A truck drove into a line of ICE protesters outside a detention facility in Rhode Island

[fast]

We definitely have a poisoned well these days, where events like this draw nearly immediate judgment on cause / motive. Patience is dead and partisan judgments carry the weight of law for some. In fact, for some, the actual motive might never matter to them. We, as a people, need to slow the heck down.

Not every conjecture should be given the same weight. That’s like saying one persons opinion is no better or worse than another’s. Perhaps so in some subjective cases, but when it comes to matters of fact, it is only sometimes that the ole saying “assumptions make an ass out of you and me” bears repeating.

With practically no information on a given issue, beforehand knowledge on a related topic but unrelated to a specific incident (like prevalence) should carry more weight in swaying one’s initial thoughts. The problem comes in when we solidify our positions with such rigidity that new countervening information won’t budge our perspectives.

I wholeheartedly agree that we can no more guarantee the truth in error free fashion for one possibility than another, and little information is far from guaranteeing motive, and although I certainly wouldn’t bet the farm either way, I don’t buy into the idea that likelihood’s are created equal.

Again, not every conjecture is created equal. If someone is accused of (oh say, lying), i’ll look at all the reasons given to support the contention, but i’ll also look for possible loopholes. In fact, i’ll go out of my way and allow unreasonable possibilities to be factored in. Hell, the guy could admit to road rage, and if others analysis conclude it was road rage, I would side with you in that it’s still possible that the guy lied and others were mistaken if a loophole is still there for the wondering.

However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills, I have more reason to find domestic terrorism implausible than plausible. The sheer accusation alone is dubious. Let some actual facts come in that more than merely suggest otherwise, then the weight I give to the fact most cases of protesters blocking traffic are not domestic terrorism cases will be less.

I also find it quite easy to surmise that words were exchanged prior to the peaceful innocent protesters being mowed down like dingy grass. With no evidence. It’s called making shit up in your world. In my world, it’s tranference. When things typically happen and you hear something similar happening, one tends to think things happened like they typically happen—absent evidence to the contrary of course. It’s not a position of certainty but of speculation, but a person who knows a great deal about similar type cases will likely yield a more plausible guess.

 

[Gun Nut]

I know, right!!??! Earth, for one. I'm not saying, "oh well, maybe it was just road rage, is all...." I am RESPONDING to it from others here. It sounded to me like they are saying that "road Rage" is more "forgivable" than some other forms of rage... like the rage one feels when people point out how unethical and wrong their views are... implying they are immoral.

Wow. Talk about a swing and a miss.

Sorry Jimmy, I've lost you here... At first it sounded like you misunderstood my response as being the opposite of what I intended to say (maybe my poor writing, maybe your poor reading)... but now I have no idea what your objection is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We definitely have a poisoned well these days, where events like this draw nearly immediate judgment on cause / motive. Patience is dead and partisan judgments carry the weight of law for some. In fact, for some, the actual motive might never matter to them. We, as a people, need to slow the heck down.

Not every conjecture should be given the same weight. That’s like saying one persons opinion is no better or worse than another’s. Perhaps so in some subjective cases, but when it comes to matters of fact, it is only sometimes that the ole saying “assumptions make an ass out of you and me” bears repeating.

With practically no information on a given issue, beforehand knowledge on a related topic but unrelated to a specific incident (like prevalence) should carry more weight in swaying one’s initial thoughts. The problem comes in when we solidify our positions with such rigidity that new countervening information won’t budge our perspectives.

I wholeheartedly agree that we can no more guarantee the truth in error free fashion for one possibility than another, and little information is far from guaranteeing motive, and although I certainly wouldn’t bet the farm either way, I don’t buy into the idea that likelihood’s are created equal.

Again, not every conjecture is created equal. If someone is accused of (oh say, lying), i’ll look at all the reasons given to support the contention, but i’ll also look for possible loopholes. In fact, i’ll go out of my way and allow unreasonable possibilities to be factored in. Hell, the guy could admit to road rage, and if others analysis conclude it was road rage, I would side with you in that it’s still possible that the guy lied and others were mistaken if a loophole is still there for the wondering.

However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills, I have more reason to find domestic terrorism implausible than plausible. The sheer accusation alone is dubious. Let some actual facts come in that more than merely suggest otherwise, then the weight I give to the fact most cases of protesters blocking traffic are not domestic terrorism cases will be less.

I also find it quite easy to surmise that words were exchanged prior to the peaceful innocent protesters being mowed down like dingy grass. With no evidence. It’s called making shit up in your world. In my world, it’s tranference. When things typically happen and you hear something similar happening, one tends to think things happened like they typically happen—absent evidence to the contrary of course. It’s not a position of certainty but of speculation, but a person who knows a great deal about similar type cases will likely yield a more plausible guess.

