Unless cops/prosecutor found evidence of premeditation or desire to kill/injure…. They are gonna have a hard time proving this. So my bet is that they have something indicating this wasn’t an accident but intentional.

Oh bollocks! Now I got a reason.
Now I got a reason.
(To post this):

https://youtu.be/XWF9MMxnekQ

No offense meant, mf!

[removed]

If he disappears again, do you think they'll get the hint?

Russia been barkin mad today

The article said he was breath tested and no alcohol was found in his system

Not sure what else they’d find that would cause someone to ram into a store. The guy said his foot was stuck on the gas pedal. They have to know something that they aren’t saying

This was not a mall location; this is an Apple standalone build. The facade is entirely up to them. And so is having no bollards.

It's the first paragraph of the article though

“Just watch out. After we are finished getting slaughtered by Ukraine we will come over there and shed more Russian blood.”

They truly are engineering marvels

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

All. Cops. Are. Bastards.

[removed]

[removed]

"Stop resisting". I'm sorry judge, the cops said the magic words, they must be found innocent. /s

Fuck all cops.

[removed]

My 2006 Jeep pretensions under hard acceleration and steering.

[removed]

[removed]

American Cops, what do you expect?

#FuckThePolice

You wear a badge, and you've chosen white.

Without speaking to any specific details of this incident, from what I understand about the law, if the Apple store or the mall diverged from an accepted standard (e.g., using big windows instead of walls, failing to install bollards, etc.), then those decisions can be considered in the context of whether they increased the likelihood that someone would be injured in such an event.

It seems like they probably won't be held responsible, but we also don't know the details. It could come out that this was a specific concern at some point and someone chose not to address it, that they deliberately chose to design their storefront in this way despite the increased risk, etc.

In similarly cited cases (e.g., suing McDonald's for serving hot coffee, suing the phone company after a driver crashed into a phone booth, etc.) once you look closer, it turns out there were ignored warnings, previous accidents, and decisions made for the sake of costs rather than safety. I'm not saying that definitely applies here, but it's not something we can just assume isn't the case.

[removed]