I saw several authors writing about the incident in Shaanxi where an excavator damaged the facade of the government service center.
The video looks quite frightening, the excavator directly smashed down the architectural components of the service center's facade.
I read the on-site reports from two media outlets, Beijing News and Jiemu News. From the situation presented in the video, I feel the excavator driver's main target was the building, not people, nor was it a retaliatory operation... Otherwise, he wouldn't have driven an excavator there. Think about it, he could drive an excavator to the entrance, what about other vehicles?
Therefore, seeing some people calling the driver insane, I think based solely on this incident, he hasn't reached that point yet. We can wait for the official report before scolding him.
From some details in the on-site reports of the two media outlets, we can also see some clues. For example,
After damaging multiple building facilities, the excavator driver voluntarily stopped the excavator, and was then controlled by the special police who rushed to the scene. The words of the on-site staff were: “No one dared to stop him, after he damaged several places, he stopped himself.”
This is actually a very important piece of information, or rather, it depends on how you interpret it.
In my opinion, if the driver's only goal was to cause as much damage as possible, he could have continued operating until he was forcibly controlled, before being controlled. But he ultimately chose to stop voluntarily at a certain point... Suddenly I want to say, “I wonder if this counts as turning himself in.”
At this point, since the main target was not to cause as much damage as possible, what exactly did this excavator driver want to do?
The answer everyone can probably guess is, nothing more than to express some kind of appeal through these actions, or to be seen by the outside world.
Otherwise, you see, the things he chose to destroy, such as the door lintels, steps, glass doors... these should be considered relatively simple "components", and there is room for repair. Otherwise, if he had really damaged the main structure of the building, the consequences and his own responsibility would not have been on the same level at all.
Therefore, it is not to defend him, but this incident is different from some revenge incidents that disregard consequences and aim to harm others.
Another point worth mentioning,
Currently, the local authorities have not announced clear investigation results, including the driver's motives, etc. But in the comment sections of some news reports, many highly praised comments are, “It must be that the engineering payments owed were not paid”, “The work was done but the money was not in place”, “Is it about arrears?”...
I want to emphasize that this is all netizens talking nonsense. But what's interesting is: why is the direction of this nonsense so astonishingly consistent?
From this perspective, even if the final investigation results show that it is completely unrelated, the authorities can actually pay a little attention to similar issues. Because sometimes, when the public is guessing about something, it also reflects an impression, or a demand.
Finally, let me add a possibly "inappropriate" personal opinion. Some comments also mentioned that this excavator driver doing such a thing, causing damage to public property, and also posing certain safety risks, his behavior is obviously illegal, he has to bear responsibility, and there are no benefits, so what is he trying to achieve?
Even if he really encountered some problems and had some demands, why must he express them in this way? Can't he find a gentler way to seek a solution to the problem?
I think this question is very interesting. It's interesting because as a question, it's meaningless. But as an answer, it's very interesting: what are the other ways?
I think everyone has heard of an idiom, which is "it is better to dredge than to block". Sometimes, if there were gentler and more effective methods, if a person encountered problems and had normal, effective channels that could receive a response, why would he risk breaking the law to do this kind of messed-up thing?
In other words, is it possible that such incidents would not need to exist, and could be reduced, or even fundamentally eliminated?
This may be one of the greatest meanings reflected by this incident. Ultimately, the law must have a bottom line, but solving problems cannot only rely on a bottom line.
Sometimes, a path that can speak, a path that can solve problems, is actually more meaningful and more effective in solving problems than all sorts of high-sounding talk, it's that simple.