Goodness, what a case of verbal diarrhea. Seems like a lot of words to say, "Liberals are whiny pussies and think everything is terrorism".

 

[Gun Nut]

Wha? Are you suggesting that there can be evidence of him not knowing something?

On an island.. of course not... I understand how positive existence claims work.

In reality? If protestors are setup outside your place of work for WEEKS, it's covered by every news outlet, and you are a member of a politically demonized group that they are targeting, it's pretty hard to claim complete ignorance of their presence. If it's raining outside, and you and your friend are standing there soaking wet, I guess you have to allow for the fact that you can't prove that your friend is aware that it is raining out. Maybe he sleeps standing up and is a very deep sleeper? same odds this guy was clueless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When I saw the video footage of the incident (that appears to have alluded many contributors here in this thread), my reaction was that if I was there, I would likely have removed the attacker from his vehicle at gunpoint and placed him under citizens arrest for assault. And when he resisted, he would have been either shot or badly beaten into submission.
The video clearly shows a premeditated attack on peaceful protestors... not "road rage" or any other euphemistically forgiving categorization of his physical attack with a deadly weapon on peaceful persons.

Premeditation would imply he got into his truck with the intention of running over protesters. "Road rage" implies in the heat of the moment. His attack could have been politically motivated, without being premeditated.

not that it really matters, but it stopped being potential "road rage" when
a) he left the road to intentionally injure the protestors on the sidewalk (who were in the way of the entrance to the parking area, but not on a public road)
b) he paused for a few moments before deciding to continue to threaten them with deadly force
c) he clearly saw the pedestrian protestors and the person recording him, and thoughtfully (meditatively - before taking additional action.. i.e. pre-meditated) decided to take the additional action of lurching the vehicle forward into them.
d) there is no evidence he was somehow unaware of the protestor's presence outside his place of business prior to entering his vehicle to commute there. Such a presence could not have been any kind of reasonable surprise.

Nasty thought here: I'm not at all sure they can convict him. He could claim fear that he was being attacked by the protesters that surrounded him. Surrounding vehicles is a common protester tactic--but it's sometimes accompanied by violence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

not that it really matters, but it stopped being potential "road rage" when
a) he left the road to intentionally injure the protestors on the sidewalk (who were in the way of the entrance to the parking area, but not on a public road)
b) he paused for a few moments before deciding to continue to threaten them with deadly force
c) he clearly saw the pedestrian protestors and the person recording him, and thoughtfully (meditatively - before taking additional action.. i.e. pre-meditated) decided to take the additional action of lurching the vehicle forward into them.
d) there is no evidence he was somehow unaware of the protestor's presence outside his place of business prior to entering his vehicle to commute there. Such a presence could not have been any kind of reasonable surprise.

Nasty thought here: I'm not at all sure they can convict him. He could claim fear that he was being attacked by the protesters that surrounded him. Surrounding vehicles is a common protester tactic--but it's sometimes accompanied by violence.

Yeah like that time in umm... that movie I saw. The one with Harrison Ford when he went to Columbia and they started shooting at him. I think the movie was Star Wars VII.

 

[Bomb#20]

Then report it and don't whine about it.

Telling the perp is "whining" but secretly telling the authorities isn't? I have no desire to silence my critics by force. It's good when they show off how weak their cases are.

We definitely have a poisoned well these days, where events like this draw nearly immediate judgment on cause / motive. Patience is dead and partisan judgments carry the weight of law for some. In fact, for some, the actual motive might never matter to them. We, as a people, need to slow the heck down.

Exactly right.

 

[Bomb#20]

... With practically no information on a given issue, beforehand knowledge on a related topic but unrelated to a specific incident (like prevalence) should carry more weight in swaying one’s initial thoughts. ...

Goodness, what a case of verbal diarrhea. Seems like a lot of words to say, "Liberals are whiny pussies and think everything is terrorism".

Is that all you took away? It struck me as a very thoughtful and intelligent post.

 

[Bomb#20]

On what planet is premeditation incompatible with rage?

It sounds like you are implying that the euphemism "Road Rage" embodies all "rage". It doesn't.

Huh? In the first place, what on earth is "road rage" a euphemism for? It doesn't really sound nice enough to serve as a euphemism. And in the second place, wait, you were proposing that rage in general is perfectly compatible with premeditation, but it's having the enraged person be on the road and be enraged about people around him being dicks that's incompatible with premeditation? How does that work exactly?

