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

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

That is a good point. If they surround your car and start beating on it, with you inside, I can't really fault you for driving forward/backwards (slowly) to escape. And if somebody gets themselves run over int he process, I'd be pretty lenient with you. I contrast that to a driver who aims for and runs over pedestrians.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

Then report it and don't whine about it.

"whining" aka calling it out publicly is the only way to hold the authorities to some level of accountability for such bias, or be exposed for being an echo chamber. If you hold them accountable publicly, and people see it before they silence you, you can get it in their heads that they have to at least appear evenhanded since most of them (regardless of the authority and its actual leanings) think themselves to be freethinking and fair. That's the power of free speech, and even where speech is quashed hardcore like in China, speech remains powerful for those bold enough to stand up. Merely reporting stuff to the biased authority is rarely enough.

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.

Absolutely yes. It has all become very tribal. Our side (whatever that happens to be) is always right and the people on the other side are always acting on bad intent.

 

[Politesse]

"whining" aka calling it out publicly is the only way to hold the authorities to some level of accountability for such bias, or be exposed for being an echo chamber. If you hold them accountable publicly, and people see it before they silence you, you can get it in their heads that they have to at least appear evenhanded since most of them (regardless of the authority and its actual leanings) think themselves to be freethinking and fair. That's the power of free speech, and even where speech is quashed hardcore like in China, speech remains powerful for those bold enough to stand up. Merely reporting stuff to the biased authority is rarely enough.

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.

Absolutely yes. It has all become very tribal. Our side (whatever that happens to be) is always right and the people on the other side are always acting on bad intent.

Oh, for sure. When someone runs me over with a car because he's upset that I was in front of it, my first thought is always "Did I try hard enough to seek common ground with this man? Really, we're both a little bit guilty of attempted homicide. We're all in the same tribe in the end."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"whining" aka calling it out publicly is the only way to hold the authorities to some level of accountability for such bias...

There is only bias if he reports it and it isn't modified.

If you hold them accountable publicly, and people see it before they silence you, you can get it in their heads that they have to at least appear evenhanded since most of them (regardless of the authority and its actual leanings) think themselves to be freethinking and fair.

Or people are overthinking it and believe that the moderators do nothing but comb every thread, every post.

That's the power of free speech, and even where speech is quashed hardcore like in China, speech remains powerful for those bold enough to stand up. Merely reporting stuff to the biased authority is rarely enough.

Puhlease.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"whining" aka calling it out publicly is the only way to hold the authorities to some level of accountability for such bias, or be exposed for being an echo chamber. If you hold them accountable publicly, and people see it before they silence you, you can get it in their heads that they have to at least appear evenhanded since most of them (regardless of the authority and its actual leanings) think themselves to be freethinking and fair. That's the power of free speech, and even where speech is quashed hardcore like in China, speech remains powerful for those bold enough to stand up. Merely reporting stuff to the biased authority is rarely enough.

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.

Absolutely yes. It has all become very tribal. Our side (whatever that happens to be) is always right and the people on the other side are always acting on bad intent.

Oh, for sure. When someone runs me over with a car because he's upset that I was in front of it, my first thought is always "Did I try hard enough to seek common ground with this man? Really, we're both a little bit guilty of attempted homicide."

The point revolves around our discussions about what motive the driver had, which we don't have much evidence for. fast is sold that it wasn't domestic terrorism because lefties say it is. Some are sold on it is domestic terrorism. Anyone sold on a motive does so prematurely.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, for sure. When someone runs me over with a car because he's upset that I was in front of it, my first thought is always "Did I try hard enough to seek common ground with this man? Really, we're both a little bit guilty of attempted homicide."

The point revolves around our discussions about what motive the driver had, which we don't have much evidence for. fast is sold that it wasn't domestic terrorism because lefties say it is. Some are sold on it is domestic terrorism. Anyone sold on a motive does so prematurely.

It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure out that someone running over a bunch of protestors very probably had a political motivation. That's not "tribalism" (a racist and nearly meaningless term imo), it's just having a brain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh, for sure. When someone runs me over with a car because he's upset that I was in front of it, my first thought is always "Did I try hard enough to seek common ground with this man? Really, we're both a little bit guilty of attempted homicide."

The point revolves around our discussions about what motive the driver had, which we don't have much evidence for. fast is sold that it wasn't domestic terrorism because lefties say it is. Some are sold on it is domestic terrorism. Anyone sold on a motive does so prematurely.

It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure out that someone running over a bunch of protestors very probably had a political motivation. That's not "tribalism: (a racist and nearly meaningless term imo), it's just having a brain.

It certainly is a possibility, but there are other rage inducing possibilities as well. He didn't arrive and straight on plow through them, so the incident isn't clear cut.

 

[Politesse]

It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure out that someone running over a bunch of protestors very probably had a political motivation. That's not "tribalism: (a racist and nearly meaningless term imo), it's just having a brain.

It certainly is a possibility, but there are other rage inducing possibilities as well. He didn't arrive and straight on plow through them, so the incident isn't clear cut.

