SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ahhhhh, parental responsibility
https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/charging-decision-due-for-parents-in-oxford-high-shooting
PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A prosecutor says the parents of a teen accused of killing four students at a Michigan high school were summoned a few hours earlier after a teacher found a drawing of a gun, a person bleeding and the words “help me.”
Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald made the disclosure Friday as she filed involuntary manslaughter charges against Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley.
McDonald says the gun used in the shootings at Oxford High School was purchased by James Crumbley a week ago and given to the boy.
Ethan Crumbley was returned to his classroom and later emerged from a bathroom, firing a gun at students. He's charged with murder and other charges.
McDonald says Jennifer Crumbley sent her son a text, saying “Ethan, don't do it.”
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
Jennifer and James Crumbley were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter.
“The parents were the only individuals in the position to know the access to weapons,” Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald said Thursday. The gun “seems to have been just freely available to that individual."
Ethan Crumbley, 15, has been charged as an adult with two dozen crimes, including murder, attempted murder and terrorism, for the shooting Tuesday at Oxford High School in Oakland County, roughly 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Detroit.
Four students were killed and seven more people were injured. Three were in hospitals in stable condition.
The semi-automatic gun was purchased legally by Crumbley’s father last week, according to investigators.
Parents in the U.S. are rarely charged in school shootings involving their children, even as most minors get guns from a parent or relative’s house, according to experts.
There's no Michigan law that requires gun owners keep weapons locked away from children. McDonald, however, suggested there's more to build a case on.
Later at a news conference, McDonald said she hoped to have an announcement "in the next 24 hours." She had firmly signaled that Crumbley's parents were under scrutiny when she filed charges against their son Wednesday.
Sheriff Mike Bouchard disclosed Wednesday that the parents met with school officials about their son's classroom behavior, just a few hours before the shooting.
McDonald said information about what had troubled the school “will most likely come to light soon.”
Crumbley stayed in school Tuesday and later emerged from a bathroom with a gun, firing at students in the hallway, police said.
The superintendent for the district late Thursday posted a YouTube video where he said the teenager was called to the office before the shooting but “no discipline was warranted.”
Tim Throne, leader of Oxford Community Schools, said the high school looks like a “war zone” and won’t be ready for weeks. But he repeatedly credited students and staff for how they responded to the violence.
"To say that I am still in shock and numb is probably an understatement. These events that have occurred will not define us," Throne, grim-faced and speaking slowly, said in the 12-minute video.
"I want you to know that there's been a lot of talk about the student who was apprehended, that he was called up to the office and all that kind of stuff. No discipline was warranted," Throne said. "There are no discipline records at the high school. Yes this student did have contact with our front office, and, yes, his parents were on campus Nov. 30."
Throne said he couldn't immediately release additional details.
Now, that's a real can of worms. But, I believe that can of worms needs to be opened. Even more so, if the parents actually purchased the pistol for the boy. Yeah, people my generation handled pistols before age 18. Parents didn't generally purchase a pistol for their kids though. My first pistol purchase wasn't until age 22. None of my elders allowed me unrestricted access to their handguns as a teen. None of my elders would have made the purchase for me. "Shotguns? Hell yeah, use mine anytime. Rifles? Yeah, you can use any of mine except x and y, those are expensive guns and I don't want you messing with them. Buy you a rifle? You got money? Sure, let's go to town and get it! Pistols? Nahhhh, I think you can wait until you can legally purchase your own!"
And, in this case, the kid was obviously having major problems. You don't give a troubled youngster a pistol.
So, let's dive into this nice juicy can of worms! Mmmmmm - look at that fat brownish-red one!! Yummy!
Some additional material on the subject of child access to weapons here: https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-gun-was-freely-available-to-michigan-shooter
And, the Post has a little more information: https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/parents-of-oxford-school-shooting-suspect-ethan-crumbley-to-be-charged/
Seagate and Western Digital Have 20 TB HDDs for Consumers
Seagate Exos X20 and IronWolf Pro 20TB Expand Retail 20TB HDD Options
Seagate has updated their flagship capacity options for the retail HDD market with the availability announcement for two new hard drives today - the Exos X20 and IronWolf Pro 20TB. These two models join the recently-released Western Digital WD Gold 20TB and Ultrastar HC560 to round out the 20TB hard drives currently available for retail purchase.
