to a local hospital where the staff reported to police an ER patient with bullet wounds. They were not aware of the shooting but by law are required to report all gun injuries.

105kg to 81kg! (for people still living in the 17th century, that 231lp down to 178)

Well done to that dad! I've done that after injury and it's not easy.

Kind of...minimizing the guy's injuries instantly isn't the best start imo. Surprising he didn't blame the bike rider, though. That would seem normal these days.

He hit him hard enough to break the bike frame sending the victim to the asphalt hard. Soft tissue injuries often aren't visible, and might not be painful for days. I think he should have taken the ambulance ride on the cop's dime and gotten an mri to be sure.
I hope he gets sets new bike out of this at least.