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

[John Newman]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.  
>> 


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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8476 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170831/d18cea2b/attachment.txt>