If you're familiar with rage as a phenomenon, you should realize it builds on repetition and it builds on people nursing it. I suspect this wasn't the first time the driver was blocked by those same protesters.

And on what planet is "road rage" a "euphemistically forgiving categorization"? Throw the book at him.

I know, right!!??! Earth, for one. I'm not saying, "oh well, maybe it was just road rage, is all...." I am RESPONDING to it from others here. It sounded to me like they are saying that "road Rage" is more "forgivable" than some other forms of rage... like the rage one feels when people point out how unethical and wrong their views are... implying they are immoral.

Acting on road rage is immoral too. Who the heck advocated forgiving the driver? The point is to be skeptical of those who are politicizing the event out ahead of the evidence, not to forgive the driver.

Lurching a truck in the direction of pedestrians to get them to move out of your way is in no way (at all) any different than pointing an AR at them and racking the slide (chambering a bullet so it is ready to fire)

Of course.

I'll hold you to that position ... on other threads more directly related to the use of guns / cars and which of them are more in need of regulation / restriction of ownership.

Huh? Have you read any of my gun posts? Where the heck have I ever argued against regulation and restriction of ownership? If I had my 'druthers ARs would be outlawed.

 

[fast]

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8...rove_truck_into_jewish_activists_has_resigned

The ACLU of Rhode Island called the attack “an attempt to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by hundreds of peaceful protesters.”

What a crock of shit!

The article reads, “An attempt to.” There are the words right there: “an attempt to.” Why, because it temporarily happened? That is stupid reasoning, and that stupidity is prevalent.

Maybe I am imbuing a few self-made up thoughts on his motives, but I’m given no reason to entertain the notion that why (why!) he harmed those people was to shut them up.

On the drivers behalf: Talk! Speak! Heck, scream until even the whooperwills begin looking for a new home. Protest. Be it a whisper/be it in a dress. Exercise until your aching amendment rights feel soothed. Do whatever it is you want to do to satisfy your cravings to announce your two cents upon the world to hear.

But, do it in the road, and he’ll run your ass over. Seriously, people think (people actually do that?) the driver’s goal was that of silence? To suppress free speech rights? Protest outside his bedroom window and it might be to shut him up—and even then it would be to get some sleep by alleviating himself of the annoyance and anger from being trespassed against—not some cockamamie twisted conflation of consequence with intent—and no, the only other option isn’t ignorance — immoral as his actions are.

I’ve always thought it was just a twist on word play that everybody got, but no, people actually believe this shit. The prevalence is shocking. It’s as common as saying a cop arrested a black man and somewhere, there’s going to be multi millions of people thinking him being black had something to do with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... With practically no information on a given issue, beforehand knowledge on a related topic but unrelated to a specific incident (like prevalence) should carry more weight in swaying one’s initial thoughts. ...

Goodness, what a case of verbal diarrhea. Seems like a lot of words to say, "Liberals are whiny pussies and think everything is terrorism".

Is that all you took away? It struck me as a very thoughtful and intelligent post.

It was political self-indulgence attempting to appear neutral.

 

[laughing dog]

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8...rove_truck_into_jewish_activists_has_resigned

The ACLU of Rhode Island called the attack “an attempt to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by hundreds of peaceful protesters.”

What a crock of shit!....

It is possible that the attack was such an attempt. Which would mean it is not a crock of shit. Which means your response is an example of the stupid reasoning it decries.

At this point, we do not know what the attacker's intent was. And, unless there is some evidence besides his ex post story, we may never know.

 

[fast]

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8...rove_truck_into_jewish_activists_has_resigned

The ACLU of Rhode Island called the attack “an attempt to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by hundreds of peaceful protesters.”

What a crock of shit!....

It is possible that the attack was such an attempt. Which would mean it is not a crock of shit. Which means your response is an example of the stupid reasoning it decries.

At this point, we do not know what the attacker's intent was. And, unless there is some evidence besides his ex post story, we may never know.

We don’t know, so even if your standard for what constitutes knowledge is off the charts and in the land of Cartesian certainty, that won’t be relevant, but what is relevant is ignoring plausibility because of bare possibility.

He was lurching forward. He was enticing them to move. Do you think maybe he wanted to get by?

Or, do you think it’s plausible he was just indecisive between A) immediately getting to work because of an insatiable desire to eat a microwaved hotdog and B) giving in to an internalized desire to exact revenge on those standing (and sitting) on the wrong side of a cause everyone else in traffic could give two shits about? Possible, yes, both of them, but plausible?