That only establishes that he cannot plausibly claim not to have known who they were. Are you always this naive?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to figure out that someone running over a bunch of protestors very probably had a political motivation. That's not "tribalism: (a racist and nearly meaningless term imo), it's just having a brain.

It certainly is a possibility, but there are other rage inducing possibilities as well. He didn't arrive and straight on plow through them, so the incident isn't clear cut.

That only establishes that he cannot plausibly claim not to have known who they were. Are you always this naive?

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

 

[Politesse]

That only establishes that he cannot plausibly claim not to have known who they were. Are you always this naive?

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Well, let us know when you decide, your honor.

 

[laughing dog]

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

You can defend your double standard all you want, but it is still a double standard: if "their" explanation is a crock of shit, then so is your explanation.

 

[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

You can defend your double standard all you want, but it is still a double standard: if "their" explanation is a crock of shit, then so is your explanation.

If I was merely pointing out a possibility, that would be true. Pointing out a mere possibility doesn’t stand tall against another’s merely pointed out possibility. There could be a third (or even forth) explanation other than domestic terrorism or road rage. I even mentioned one; recall the possibility of an insatiable appetite for a microwaved hotdog. I just watched another video with several instances of protesters being run over. No mention of microwaved hotdogs. Of course, no mention of road rage either. I’m not sold on the road rage angle. It just has a better fit than a strong hankering for hotdogs.

Being blocked in, having to endure protesters’ juvenile behavior, and a mix of being frustrated, pissed, and in some cases intimidated all probably play a symbiotic role in some form or fashion. Not too terribly off from road rage, but certainly far more tenable than domestic terrorism. What necessary element of domestic terrorism is showing itself for all to see?

 

[ZiprHead]

There was something wrong with his truck. There was a senior citizen under it.

 

[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

You can defend your double standard all you want, but it is still a double standard: if "their" explanation is a crock of shit, then so is your explanation.

If I was merely pointing out a possibility, that would be true. Pointing out a mere possibility doesn’t stand tall against another’s merely pointed out possibility. There could be a third (or even forth) explanation other than domestic terrorism or road rage. I even mentioned one; recall the possibility of an insatiable appetite for a microwaved hotdog. I just watched another video with several instances of protesters being run over. No mention of microwaved hotdogs. Of course, no mention of road rage either. I’m not sold on the road rage angle. It just has a better fit than a strong hankering for hotdogs.

Being blocked in, having to endure protesters’ juvenile behavior, and a mix of being frustrated, pissed, and in some cases intimidated all probably play a symbiotic role in some form or fashion. Not too terribly off from road rage, but certainly far more tenable than domestic terrorism. What necessary element of domestic terrorism is showing itself for all to see?

If he struck them because he was angry they were protesting ICE over the recent asylum detentions. Don’t tell me that such a concept escaped your mind.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Come on Jimmy. Get with the angry mob. This guy hurt people on our side, so it must have been planned and nefarious and he must be from the other side, and everyone who disagrees with our idiology is from the other side and just like him and responsible for his actions. They are evil. We are good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We saw examples form the Arab Winter. (Yeah, the rest of the world called it the Arab Spring--but it made things worse, not better.)

 

[Politesse]

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Come on Jimmy. Get with the angry mob. This guy hurt people on our side, so it must have been planned and nefarious and he must be from the other side, and everyone who disagrees with our idiology is from the other side and just like him and responsible for his actions. They are evil. We are good.

Are you suggesting that there is some non-nefarious reason to intentionally run people over?

 

[laughing dog]

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

You can defend your double standard all you want, but it is still a double standard: if "their" explanation is a crock of shit, then so is your explanation.

If I was merely pointing out a possibility, that would be true.

And you called the other possibility a "crock of shit".

Being blocked in, having to endure protesters’ juvenile behavior, and a mix of being frustrated, pissed, and in some cases intimidated all probably play a symbiotic role in some form or fashion. Not too terribly off from road rage, but certainly far more tenable than domestic terrorism.

"Endure protesters' juvenile behavior" is a crock of shit. It is a crock of shit this detention guard was "intimidated".

What necessary element of domestic terrorism is showing itself for all to see?

Nice shifting of the goal posts, given your crocks of shit above. As Jimmy Higgins pointed out, running them over because they protesting holding asylum seekers in detention.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have no desire to silence my critics by force. It's good when they show off how weak their cases are.

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

The definition of terrorism.

It seems I've been channeling Voltaire.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

"However, from a general tendency for liberal-minded people to be hyperbolic, sensationalize, and make mountains out of mole hills" is a strange way to attempt to appear neutral. What was it in fast's post that you interpret as an attempt to conceal his conservative viewpoint? All his polysyllabic words and all his connected series of statements intended to establish propositions? Are conservatives supposed to limit themselves to "U.S.A! U.S.A! Beer!"?

Are you always this naive?

Apparently yes. I typically wait until there is enough information before concluding a motive. I guess this is called being naive.

Well said.