Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
The Alt-Right and Antifa Are Waging a New Kind of Internet Warfare Jacob Siegel, Vice Aug 30 2017, 8:25am Intelligence and surveillance powers that once belonged only to militaries and state spooks are now available to anyone with a high-speed internet connection. Live long enough and you may hear future historians recall the war between 4chan and an art collective called LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner. They'll tell the story of how anonymous, interconnected imageboard users gathered clues from public video footage, like passing aircraft and the position of stars, to geolocate the roving, anti-Trump art project He Will Not Divide Us, put on by actor Shia LaBeouf and his collaborators. Records will show that the people on the group's trail—pro-Trump activists, impish saboteurs, and budding neo-Nazis—didn't need high-end spy gear. Instead, they found their mark by collecting and processing public information through decentralized and supposedly leaderless networks. It might one day look, in retrospect, like a form of social automation: continuously updating intelligence assessments converted into real-world effect by volunteer foot "soldiers" acting without orders. Or maybe the saga will be remembered as a trial run of sorts, when tactics later used in domestic guerilla warfare first appeared as sinister pranks. Whatever happens next, the genie is out of the bottle, and intelligence and surveillance capabilities that once belonged only to militaries and state spooks are now available to anyone with a high-speed internet connection. Military theorist and futurist John Robb, who wrote the influential 2008 book Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization, developed the concept of "open-source insurgency" to describe emerging forms of conflict. You can see a version of it at work in the current season of political upheaval and clashes in American cities. Of course, it's violence in the streets that captures most of the attention, especially after a car plowed into a crowd amid the neo-Nazi spectacle in Charlottesville, killing counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring many more. But in the background, much of the fighting is being done online. Memes, trolls, bans, doxes, sock puppets, and targeted disruption campaigns like the one used against LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner are being deployed in a cycle of attacks and counterattacks that, much like traditional military intelligence and information operations, set conditions for the next round of physical confrontation. The foundation of open-source insurgency is what Robb calls "superempowerment": "an increase in the ability of individuals and small groups to accomplish tasks/work through the combination of rapid improvements in technological tools and access to global networks." That increase, Robb argues, "has enabled small groups to radically increase their productivity in conflict." It's a concept that helps make sense of the seemingly outsized cultural clout of the alt-right, a movement built on beliefs that fail to attract more than fringe support in national surveys... In full with links: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xxmad/the-alt-right-and-antifa-are-wagin...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:26:15 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
The Alt-Right and Antifa Are Waging a New Kind of Internet Warfare
Jacob Siegel, Vice Aug 30 2017, 8:25am
Intelligence and surveillance powers that once belonged only to militaries and state spooks are now available to anyone with a high-speed internet connection.
I guess that's the sort of thing razer believes....
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net> The Alt-Right and Antifa Are Waging a New Kind of Internet Warfare Jacob Siegel, Vice Aug 30 2017, 8:25am
Intelligence and surveillance powers that once belonged only to militaries and state spooks are now available to anyone with a high-speed internet connection.
[...]
Of course, it's violence in the streets that captures most of the attention, especially after a car plowed into a crowd amid the neo-Nazi spectacle in Charlottesville, killing counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring many more.
It's very useful that so many videos are available today.http://www.departmentofmemes.com/article/protesters-attacked-charlottesville... Partial quote: "On August 12, a driver drove his vehicle into a crowd of “anti-racist” protesters, killing one woman and injuring 19 other individuals. The suspect has been identified as James Alex Fields, Jr. "Department of Memes reported that police officers in Charlottesville believed the driver was not acting maliciously, suggesting he was scared by the protesters on every side of his vehicle and he did not know what to do. "New shocking video has emerged that corroborates this theory. "Citizen researchers have slowed the video down and spotted an African American individual hitting the car with what appears to be a baseball bat before the suspect hit the crowd with his vehicle. "One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat. "The second video, originally posted to 4chan’s /pol/, is a thorough examination of the events that seems to suggest the driver was behaving normally until his vehicle was struck with the bat. [end of quote] In full with links: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xxmad/the-alt-right-and-antifa-are-wagin...
