Heyesey

If the daughter has reason to believe she'll be hit again, she's entitled to flatten the guy with any means necessary - however, once he has BEEN flattened, she's not entitled to take any further aggressive action, as she now has time to remove herself from the threat. People who self-defend with one blow, accidentally nick the attacker's femoral artery, and kill them stone dead, don't even get prosecuted. They do tend to get arrested while the police sort out what the hell happened, but they are not charged. (One such person was arrested last year, there was a huge public outcry that he shouldn't be prosecuted; he wasn't. The police dropped all investigations against him the moment they'd established what actually happened, less than a day later.) As this thread has already proven, how the scenario is presented can make a HUGE difference to how people think about it. "He hit me so I hit him back" is likely to get you in trouble: "he started hitting me, so I hit him back to make him stop" is not. One sounds like retaliation and the other is clearly self-defence. (Incidentally, the argument that you can make a citizen's arrest on the assailant is legally accurate but pretty daft in the given circumstances...)

John Lewis died in 1928. What point did you think you had?

He didn't say they always are stable; they often aren't. But legally they are deemed to be so, period.

You're already moving forward, at the same speed the car was going before impact.

Which bit of "community of aborigines" did you not understand, then?

*facepalm* We've already mentioned this at least four times in the thread. Are you really this stupid? The body is ALREADY moving at high speed. It was going the same speed as the car. When the car stops, the body hits it; either in the seat belt, in the airbag, or in the windscreen.

He told people who live in a filthy slum to get off their arse and clean it themselves, because the litter didn't come from anybody but them? Exactly how is this supposed to be a bad thing?

And you're arguing that they should have sent a gritter out to place cones?

Precisely, so you have two choices; appeal the ticket on those grounds, or act like a <emoved> and let some other poor sod sort it out when the letter lands on his doormat. I won't even bother mentioning the third option of actually paying the fine that you should be paying, because you did actually park illegally. I doubt you'd even bother to read it.

Which means you slam at very high speed into the seat-belt.

Doing something sensible, instead of pouring out grit onto a spot where it will be washed away almost before it's had time to land.

The question is whether Hollywood needs one, not whether Cloverfield does. The movie moguls are as keen to make money as anyone else, so they want the best odds they can get of producing a profitable film. Unfortunately, for forty years at least their idea of how most to improve those odds has been "hey, that film made a huge amount of money. Let's make it again and we can make the same amount again." And why look at Saw? If you want some serious examples of a good film massacred by its own sequels, remember that Rocky was an Oscar-winner, and The Dirty Dozen was one of the best war films ever made.

It's about time. It's nearly thirty years since it was last adapted for TV, and look how much special effects have come on since then. The plants might actually be believable now. Besides.... almost a whole generation has grown up that doesn't understand the joke "Say it with flowers. Send her a triffid."

It only eliminates the excuse. "Religious" wars have, almost exclusively, been about power struggles and had very little to do with religion.

In worlds where physics does not apply, maybe. In the real world we live in, she cannot possibly be right under any possible circumstances. The organs don't gather speed due to the impact; they're already moving, at the same speed as the vehicle was. The only variable in play is what stops them.