I say wanting to get by ... coupled with that crick that crawls up one’s neck after listening to nerve-wracking incessant taunt-like mannerisms frothing from the mouths of manchild protesters and their get under your skin juvenile persona.

 

[laughing dog]

It is possible that the attack was such an attempt. Which would mean it is not a crock of shit. Which means your response is an example of the stupid reasoning it decries.

At this point, we do not know what the attacker's intent was. And, unless there is some evidence besides his ex post story, we may never know.

We don’t know, so even if your standard for what constitutes knowledge is off the charts and in the land of Cartesian certainty, that won’t be relevant, but what is relevant is ignoring plausibility because of bare possibility.

He was lurching forward. He was enticing them to move. Do you think maybe he wanted to get by?..

Maybe, maybe he was simply hesitating before he went forward with his plan to attack them. Maybe his vehicle had a problem. Maybe he trying to look that he was trying to go to work was part of his plan to dupe the police and their kneejerk apologists. The point is that we don't know at this time. Right now, his observable actions are plausibly consistent with different explanations.

If your point is that speculation as to motive is both premature and detrimental, then fine. But your point that one speculative answer is a crock of shit while another is not, well, then your argument is an example of stupid thinking. Add in the pejorative descriptors in your analysis, and it becomes an exemplar of a crock of shit.

 

[AirPoh]

I once made a snarky remark almost exactly like that one. I got infracted for it.

Do you have any information that it was terrorism and emboldenment by Trump that caused the driver to run into pedestrians?

Another terrorist emboldened by Trump.

Terrorism normally refers to attacking targets of convenience for the sake of the political effect on third parties, not to attacking the specific individuals who are personally causing you a problem. I think the term you're looking for is "road rage".

Do you have any information that it was road rage that caused the driver to run into pedestrians?

Do you have any information that AirPoh has any information that it was terrorism and emboldenment by Trump that caused the driver to run into pedestrians?

The definition of terrorism.

 

[fast]

Maybe, maybe he was simply hesitating before he went forward with his plan to attack them.

He MIGHT have been simply hesitating before he went forward with his plan to attack. That is a logical possibility. It is a bare possibility. Anything (save a contradiction) that we make up is at least a possibility. Your house MIGHT be on fire, and if I say your house might be on fire, and if you understand my saying that as merely expressing a bare logical possibility, I don’t expect you have any good reason to go a-runnin’ to check.

If, on the other hand, I say your house MAY be on fire, I would expect you to understand that what I’m intending to convey extends far beyond a declaration of possibilities. If you say my house MAY be on fire, you better have more than mere possibilities in mind—for instance, an actual reason to think it’s actually PROBABLY on fire.

So, no, I don’t agree with your maybe this and maybe that. I agree with might this and might that. Again, no, I don’t think he may have been hesitating before he went forward with some plan of attack. It is MERELY a possibility and has no substance—no thrust.

However, it’s not my intention to quibble. I can be charitable and accept your word usage so long as it’s clear that I agree with you if it’s your intention to limit the “maybe’s” to possibilities and not elevate them beyond that.

Maybe his vehicle had a problem.

That’s a bare (logical) possibility, so sure, his vehicle MIGHT have had a problem. Of course, we have no reason to suspect it did in light of the remainder of the facts.

Maybe he trying to look that he was trying to go to work was part of his plan to dupe the police and their kneejerk apologists.

Again, logically possible. We know beforehand that anything that isn’t a contradiction might be the case. What MAY be the case, however, requires reason beyond what we know a priori.

Your house might be on fire. Your house might not be on fire. If you hear a news report that a house on your street is on fire and you suddenly recollect leaving the stove on, you then have reason to think it MAY be on fire. It doesn’t mean it is, but now we’re in the realm of plausibility—or greater possibility. That it MAY be on fire trumps that it MIGHT not be.

The point is that we don't know at this time.

That’s not the point. We can have a good reason to think one thing and still not know, and having a reason for one thing is superior than having nothing more than an understanding that other possible explanations exist. Again, it’s possible your house is not on fire, and if the only other thing we had to go on was that it’s possible your house is on fire, there’s no good reason to suspect one above the other. Therein lies no reason, but when there is a reason, we leave room to consider possibilities, but forming a view before all facts are in is not entirely unreasonable—just incomplete and why we need to be open to new information.

 

[Gun Nut]

not that it really matters, but it stopped being potential "road rage" when
a) he left the road to intentionally injure the protestors on the sidewalk (who were in the way of the entrance to the parking area, but not on a public road)
b) he paused for a few moments before deciding to continue to threaten them with deadly force
c) he clearly saw the pedestrian protestors and the person recording him, and thoughtfully (meditatively - before taking additional action.. i.e. pre-meditated) decided to take the additional action of lurching the vehicle forward into them.
d) there is no evidence he was somehow unaware of the protestor's presence outside his place of business prior to entering his vehicle to commute there. Such a presence could not have been any kind of reasonable surprise.

