I am not sure how one would compare the two as they are apples and oranges.
Just because we have the ability to have access to the information does not give us the right to be Judge and Jury based on what information we have. It is explicitly one sided on the information. How is that even evidence?
To bring polarizing issues to the attention of the mass public for the explicit purpose of forcing shame upon a single person or group of people only by the evidence(often very little) presented that someone gathered and structured to show the world the acts of another in the worse light possible. That is not justice. That is just a horrible act against another living being. Those SJW's(Social Justice Warriors) appear to revel in the glory of reporting things like as if they did justice and a glorious service to the public. People get hurt this way. People have to go into hiding over crap like this.
We have no idea the real story or if that person was actually even connected. Could she be? Sure its possible this lady is a horrible person and made it all happen. Should the Masses and Mobs be the ones who get to decide that? NEVER!
 June 27, 2015 at 2:57pm
I wish I had a dog that could heal. No more medical bills.
The article said the lady is known for her tweets about local traffic - does she send out those tweets while she's sitting in her living room? I suppose you're one of those idiots who texts while driving and that's why my comment struck a nerve.
@ltb my thought is that she uses a police scanner/radio/tv/whatever else she can find to pick up traffic conditions and then tweet about them. It's a hobby, she's not hurting anyone.
@drewder, nowhere in the article does it say anything about scanners or hobbies. As a matter of fact, based on the lady’s tweet about vehicles going around an officer who was blocking the onramp, it seems fairly obvious that she was watching events unfold from her car. I think we can agree that this was a tragic event; however, my comment was about people who tweet while driving. If this lady doesn’t tweet her traffic reports while she’s behind the wheel of her car, then obviously my comment doesn’t apply to her, but unless you have firsthand knowledge that contradicts information in the article which seems to indicate that she does tweet from her car, then you have no idea where her tweets originate.
@ltb, In your first comment you even mention here twitter handle as being @SCANCouver, which is why one might assume she listens to a police scanner or something along those lines. As for her description of people going around the officer that can also be explained by her listening to a scanner if the officer commented over the radio that people where bypassing his blockade. So perhaps before you jump to conclusions about people you should take some time to think about it first instead immediately labeling someone as a menace to society.
Um, @SCANCouver kinda gives it away that she was listening to a SCANNER in Vancouver. "My husband drives (that route)" "and he's late", "and now my kids are home" tells the READER that she was at home while tweeting. It might not come right out & say it, but if you use extrapolation it's obvious that she was at home listening to the scanner that she habitually listens to to tweet about traffic conditions.
Let me repeat myself: “My comment was about people who tweet while driving. If this lady doesn’t tweet her traffic reports while she’s behind the wheel of her car, then obviously my comment doesn’t apply to her.” Yes, I suppose one could guess that this lady sits at home on her couch, knitting, drinking coffee, listening to a scanner and tweeting out traffic reports, but that begs the question, how do her followers see those tweets without taking their eyes off the road to look down at their phones?
@ltb Actually, you made it pretty clear that your problem was with her by questioning how many accidents she has caused, and then going on a random tangent about texting and driving which had nothing to do with this article. Stop trying to backtrack, and just admit you were wrong or at the very least stay on topic.