If a pressure cooker can be a weapon of mass destruction, a fair ride can be a deadly weapon.

Anyway, an object doesn't have to be a weapon to be called a weapon. Anything that can cause an injury is a weapon, and anything that can potentially cause death, is a deadly weapon. That includes pencils, baseball bats, heavy frying pans, high heels, and fair rides. All those objects have been used to kill.

10/26/2013 8:45:11 PM

I'm really intrigued to find out what was done to the ride, how they know who did it, and why he did it.

10/26/2013 8:50:02 PM

probably just bypassed a safety interlock to make the ride easier to operate. like taping down a switch or something.

10/26/2013 8:57:04 PM

Quote :

"i mean it's literally used daily like that... if language was a set in stone set of rules we would all be speaking old engish (OE) right now."

I understand that language isn't static, but the reason that "literally" is commonly used as "figuratively" isn't due to the dynamic nature of language, but the stupidity and ignorance of most people. It's wrong.

10/26/2013 9:07:13 PM

I don't understand the assault with a deadly weapon, either. As I understand, that means they are accusing him of intending to harm people by compromising the safety of the ride, which seems ridiculous. I would have though the charge would be criminal negligence of some sort.

10/26/2013 10:24:36 PM

Criminal Negligence isn't a crime in North Carolina.

10/26/2013 10:28:25 PM

^^That is exactly right. They must have some evidence to point to the fact he may have intentionally compromised the ride to harm people.

10/26/2013 10:31:56 PM

You don't just "tamper" with a ride, compromising the safety of the riders, unless you have the intention to hurt people.

The generic definition of weapon is an instrument of attack or defense. Like previously mentioned, any object can become a weapon if used as such, even if it's original design was not intended to be used as a weapon. I'm surprised that this wasn't labeled as some form of terrorism to be honest and that they decided to just label it as assault with a deadly weapon.

[Edited on October 26, 2013 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2013 10:41:09 PM

Assault with a lazy crackhead.

10/26/2013 10:56:30 PM

Quote :

" the reason that "literally" is commonly used as "figuratively" isn't due to the dynamic nature of language, but the stupidity and ignorance of most people"

perhaps the dynamic nature of language is frequently caused by the stupidity and ignorance of people

I totally agree with your point: "literally" should mean "literally," end of story. but linguistic evolution can twist the meaning of words, and perhaps this often happens because dumb people don't understand what the words are supposed to mean. the original Cynics, for example, were happy, carefree people.

10/26/2013 10:57:11 PM

Yeah, I get it.

I'm just saying that they're wrong, and lots of dumbasses fucking it up doesn't legitimize it. Not in the near or medium term, anyway, especially on one like that where they're pretty much 180-out from the actual meaning (as opposed to people misusing, say, "random". What they call "random" often isn't random at all, but it's just somewhat outside the meaning of the word--not the literal opposite.)

10/26/2013 11:00:32 PM

to be fair, duke, much of how we speak today is due to the bastardizing of previously acceptable grammar. We don't use "thee" or "thy" or "thine" all that much, nor do we use "-eth" or "-(e)st" (aside from superlatives) or the correct usage of "shall/will", yet those were once accepted and expected grammar. It's just how shit changes. I hear you about a word being used as its literal opposite, though. But ultimately, a bunch of dumbasses misusing it long enough does legitimize it.

10/26/2013 11:05:51 PM

Quote :

"I hear you about a word being used as its literal figurative opposite, though."

10/26/2013 11:14:42 PM

^^^
word. yeah, this is a pretty grotesque case. we're not so much changing the meaning of "literally" as just rendering it meaningless.

10/26/2013 11:15:19 PM

que?

10/26/2013 11:15:40 PM

Any example of literally being used to mean figuratively? Sorry i missed it if it is ITT.

If I knew anybody like that I would de-friend them.

10/26/2013 11:17:33 PM

I don't think anyone, anywhere is deliberately using "literally" as a synonym for "figuratively."

but many people use "literally" in obviously figurative contexts just to add force to their metaphors, and dictionary-writers have now recognized this usage as valid.

it's sad.

