Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner

[Razer]

On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
> *From:* Razer <g2s at riseup.net>
> *To:* cypherpunks at lists.cpunks.org <cypherpunks at 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
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7396 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170830/f9016141/attachment.txt>