Nasty thought here: I'm not at all sure they can convict him. He could claim fear that he was being attacked by the protesters that surrounded him. Surrounding vehicles is a common protester tactic--but it's sometimes accompanied by violence.

from my view of the video, the crowd did converge and surround the vehicle.. but only AFTER he started into them. When he first approached... they yelled at him, but did not move towards his truck or surround him... It was not until he started lurching toward the crowd that voices got louder and they started moving to stop him from killing people.
An aspect of justifiable deadly force is that one cannot use such force to protect oneself from an attack that one has instigated themselves. You have to first detach yourself and deescalate your part before the state of who is attacking who can change parties.

 

[laughing dog]

He MIGHT have been simply hesitating before he went forward with his plan to attack. That is a logical possibility. It is a bare possibility. Anything (save a contradiction) that we make up is at least a possibility. Your house MIGHT be on fire, and if I say your house might be on fire, and if you understand my saying that as merely expressing a bare logical possibility, I don’t expect you have any good reason to go a-runnin’ to check.

If, on the other hand, I say your house MAY be on fire, I would expect you to understand that what I’m intending to convey extends far beyond a declaration of possibilities. If you say my house MAY be on fire, you better have more than mere possibilities in mind—for instance, an actual reason to think it’s actually PROBABLY on fire.

So, no, I don’t agree with your maybe this and maybe that. I agree with might this and might that. Again, no, I don’t think he may have been hesitating before he went forward with some plan of attack. It is MERELY a possibility and has no substance—no thrust.

However, it’s not my intention to quibble. I can be charitable and accept your word usage so long as it’s clear that I agree with you if it’s your intention to limit the “maybe’s” to possibilities and not elevate them beyond that.

That’s a bare (logical) possibility, so sure, his vehicle MIGHT have had a problem. Of course, we have no reason to suspect it did in light of the remainder of the facts.

Maybe he trying to look that he was trying to go to work was part of his plan to dupe the police and their kneejerk apologists.

Again, logically possible. We know beforehand that anything that isn’t a contradiction might be the case. What MAY be the case, however, requires reason beyond what we know a priori.

Your house might be on fire. Your house might not be on fire. If you hear a news report that a house on your street is on fire and you suddenly recollect leaving the stove on, you then have reason to think it MAY be on fire. It doesn’t mean it is, but now we’re in the realm of plausibility—or greater possibility. That it MAY be on fire trumps that it MIGHT not be.

The point is that we don't know at this time.

That’s not the point. We can have a good reason to think one thing and still not know, and having a reason for one thing is superior than having nothing more than an understanding that other possible explanations exist. Again, it’s possible your house is not on fire, and if the only other thing we had to go on was that it’s possible your house is on fire, there’s no good reason to suspect one above the other. Therein lies no reason, but when there is a reason, we leave room to consider possibilities, but forming a view before all facts are in is not entirely unreasonable—just incomplete and why we need to be open to new information.

None of that justifies your claim that the ACLU's speculation is a crock of shit while your speculation is not - that is the point.

 

[fast]

Their take can be forecasted like a broken record. It’s an offshoot of the same ole mantra that never lets up.
If someone does x and y happens, people claim intent or incompetence. It’s so commonplace that it’s predictable.

Those people were out there exercising their right to free speech, and when the driver goes and runs a select few of their asses over, they’re exercise session ends. Drum roll: that was the driver’s intent or he was incompetent if unintended. That’s not plausible. That’s a crock of shit.

Crock of shit
Crock of shit
Crock of shit

What I said is not a crock of shit. We don’t know that I’m right, but what I said isn’t a crock of shit.

Them: crock of shit
Me (what I said): no, not a crock of shit

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their take can be forecasted like a broken record. It’s an offshoot of the same ole mantra that never lets up.
If someone does x and y happens, people claim intent or incompetence. It’s so commonplace that it’s predictable.

Those people were out there exercising their right to free speech, and when the driver goes and runs a select few of their asses over, they’re exercise session ends. Drum roll: that was the driver’s intent or he was incompetent if unintended. That’s not plausible. That’s a crock of shit.

Crock of shit
Crock of shit
Crock of shit

What I said is not a crock of shit. We don’t know that I’m right, but what I said isn’t a crock of shit.

Them: crock of shit
Me (what I said): no, not a crock of shit

Yeah, but you are still full of it.