On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'. Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape. Rr
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDTSubject: Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'. You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for the "bang" he heard (baseball bat? gunshot? something else?), AND that he KNEW the race of the person who had caused the "bang", and KNEW where that person was. How do you come to these conclusions? Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape. Beats what YOU are trying to say!!! Hint: Cars don't usually go sideways well, especially down an alley. He had little more than two choices, go forwards or back. He MAY have concluded that the noise came from behind him, possibly a gunshot and/or a bullet striking his car. He had to make a decision. He made it. All in all, I'd say that if this goes to trial, to convict him, the jury is going to have to explain why the driver was driving so slowly before his car was hit, and only sped up after that strike. That is so inconsistent with the usual picture of the (Muslim) vehicle terrorist strike, where the vehicle speeds up long before anything untoward happens. Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice? So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car. Jim Bell
On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Razer <g2s@riseup.net> *To:* cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDT *Subject:* Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'.
You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for the "bang" he heard (baseball bat? gunshot? something else?),
You seem to assume he heard anything at all. Therefore the rest below, such as "He had little more than two choices..." is pure unadulterated speculation.
AND that he KNEW the race of the person who had caused the "bang", and KNEW where that person was. How do you come to these conclusions?
Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape.
Beats what YOU are trying to say!!! Hint: Cars don't usually go sideways well, especially down an alley. He had little more than two choices, go forwards or back. He MAY have concluded that the noise came from behind him, possibly a gunshot and/or a bullet striking his car. He had to make a decision. He made it.
All in all, I'd say that if this goes to trial, to convict him, the jury is going to have to explain why the driver was driving so slowly before his car was hit, and only sped up after that strike. That is so inconsistent with the usual picture of the (Muslim) vehicle terrorist strike, where the vehicle speeds up long before anything untoward happens.
Simple. He hadn't practiced...
Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
Jim Bell
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net> On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote: From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDT Subject: Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'.
You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for the "bang" he heard (baseball bat? gunshot? something else?),
You seem to assume he heard anything at all. Therefore the rest below, such as "He had little more than two choices..." is pure unadulterated speculation.
I hadn't heard that the guy was deaf. And this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX7V4bVO10 clearly shows somebody striking the back of the car with a large stick or bat-like object. In my estimation, such a strike would probably produce a loud noise. I don't know if the yelling of the crowd would have been enough to overpower the bang caused by the stick. >>AND that he KNEW the race of the person who had caused the "bang", and KNEW where that person was. How do you come to these conclusions? Not surprising that you didn't respond to these, my observations about your statement.
Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape. Beats what YOU are trying to say!!! Hint: Cars don't usually go sideways well, especially down an alley. He had little more than two choices, go forwards or >>back. He MAY have concluded that the noise came from behind him, possibly a gunshot and/or a bullet striking his car. He had to make a decision. He made it. You also ignored this. All in all, I'd say that if this goes to trial, to convict him, the jury is going to have to explain why the driver was driving so slowly before his car was hit, and only sped up after that strike. That is so inconsistent with the usual picture of the (Muslim) vehicle terrorist strike, where the vehicle speeds up long before anything untoward happens.
Simple. He hadn't practiced... Somehow, I don't think "practice" is the issue here. It takes no practice to simply accelerate...if that's what you intend to do.
>>Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission. You sound quite confused. You are trying to convert, for example, a three-person event (actually, multiple person) into a two-person hypothetical. The person who hit the car with the baseball bat was not later become a victim. The victims, the people who were run over, did not hit the car. Presumably, the person who was driving the car did not claim that his car being hit with the baseball bat "justified" hurting those ahead of his car, had he had enough time to consider the matter. It may very well have excused it, however.The reality is (remember reality?) that such a strike could have startled the driver. At the very least, I suspect you have forgotten that the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". We started out hearing of this incident as if it was one of those usual "Muslim uses vehicle to run over victims in a deliberate terrorist attack" cases. But a video was made that could change everything about how we see the event.