MSNBC news subverting jury (police video)
Remember the "producer" who was busted following the jury bus? Dude had the potential, and maybe the intention, to dox all the jurors in the trial. NBC issued an "apology", suggesting that they were just kinda sorta accidentally behind the bus.
Video here just damns them to hell and back.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1466042877923008523
The producer intentionally followed that bus,and he was on a pretty clearly defined mission, by order of NBC headquarters in New York.
The chick at the other end of the phone doesn't want to throw her reporter under the bus, so she exposes to the cop that they did, indeed, order their man on the scene to dig up some news on the jurors.
Gasoline Tax
Lately folks are worried about how to fund the roads with electric vehicles. Of course, there are very few EVs on the road… yet. They’re talking about some onerous taxes with privacy implications. Tax mileage, so you would have to take your car to the DMV every year, or worse, attach a device that always lets the state and federal government know where you are. Law enforcement and the NSA love that idea.
But I say do away with road taxes altogether. Before the 20th century, neither the state nor federal governments built roads. Many of the larger cities did, but not states; roads aren’t necessary for horses and wagons. The first drivers of autos bought gasoline in five gallon cans from hardware stores.
By the 1920s states had started paving roads, and in 1919 Oregon instituted the first gasoline tax, one cent per gallon. In 1919, few people had autos and most goods were still transported by water, rail, and horse drawn wagons. It made perfect sense that those who needed roads should pay for them; why should horse owners, whose steeds were expensive enough, have to pay to provide roads for the rich with cars? In Vachel Lindsay’s 1920 book The Golden Book of Springfield about the year 2018, cars and airplanes were still toys for the rich.
But the real 2018 was nothing like Lindsay’s 2018. Today, horses are toys for the rich, and cars, buses, and trucks haul the goods and people. Everyone needs the roads and highways today. What’s more, commerce does almost all damage to roads, why should automobile drivers have to pay for them?
The states and the federal government should just let gas taxes slide, and fix the roads with the same funds used to fund everything else. Just keep the gas tax to nudge people towards electric vehicles. Gasoline and its exhaust stinks, especially with a poorly tuned engine. The sooner gasoline and diesel are gone, the better.
Public defenders common cause with the NRA Supreme Court
Jurisprudence
A Criminal Justice Reformer’s Case for Looser Gun Laws
Public defenders have found common cause with the NRA at the Supreme Court.
By Mary Harris
Nov 29, 202110:00 AMThere’s this case in front of the Supreme Court that haunts me a little bit: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. It’s about whether it is too hard to get an unrestricted gun license in New York state. The plaintiffs say they should be able to carry their firearms wherever they want, not just to work or the gun range, and it seems like the court is inclined to agree with them, paving the way to looser gun laws. It makes me uneasy, because gun sales have spiked since the pandemic, and Kyle Rittenhouse was just found not guilty after shooting three people in the middle of a public street. But Sharone Mitchell Jr., a public defender in Chicago, sees it differently.
Mitchell is one of a number of public defenders who’ve sided with Second Amendment activists on this case. They argue that restrictive licensing, combined with a police force that is eager to charge Black and brown people with weapons possession, adds up to mass incarceration, and that loosening gun restrictions might right a tremendous wrong. On a recent episode of What Next, I spoke to Mitchell about why he opposes laws criminalizing gun possession, how he thinks about his right-wing allies in this case, and what he believes government should be doing to stop gun violence. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Sharone Mitchell Jr.: I see the people that we’re prosecuting. I think about the young man that I defended who had a gun in his bag that was licensed in another state and he accidentally took it to a bar, and his life was over. That ruined his life. He lost his job, he lost his housing, we had to go to trial. That ruined his life. I think it is understandable to look very early on at this approach and say, of course we should give people felonies for not possessing guns in the correct way. But when you really look at the results and you look at what’s actually happening on the ground, it’s tough to hold that same thought.
Mary Harris: What would have happened to him if he was white and somewhere rural in Illinois?
“Put your gun back in your car. Come back.”
That’s it.
