Well, I’m not sure you’re an uncle or a real duke.

Only if you fired a blank and she suffered from hypovolemia.

Quite. My point was that the story itself only draws on one possibility, and I only thought about a couple more. Until the court has decided, we won’t have a definitive understanding.

Head on? Really? where does it say that?

That’s very sad for that village, I’m sure, but I’m not certain how it’s relevant. Unless you’re resorting to an ad hominem attack, which is what people usually do when they’ve conceded an argument?

No, it doesn’t say anything of the sort, as I mentioned in my other reply.

The article doesn’t say that, does it? It quotes the news story, which quotes a source which said that she crashed “as a result” of their driving. That doesn’t imply that their driving was the only causative factor by any stretch of the (non-fevered) imagination.

The term Ad Hominem was first recognized in the footnotes of the Clementine Vulgate bible in 1590. However, I suspect that the monks who first painstakingly scribed it there never conceived of the word “dumbfuck”. Bravo sir, bravo.

So what happened then? Have you seen the video evidence? Is there a link somewhere I missed?

Contact isn’t necessary, but we have no idea of what the actual circumstances were.

When did I defend street racers exactly? Where have I done anything apart from trying to apply the evidential threshold required by a court and seeing where that might get us?

Yeah? Well I’m rubber and you’re glue.

According to Video Evidence, which is a funny name. Normally a quote would be attributed to a person, but it hasn’t been in this case. Can you tell me who has watched the video and decided that it was street racing?

Have you seen the video evidence? No. Neither have I. How can you be certain what the video shows?

Conjecture is the word for it, yes.

How do you know they caused the accident? Were you there? The only evidence we have of causation based on the above is two words - “cut off”. That covers a wide, wide range of possible events, some of which may well have been enough for the victim to take evasive action, some of which would not.

A single source infers that a woman was killed as an indirect result of an unspecified interaction with a pair of cars which might have been racing on the street. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m being called shit a lot today.

Nope, can’t say I have. I leave a gap in front of me for arseholes to cut into that means I don’t have to swerve.

What if the only reaction was to look at them? Everyone is distracted by things, but if I (for example) crashed and died from looking at a cute puppy on the sidewalk, I’d hope it wouldn’t be sent to the electric chair.

The act that killed her was going back to her car after exiting it, not exiting her car in the first instance. She had been safe on the side of the road before going to retrieve something from her car. Was that a reasonable act? Probably for the court to decide.