>>So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car. You also ignored this, as well. Your logic is quite poor. Jim Bell | | | | | | | | | | | Protesters attacked Charlottesville driver’s car with baseball bat | | | ×
On 08/30/2017 07:15 PM, jim bell wrote:
I hadn't heard that the guy was deaf. And this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX7V4bVO10
He didn't hear shit and you didn't see shit. That's his sleeve ALL THE WAY to the car. Next lie you'll peddle is he had a tire iron or bat UP HIS SLEEVE. Rr
Note the total lack of comments on that video, until now. "That's his sleeve stupid" I expect, like all the other comments that may have been posted, my comment will be removed by the uploader. Because the caption in relation to the video is total bullshit and the uploader knows it. Rr
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
Note the total lack of comments on that video, until now.
"That's his sleeve stupid"
From the next video that popped up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxXxJoraI
At: 2:07 "You can see that once the accident occurs, half a dozen people with bats swarm onto his car and start smashing out his window" Or will you call THOSE "sleeves", too?!? This looks like a VERY long "sleeve"!!! https://youtu.be/JrRxXxJoraI?t=106 Jim Bell
On 08/30/2017 07:48 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
Note the total lack of comments on that video, until now.
"That's his sleeve stupid"
From the next video that popped up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxXxJoraI
At: 2:07
"You can see that once the accident occurs, half a dozen people with bats swarm onto his car and start smashing out his window"
So? Don't change the topic.
This looks like a VERY long "sleeve"!!!
Yeah, it sort of flexes and waves in the breeze too.. The way a bat doesn't. Rr
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net> On 08/30/2017 07:48 PM, jim bell wrote: From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
Note the total lack of comments on that video, until now.
"That's his sleeve stupid"
From the next video that popped up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxXxJoraI
At: 2:07 "You can see that once the accident occurs, half a dozen people with bats swarm onto his car and start smashing out his window"
So? Don't change the topic. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!!!"
Also, check out the rear side door of the maroon-colored SUV at 1:42 in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_VSt-oajBc Note: I am not referring to this most recent video for its main assertions, although they are definitely interesting. (The maroon SUV is apparently missing a driver, as you can see.) Rather, I noticed the clear damage to the maroon-colored SUV's rear door. Why is that door damaged? Supposedly, the "offending" car had struck the car behind, and maybe that other car had struck the maroon SUV. But alone, would that have explained the door damage? Hmmmm. Was EVERY car going through the gauntlet getting smashed?
This looks like a VERY long "sleeve"!!!
Yeah, it sort of flexes and waves in the breeze too.. The way a bat doesn't. A six-foot long "sleeve"! The way an arm isn't. Jim Bell
On 08/30/2017 08:14 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
On 08/30/2017 07:48 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Razer <g2s@riseup.net> <mailto:g2s@riseup.net>
Note the total lack of comments on that video, until now.
"That's his sleeve stupid"
From the next video that popped up:
At: 2:07
"You can see that once the accident occurs, half a dozen people with bats swarm onto his car and start smashing out his window"
So? Don't change the topic.
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!!!"
Baum was nasty too. And you're beginning to mimic ZenNazi. Always a sign of a luzer. Ps. You know "Flow Chart"? Follow it. You lose luzer. Third tier Y Fourth tier, bulletpoint #1 Convo should have ended at first tier simply because Fascist are true believer ideologues who never change their minds. Their entire lives revolve around spreading the myth... because misery LUVS company, and withers, dies, without it. Bye. Rr
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:48:01 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
Note the total lack of comments on that video, until now.
"That's his sleeve stupid"
From the next video that popped up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxXxJoraI
so the guy first smashes the car in front of him and runs over some people and then goes backwards and runs over more people? He clearly is a fucking psycho. Are you saying any of that is 'justified' because he was 'attacked'?
At: 2:07 "You can see that once the accident occurs, half a dozen people with bats swarm onto his car and start smashing out his window" Or will you call THOSE "sleeves", too?!? This looks like a VERY long "sleeve"!!! https://youtu.be/JrRxXxJoraI?t=106
Jim Bell
Ps. the uploader, Frederik Jan Roebersen, is a stone cold Dutch racist who probably would welcome re-colonization of Sudwest Africa to Holland. A throwback ... perhaps related to the guy who killed the last Dodo. https://www.facebook.com/FrederikJanRoebersen He longs for the day when the KKK could 'take repercussions' to keep the 'nigras' in line and opines they miss that stern white uberfuhrer lording over them. Rr
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:35:35PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Razer <g2s@riseup.net> *To:* cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDT *Subject:* Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'.