Yeah. That’s it. We ended up winning the jury trial, but he still went to jail. The jury looked at this and said this was a mistake, I don’t think this is felonious conduct.
But they made him fight for it.
He lost a lot. The system made him fight for it. And too often mistakes or bad judgment is treated one way in one place and another way in another place.
You wrote an article, “There’s No Second Amendment on the South Side of Chicago,” in support of the New York public defenders who filed an amicus brief in this Supreme Court case. You talk about the disparate impact of gun laws not just in who gets ensnared by them, but where the enforcement occurs.
Our offense is called UUW, unlawful use of a weapon. And there are different types of UUWs. But the lowest-level felony, the Class 4 felony, 33 percent of the charges statewide come from 11 communities in Chicago, 11 communities in the entire state.
You look at the UUW numbers, you look at how it’s used in Chicago and how it’s used outside of Chicago—and you would think that guns only exist in Chicago. And you would think guns only exist in a small number of communities. And that’s not correct. In other areas of the state, that’s just not the way they approach that situation.
You say the ironic thing about the selective enforcement of gun laws is it’s precisely the people in the communities that get cracked down on who may have the most justified concern for their personal safety. For them, oftentimes gun ownership is part of a terrible downward spiral: Unsafe communities make people seek out weapons for self-protection. Then they get caught up in the justice system on a possession charge. Meanwhile, the police arresting them have done little to actually make their neighborhoods safer.
If these are the communities where you see an uptick in violence, those seem to be the people who have a reason to carry. That’s not something that I do. I live on the South Side of Chicago. But it’s understandable, and I see it every day when I talk to our attorneys, that people are scared. They turn on the news every single day and they hear carjacking, robbery, murder, robbery, carjacking. And people are choosing to protect themselves.
We have this assumption that making things a felony disallows people from performing that act. And I just haven’t been convinced of that. At this point in Chicago, folks are not waiting for the government to tell them that they can carry. And I think too often we overestimate the power of the criminal justice system to solve problems or fix the things that we need. I think people are living under the assumption that because you’ve got this very complicated scheme for getting licensed, that means people aren’t going to carry. I think what it means is that people aren’t going to carry legally.
I agree with what you’re saying about the systemic harm that you’re seeing from possession laws. And I think you’re right that when these laws exist, it’s Black and brown gun owners that get cracked down on. But I can’t help wondering if making it easier to have a firearm will keep people safer from physical harm from a gun.
See, I get you, but I just reject the idea that we’re making it easier to own a firearm. Because that’s not the reality of what’s happening in my communities. Even though we’re sending tons of people to prison, people still have easy access to guns. And even though CPD will take 12,000 guns off of these city streets, there are a hundred thousand guns that haven’t been discovered. So I think that’s my issue. My issue is I agree with folks who support the need for safety and want to use the government’s power to maintain safety. But that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to be critical of the actual solution.
You’re saying we can’t be safe because the zone is flooded with guns—that’s problem one.
I’m just talking about my community right now, and the clients that I see, the neighbors I see. I don’t think the current scheme makes it hard to get guns. It makes it harder to legally possess a gun. That’s true. But in the end, if somebody decides somebody just got shot in front of my house, or every time I watch the news I’m getting beaten over the head that I live in a hellscape, well, I’m going to possess a gun, whether the government tells me I can or not.
And the question is, how do we respond to that? Again, I just think the way we’re doing it, in a way that is very targeted on a particular type of people who live in a particular type of place, people who the numbers suggest they’re not going to harm anybody are being thrown into prison and being given these felony backgrounds that are going to follow them forever.
If you look at the population of Illinois prisons, there are more people in prison for weapons possession than there are for robbery. There are more people in prison for weapon possession than there is for kidnapping, more than arson or burglary or DUI or forgery or vehicle hijacking or retail theft. This is really becoming kind of the new war on drugs, where there’s a real problem, but our solution to the problem doesn’t actually fix the problem. In fact, it creates way more problems.
But when I think about possession of guns versus, say, possession of heroin, the difference to me is that there’s very little chance that your opioid is going to accidentally discharge on the street and kill someone. You don’t use a drug to defend yourself or to hurt someone else. It’s like a self-directed harm.
So you can only kill yourself with drugs.
