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

[jim bell]

From: Razer <g2s at riseup.net>
 
 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.
 
 
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


 |

 |

 |

×   

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 16009 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170831/f66812bc/attachment.txt>