You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for the "bang" he heard (baseball bat? gunshot? something else?),
You seem to assume he heard anything at all. Therefore the rest below, such as "He had little more than two choices..." is pure unadulterated speculation.
Yeah, yeah, some speculation is more equal than other speculation. Right on, Razer, right on! You the bomb!
On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote: From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDT Subject: Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'.
You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for the "bang" he heard (baseball bat? gunshot? something else?),
You seem to assume he heard anything at all. Therefore the rest below, such as "He had little more than two choices..." is pure unadulterated speculation.
AND that he KNEW the race of the person who had caused the "bang", and KNEW where that person was. How do you come to these conclusions?
Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape.
Beats what YOU are trying to say!!! Hint: Cars don't usually go sideways well, especially down an alley. He had little more than two choices, go forwards or back. He MAY have concluded that the noise came from behind him, possibly a gunshot and/or a bullet striking his car. He had to make a decision. He made it.
All in all, I'd say that if this goes to trial, to convict him, the jury is going to have to explain why the driver was driving so slowly before his car was hit, and only sped up after that strike. That is so inconsistent with the usual picture of the (Muslim) vehicle terrorist strike, where the vehicle speeds up long before anything untoward happens.
Simple. He hadn't practiced...
Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
Are you fucking serious ? Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat, plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum.
Jim Bell
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
<snip>
Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
Are you fucking serious ?
Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat, plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum.
Defense Lawyer: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - The defendant was in his vehicle, unarmed and surrounded by hostile actors, and someone started pounding on his vehicle. The defendant, believed that he was about to have his windows smashed and himself dragged out of the vehicle and beaten or even killed. "He panicked, and performed the only action he could come up with to save his skin - he advanced at a high rate of speed to clear the way. Unfortunately, someone died as a result. This is tragic, but he was clearly acting in self defense." Jury: "???" I haven't seen the videos (the site that Jim Bell referenced make reference to Trump as the God Emperor, which makes me itch something fierce - I couldn't stay on that site long enough to watch them), but just suppose that the videos show that the car was indeed surrounded, and that at least one person did start banging on it with some implement or other. How do you think a jury would vote in that case? It's not out of the realm of possibility that a reasonable jury would vote Not Guilty - self defense. Kurt
From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
<snip>
Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
Are you fucking serious ?
Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat, plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum.[note: the material above seems to be both by myself and Razer]
Defense Lawyer: > "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - The defendant was in his vehicle, unarmed and surrounded by hostile actors, and someone started pounding on his vehicle. The defendant, believed that he was about to have his windows smashed and himself dragged out of the vehicle and beaten or even killed.
> "He panicked, and performed the only action he could come up with to save his skin - he advanced at a high rate of speed to clear the way. Unfortunately, someone died as a result. This is tragic, but he was clearly acting in self defense."
Jury: "???"
I haven't seen the videos (the site that Jim Bell referenced make reference to Trump as the God Emperor, which makes me itch something fierce - I couldn't stay on that site long enough to watch them), I should mention that I found the few videos by doing a search on Youtube for 'Charlottesville car baseball bat'. I did not look for any videos on non-YouTube websites. I did not cherry-pick the videos, especially not for voice-over 'quality' (either for or against.). I did not watch them all, not to the end. I think I used the first 2-3 videos listed. At least, early ones in the search results. I was merely looking for clear videos of the event; I was not generally rating the content of the voice-over.
but just suppose that the videos show that the car was indeed surrounded,and that at least one person did start banging on it with some implement or other. I had heard about this a few days ago, something about someone hitting the car with a baseball bat. I didn't immediately look that up; but now I'm very surprised that this didn't look like yet another typical 'Muslim terrorist attacks crowd of pedestrians which a vehicle' case. Given the MSM publicity that had been occurring for many days earlier, I was very surprised. I wonder if videos such as these had appeared on MSM national or local news. I don't recall them.
How do you think a jury would vote in that case?