It’s just endangering other people to carry a gun, in a different kind of way.
Yeah, I think you’re right. Drugs and guns aren’t the same. My comparison is what we’re seeing is identification of a problem and a solution offered that has very little success at fixing the problem. And it’s exploding. You know, from 2014 to 2019, admissions to IDOC, Illinois Department of Corrections, gun possession went up 27 percent. Everything else went down 38 percent. Arrests were down, crime was down. As a result, we were sending less people to prison. But at that same time, the only offense that was going up was gun possession.
Did that have any impact on the murder rate or suicide rate?
See, that’s the thing. Despite every single year increasing the amount of people that we put in prison or recovering guns, the murder rate continues to go up. And that’s because people are scared. So my solution isn’t like we should turn a blind eye to gun violence and let what happens happens. I’m saying, should we be giving people felonies for this? Should we be only enforcing this law in certain communities? And should we be thinking about solutions that are much more proactive, that actually identify folks who are at risk of harm, at risk of being shot, and actually give them what they need to keep communities safe?
I wonder if you think about the strange bedfellows especially in this Supreme Court case, where there was an amicus brief filed by Bronx Defenders and others talking about their clients and how they are denied access to guns that they want, but they’re teaming up with the kinds of litigants who otherwise might not have their best interests at heart. How do you think about that? Do you worry that the Black and brown people who agree with this argument that’s being made at the Supreme Court are being used?
No. I don’t worry about that. I worry about the safety of my communities. I worry about the people that I represent, whose lives are being derailed by this scheme. I worry about the people who are victims and the families who are victims of gun violence.
The strange bedfellows argument? It’s a complicated issue. I think that often we try to look at issues with red and blue glasses and we try to figure out what side is the conservative side and what side is the liberal side and where do you fit. But there are some issues that are so complicated that it’s not. And while I acknowledge that there are going to be people who hold different political views than me that may be on the same side of our fellow public defenders, I believe that we’re on the right side of this. And if there are other people that choose to be on that side as well, then that’s what they’ve chosen to believe.
I noticed that Chicago came up in oral arguments. Justice Elena Kagan called it the world’s worst place when it came to gun violence.
Yeah, and I think it has one of the world’s worst strategies when it comes to gun violence. Ninety-five, 94, 96 percent of the money that we spend here in the region is focused on responses to gun violence, so police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, sheriffs, people that show up after the harm has happened. And 4 to 6 percent of the spending goes toward prevention. It goes toward actually stopping the harm or trying to stop the harm before it happens.
You know, we have models, we have examples of actually reducing violence in a nontraditional way. But we’re so enamored with this traditional idea of rounding people up, seeing if they have guns, putting them in prison or putting them on probation, taking their guns away. And we’re just addicted to this idea that it’s going to do something. And again, week after week after week after week, we see its failures.
In your ideal world, what does the legal framework around guns look like?
I think it’s a framework that doesn’t include the criminal system. This idea that we criminalize possession of guns, I just don’t think it’s a working model. When somebody presents to the justice system, especially young people in communities that are experiencing high levels of violence, I just don’t think that putting them in prison is an effective response to that risk.
We’ve seen models, interrupter models, violence prevention models, where people are identified to be at the highest level for shooting or being shot. They’re paired with people that can be a positive effect in their life. They’re given the counseling they need to make rational decisions, and they are offered opportunities for real economic future. I feel like that approach is a much more effective approach than indiscriminately sending people to prison and hoping it gets better, when it hasn’t gotten better for years after years after years.
As a person who is on the South Side, who are in communities that suffer from harm, I want people to be held accountable for harm. But more important than that is I want the harm to stop happening. So I’m unwilling to just settle for “Oh, we’re holding people accountable,” if it’s actually not keeping us safer.
When we start talking about loosening the rules around guns, my fear is what happened in Kenosha with Kyle Rittenhouse, where you have a teenager who wants to carry a gun, wants to defend property, goes out into the world. Other people have guns. And the jury essentially seems to have said, well, everyone had guns, so it’s hard to tell really who’s the aggressor. And I worry that we’re setting ourselves up for much more of that, if we’re loosening the restrictions around who can have guns and where they can take them.
I definitely understand us looking at the Rittenhouse case and trying to draw deeper conclusions about it. But the sad reality of the situation is that the vast majority of cases do not include a 17-year old white teen going to a protest and deciding he wants to play cop for day. And I think there’s a real danger in taking a case like that and drawing conclusions of the whole legal system, because that’s just such an outlier.
The Supreme Court seems to have a pretty good chance of taking the side of the gun and rifle folks in this case. But I wonder what’s going to change in Chicago, if anything, if this case succeeds.
I think we’ll have to see what the ruling is. What my hope is is that we start to pull away a little bit from these traditional approaches that have not kept us safe, that we really think about these violence interrupter models that really identify folks who are in trouble and try to resolve the situation. Because for me, the thing that I feel most strongly about is I see folks that are in struggle, and the system’s not giving them anything but more bad. Sticking somebody in prison for two, three, four years, putting them on probation, and then sending them right back to the same communities that they’re in danger is doing nothing to fix the problem. And we spend a fraction of our dollars on some of those interventions that actually get at the solution. So I’m hoping if something were to happen that some people would see as drastic, that we would take the time to be like, OK, we’ve got to redo this thing. What is the best way to spend our limited dollars, not just to seem politically tough, but to actually provide safety for those that are literally under the gun?
If no one else is 'getting it', the public defenders who see their minority clients feeding the classroom-to-prison pipeline are finally 'getting it'.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/supreme-court-gun-case-public-defenders.html
The Xi Variant
The W.H.O. skips forward two Greek letters, avoiding a Xi variant.
When the World Health Organization began to name the emerging variants of the coronavirus, officials turned to the Greek alphabet to make it easier for the public to understand the evolution: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and so on.
Now the alphabet has created its own political headache. When it came time to name the potentially dangerous new variant that has emerged in southern Africa, the next letter in alphabetical order was Nu, which officials thought would be too easily confused with “new.”
The letter after that was even more complicated: Xi, a name that in its transliteration, though not its pronunciation, happens to belong to the leader of China, Xi Jinping. So they skipped both and named the new variant Omicron.
“‘Nu’ is too easily confounded with ‘new,’ and ‘Xi’ was not used because it is a common last name,” a spokesman, Tarik Jasarevic, said on Saturday in an emailed response to questions about skipping the two letters.
The organization’s policy, he went on, requires “avoiding causing offense to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional, or ethnic groups.”
JWST Not Killed
JWST undamaged from payload processing incident
Launch preparations for NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope will resume after testing found no damage to the spacecraft from a payload processing incident earlier this month.
NASA announced late Nov. 24 that testing of JWST found no sign of damage to any of its components after a clamp band, which secures the spacecraft to its launch vehicle adapter, suddenly and unexpectedly released during payload processing work by Arianespace. The release of the clamp band imparted vibrations to the telescope that project officials worried could have damaged it.
NASA did not discuss the specific testing performed, or the components that were of concern, but said in the statement that an anomaly board concluded that no observatory components were damaged by the test. Fueling of JWST, the next major step in preparing the spacecraft for launch, is scheduled to begin Nov. 25 and take about 10 days.
JWST's destruction has been postponed to NET Dec. 22.
Previously: NASA Nudges James Webb Telescope Launch Date After 'Sudden, Unplanned' Vibration Incident
opportunity knocking
Dear wife brought this to my attention. "You know how they took Kyle's gofundme down? They've got a gofundme for BROOKS! Can you IMAGINE?!?!?" I hemmed and hawed a little bit, and agreed that would be outrageous. Then I did a search . . .
Very first hit, a site I've never heard of before, https://meaww.com/go-fund-me-allows-fundraiser-for-darrell-brooks-days-after-banning-kyle-rittenhouse-campaign
GoFundMe reportedly banned fundraisers for Kyle Rittenhouse from their platform, saying its “terms of service prohibit raising money for the legal defense of an alleged violent crime” before allowing it back recently. But Law Enforcement Today claimed that the crowdfunding platform reportedly briefly allowed the fundraiser for Darrell Brooks Jr, the suspect in the Waukesha Christmas Parade tragedy. The report also stated that the campaign was up till November 23.
However, it seems the crowdfunding platform has now removed the fundraiser because when MEAWW checked the GoFundMe site, we did not find any page urging money for Brooks Jr. Also, MEAWW has reached out to GoFundMe for a comment.
According to the Law Enforcement Today report, the apparent campaign page for Brooks was started by James Norton, who wrote while urging $5 million as a donation, “On November 21st, 2021 our dear friend Darrell Brooks was arrested for allegedly driving his car into a parade, as someone who knows Darrell personally I can tell you that he would NEVER do such a thing and I know he is innocent of what he was charged with.”
So, going on this one news source, I'm going to say that a friend of Brooks started the gofundme, that it stayed up for some hours, maybe even a day, then when people noticed it, it was taken down.
More searches are in order, but first:
I said opportunity is knocking. Here, BLM, Antifa, and privileged progressive white America has the opportunity to disassociate itself, and disavow, an individual who is obviously guilty of truly heinous crimes. Yeah, the justice system has to consider Brooks innocent until he is proven guilty. I'm not the justice system, neither are you, or BLM, or any other concerned or unconcerned entities. I've watched the vidyas, and Brooks proved himself an inhuman monster. Any individual in the world can look at the videos, and watch bodies flying through the air, just because Brooks felt like watching bodies fly.
Opportunity. Is the progressively crazy community capable of distinguishing between black men who are oppressed, and black men who are capable of committing monstrous crimes? I mean, Tamir Rice is so very obviously in the first group. Various individuals in the years since have been equally innocent, while other individuals have been shady characters, whom I just couldn't get behind. In fact, we can probably define a spectrum, ranging from truly innocent, to out of control criminals who must be dealt with harshly. Can we separate the more heinous crimes against black men, from more honest law enforcement actions with unfortunate results?
Here, I would expect a person, such as aristarchus, who claims to be a philosopher, to help us wade through the maze of legitimate and illegitimate actions by law enforcment. Seriously, ari, feel free to jump in and help us distinguish between young black males who would be a threat to any society from young black males who are persecuted and prosecuted unjustly.
And, this is just the sort of thing we need to see from BLM, Antifa, the Democrats, progressives, as well as liberals. Darrell Brooks is most certainly not equal to Ahmaud Arbery, or John Crawford III, or Breonna Taylor, or any number of innocents killed by racially motivated white people and/or law enforcement.
Come on, ari. I challenge. Help me to rank people on this spectrum. Tell us who we should really be demonstrating for, and who we should be demonstrating against. I'm never going to buy that a black man is innocent just because he is black, any more than I'll buy into the white supremacists presumption that a white man is always innocent, always right, in any confrontation with a non-white.
Pentagon UFO Group
Pentagon announces plans to streamline UFO reports and analysis
The new unified group, called the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), will standardize the process for reporting UAP incidents, as well as "identifying and reducing gaps in operational and intelligence detection capabilities; collecting and analyzing operation, intelligence, and counterintelligence data; recommending policy, regulatory or statutory changes as appropriate; identifying approaches to prevent or mitigate any risks posed by airborne objects of interest; and other activities as deemed necessary by the Director," Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks wrote in a memo.
The newly created AOIMSG, led by a director, will now take over the work of the Navy's UAP Task Force as the Defense Department works to get a better grasp on what's behind the UFO sightings and how much of a threat they could pose to national security. The work of the AOIMSG will be overseen by an executive council.
Waukesha Wisconsin
There is no indication yet what flavor of batshit crazy is responsible here. The city staged their Christmas parade, and a red SUV came flying up behind the parade, intentionally running people over. No casualty count yet, but one witness claims ~30 bodies in one intersection. The SUV continued along the parade route after going through that particular intersection, so 30 may be a conservative number.
Police say they have a "person of interest" in custody, which I presume to mean the driver of the SUV.
There is little in the way of video, and even less in terms of meaningful statements.
https://twitter.com/bill_haus/status/1462575969043206144
https://www.savevideo.xyz/downloads/NorrinR06303580
https://twitter.com/SamKraemerTV/status/1462560504208146438
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIfJ8TU84bw
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/wisconsin-waukesha-christmas-parade-car-plow/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIfJ8TU84bw
Here, we see the SUV running into the marching band mentioned in other places.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qqEEQNjo00