10/26/2013 11:23:37 PM

^^ I don't know how you can take "exactly as it happened" as not the opposite of "not exactly as it happened." Just sayin...

10/26/2013 11:25:38 PM

I think the AWDW charge is similar to a drunk driver hitting someone with a car. The car was the weapon, and perhaps he did not intend to harm someone, but by his actions created a situation where injury and death were likely.

10/27/2013 12:12:55 AM

came here to check out the details of this guy sabotaging the ride to kill or injure people

walked into a grammar nerd debate

10/27/2013 12:23:57 AM

you mean cam ehere




also, I think discussion of "assault" is legitimate here. This isn't the way you would normally consider "assault", where someone is doing something that someone else sees and causes that person fear of harm. In my own mind, I have a hard time thinking of "the fear before a blow" being considered as "the fear during the actual act." But then again, "assault" in some places in the US actually means "battery", which is a bit tarded, but whatever. anyway, enough semantics from me, lol

10/27/2013 12:27:55 AM

a good analogy is someone cutting the brake lines in someone's car

10/27/2013 12:31:34 AM

Quote :

" probably just bypassed a safety interlock to make the ride easier to operate. like taping down a switch or something."

10/27/2013 12:32:07 AM

^ that's what I'm betting happened

10/27/2013 12:45:20 AM

No where does the charge say anything about "intent" so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to harm people on purpose. it is more about negligence or whatever short cutting he was trying to do which I'm curious to find out why.

10/27/2013 2:29:25 AM

ok now there are conflicting reports, i read another article claiming "Authorities say he tampered with the ride to harm people."

and abc news says "additional arrests may be made."

who are these additional possible ppl and why would anyone think they can get away with it? were they hoping they wouldn't be uncovered?

10/27/2013 2:34:39 AM

I'm curious if they have camera surveillance and that's how they are finding out who done it.

I know I spotted 2 sherriff department people working undercover in the crowd when I went to the fair. Both didn't do such a good job conceal carrying and printed their firearms. I assume there were probably more. But aside from that, perhaps there were (hidden) cameras installed to help watch the crowd and that's how they caught the guy tampering with the machine?

10/27/2013 2:58:32 AM

undercover != plainclothes

10/27/2013 3:00:14 AM

Are you trying to be argumentative?

They were watching the crowd and walking around. Not playing games. Not eating food. Just walking around and watching people. They were clearly on duty.

10/27/2013 3:18:22 AM

Right, which means they were plainclothes. Which means they wouldn't be attempting to conceal their weapons.

Undercover is a whole different ballgame.

10/27/2013 4:19:35 AM

very true.

10/27/2013 8:21:51 AM

Quote :

"ok now there are conflicting reports, i read another article claiming "Authorities say he tampered with the ride to harm people." and abc news says "additional arrests may be made." who are these additional possible ppl and why would anyone think they can get away with it? were they hoping they wouldn't be uncovered?"

Usually there are other workers at the fair that control a ride and they are rotated out. Breaks and shifts or what not. Someone doesn't man the ride for 12 hours in a row (or however long the rides are open--I know doors are at 8, but I don't think rides begin running until 10am). It could be that someone from another shift tampered with th safety device as well.

10/27/2013 8:27:19 AM

i'm pretty sure this guy was not "intending" to harm people. as mentioned, he either tampered with the safety devices to make it easier to operate, or was aware that the previous operator did and he didn't address the issue.

Quote :

"to be fair, duke, much of how we speak today is due to the bastardizing of previously acceptable grammar. We don't use "thee" or "thy" or "thine" all that much, nor do we use "-eth" or "-(e)st" (aside from superlatives) or the correct usage of "shall/will", yet those were once accepted and expected grammar. It's just how shit changes. I hear you about a word being used as its literal opposite, though. But ultimately, a bunch of dumbasses misusing it long enough does legitimize it."

aaronburro, don't you use semantics to argue against gay marriage? something along the lines of "two dudes cannot get legally married because "marriage" is defined as being between a man and a woman"? correct me if i'm wrong.

10/27/2013 11:03:07 AM

Quote :

"No where does the charge say anything about "intent" so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to harm people on purpose. it is more about negligence or whatever short cutting he was trying to do which I'm curious to find out why."

I read that the owner of the ride only had one ride at the fair. I have a feeling that they're going to paint this as you knew it was broken, couldnt fix it until the fair was over... And over rode the interlock to protect your only revenue stream.

Knowingly overriding a malfunctioning safety interlock is clear intent.

I think a broader, and more important question is, why didn't follow up inspections see this? Specifically since the ride was down at one point. Maybe they have a pretty weak checklist, but if there was a malfunction, and it suddenly wast broken anymore, it should be scrutinized at every inspection.

10/27/2013 3:01:37 PM

They wont be able to "sue" the operator...the insurance covers things like this...up to millions if not billions of dollars depending on the coverage.

jk apparently he tampered with it...weird.

[Edited on October 27, 2013 at 3:35 PM. Reason : g]

10/27/2013 3:22:04 PM

Do they have "ride at your own risk" clauses in the ride booklets of the fair?

10/27/2013 5:00:38 PM

Probably, but I doubt it would matter.

10/27/2013 5:35:48 PM

Yeah, don't most of those liability waivers (even signed ones) get torn to shreds when intentional and/or negligent actions cause the injury?

10/27/2013 5:51:30 PM

"I understand that I may die if I ride this ride due to negligence by an employee"

yeah that doesn't fly in court

10/27/2013 6:02:52 PM

I rarely say anything of worth

But I'm pretty sure you can't waiver away negligence

10/27/2013 6:33:35 PM

I'm not saying this ride wasn't possibly tampered with, but if NC and shur-ee boasts this great "we inspect three times a day", then why wasn't it caught the day of the incident? The inspectors, which may or may not be inspecting a great deal, should be shitting their pants right now...instead the easy carnie target is taking the heat (right now anyways). Idk, this incident could be exposing a lax NC safety dept., a dept we are paying for.

As a disclaimer, I do hope he truth comes out, and those responsible (whether the carnie, ride company, or possibly the state), are held accountable.

[Edited on October 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2013 8:44:43 PM

I won't be surprised if the state wasn't found to be culpable once this thing goes through litigation.

10/27/2013 9:04:33 PM

^^ one major accident in how many years? I mean, compare that to a major theme park. it's a big deal because people are hungry to eat at carnies.

nothing more, nothing less.

10/27/2013 9:14:38 PM

^you are right, there hasn't been an accident in a while--which may prompt slackness in the safety dept. OR, the state is running a tight budget, and one inspector is monitoring all the rides. Who knows? I'm just saying that the carnie is getting blasted right now, and we haven't even heard his story (which may be incoherent meth babble)...we have only heard the states charge.

10/27/2013 9:44:48 PM

well, there's two things that I think about.

1) the rides were always this safe/unsafe, and they just got busted hard this year

or

2) the rides were usually safe, but this year one individual really, really fucked up

I want to believe 2), but there's no evidence to prove 1)

10/27/2013 10:16:59 PM

Ride fails, works without repair. State signs off. Ride fails again, operator bypasses safety interlock, state doesn't find on follow up inspections.

This is what I suspect happened.

10/27/2013 10:20:25 PM

Quote :

"Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison said at a news conference Saturday that it appeared the tampering was "probably to keep the ride operating," but he would not comment further about the case."

http://www.wral.com/-vortex-operator-absolutely-devastated-attorney-says/13043977/


also,

Quote :

""The folks in North Carolina, they don't pussyfoot around when it comes to amusement ride safety.""

10/27/2013 10:36:24 PM

my guess

shoulder bar interlock/prox switches bypassed from being a PITA


would the operator not hear screams from the riders even at the fair? I mean there's a good 30 seconds to flail/alert other riders/etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsmW2kgMNrU

10/27/2013 10:57:40 PM

Quote :

"Brian A. Long, a spokesman for the state Department of Agriculture, said the man was injured when piece of a ride called The Vortex fell on him about 3:30 a.m. The ride is not the same one - also called The Vortex - that was idled last week after five people were hurt."

10/28/2013 6:28:58 AM

I expect to see most of the rides closed down next year as NC/OSHA drop the hammer.

10/28/2013 7:14:15 AM