It's not out of the realm of possibility that a reasonable jury would vote Not Guilty - self defense. Kurt These videos raise a lot more questions, so far, than they answer. Why were two previous cars driving into a narrow area surrounded by pedestrians? Were those two prior cars attacked? (I noticed the maroon SUV had a large dent in the left rear door: Was it old damage or new?) Why were cars attacked at all? Did any car have markings indicating something like 'I love Trump', or 'Fascists are great!', etc. Did the third (grey) car avoid any action (like driving on the sidewalk) that would have inflicted more casualties and death? If not, why not? Jim Bell
On 08/31/2017 05:00 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
<snip>
Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
Are you fucking serious ?
Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat, plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum. Defense Lawyer: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - The defendant was in his vehicle, unarmed and surrounded by hostile actors, and someone started pounding on his vehicle. The defendant, believed that he was about to have his windows smashed and himself dragged out of the vehicle and beaten or even killed.
"He panicked, and performed the only action he could come up with to save his skin - he advanced at a high rate of speed to clear the way. Unfortunately, someone died as a result. This is tragic, but he was clearly acting in self defense."
Jury: "???"
I haven't seen the videos (the site that Jim Bell referenced make reference to Trump as the God Emperor, which makes me itch something fierce - I couldn't stay on that site long enough to watch them), but just suppose that the videos show that the car was indeed surrounded, and that at least one person did start banging on it with some implement or other.
How do you think a jury would vote in that case?
Unless there's a version at least 3X the FOUR SECOND video presented with more lead in, there's nothing to see but people scrambling out of the way and one guy looks like he swings at it with his sleeve. There MAY HAVE been something in his sleeve, but it waved in the breeze, so if anything it MIGHT HAVE BEEN a chain. But no chain is seen. My guess from what's been presented would be he rolled by the protesters, who were off to the side and said something NAZI to them ... and then sped off with someone swinging a sleeve at his back bumper/tailight momentarily and everyone else scrambling, etc. Rr
It's not out of the realm of possibility that a reasonable jury would vote Not Guilty - self defense.
Kurt
On Aug 31, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote: <snip> Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice?
If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed. Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.
So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car.
Are you fucking serious ?
Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat, plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum.
Defense Lawyer: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - The defendant was in his vehicle, unarmed and surrounded by hostile actors, and someone started pounding on his vehicle. The defendant, believed that he was about to have his windows smashed and himself dragged out of the vehicle and beaten or even killed.
"He panicked, and performed the only action he could come up with to save his skin - he advanced at a high rate of speed to clear the way. Unfortunately, someone died as a result. This is tragic, but he was clearly acting in self defense."
Jury: "???"
I haven't seen the videos (the site that Jim Bell referenced make
Then why chime in?
reference to Trump as the God Emperor, which makes me itch something
Gives me hives as well ;)
fierce - I couldn't stay on that site long enough to watch them), but just suppose that the videos show that the car was indeed surrounded, and that at least one person did start banging on it with some implement or other.
How do you think a jury would vote in that case?
I don't know. Juries get it wrong all the time. That doesn't account for or otherwise exculpate the murder by car, except in the eyes of a really twisted American gulag.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that a reasonable jury would vote Not Guilty - self defense.
Kurt
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:54:30AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDTSubject: Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:
"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with the baseball bat.
So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with signs. Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'. You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for the "bang" he heard (baseball bat? gunshot? something else?), AND that he KNEW the race of the person who had caused the "bang", and KNEW where that person was. How do you come to these conclusions? Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape. Beats what YOU are trying to say!!! Hint: Cars don't usually go sideways well, especially down an alley. He had little more than two choices, go forwards or back. He MAY have concluded that the noise came from behind him, possibly a gunshot and/or a bullet striking his car. He had to make a decision. He made it. All in all, I'd say that if this goes to trial, to convict him, the jury is going to have to explain why the driver was driving so slowly before his car was hit, and only sped up after that strike. That is so inconsistent with the usual picture of the (Muslim) vehicle terrorist strike, where the vehicle speeds up long before anything untoward happens. Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd struck the vehicle. Malice? So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver? Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the car. Jim Bell
Remember Jim, some facts are less equal than others in Razer's World. Sad but true...
participants (6)
-
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
Kurt Buff -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness