|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
This might be a question for a certain thread that sometimes seems very alike this one in content, but does the growing political unrest have a basis for a potential civil ... war? I mean, maybe I should tone it down to riots. Let's call them civil riots for now.
So is does it have that potential for civil riots, or am I reading too much into what is happening over the last few months?
I'm saying this because I'm noticing a trend of ever increasing polarization between two demographics.
|
On August 16 2017 14:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 14:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If I can take a stab in the dark. Without the before proof that he was indeed all alone before ramming into the crowd, a good defense lawyer can make it seem that he indeed was, trying to get away. And that the people ran over by his car were unfortunate. He was fearing for his life and made a reckless decision to speed ahead.
They could plead it down to manslaughter instead of premeditated murder. Not bad. He is already charged with manslaughter, so they will need to plea lower. But his criminal history and associations make that case almost impossible to make. Motive and intent are easy to prove, especially if he was prolific on any message board.
He's charged with second degree murder.
|
On August 16 2017 14:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 14:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If I can take a stab in the dark. Without the before proof that he was indeed all alone before ramming into the crowd, a good defense lawyer can make it seem that he indeed was, trying to get away. And that the people ran over by his car were unfortunate. He was fearing for his life and made a reckless decision to speed ahead.
They could plead it down to manslaughter instead of premeditated murder. Not bad. He is already charged with manslaughter, so they will need to plea lower. But his criminal history and associations make that case almost impossible to make. Motive and intent are easy to prove, especially if he was prolific on any message board.
From what I read, he was charged with second degree murder.
|
On August 16 2017 13:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:51 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 ZeaL. wrote:On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration. This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position. You clearly have no fucking idea what my position is. Just stay out of this one. Clarify then, because that's what your statement comes off like honestly. No, I want to give Plansix (or someone else) an opportunity to do it first, because there are certain posters in this thread who need to be embarrassed. You're trying to form a legal defence for him, or figure out what it'd look like.
Yes, this is correct. What we should all know by now after our experiences with Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Bill Cosby's numerous rape victims is that only idiots pre-judge cases before seeing all of the evidence. There clearly is no dispute that our Nazi friend ran over a bunch of people. What matters is why. Was it premeditated? Did he panic after getting out of a bad situation where he was being assaulted or threatened by other people? Could we frame this as self-defense? This is why I want to see evidence of what happened before the vehicular assault. The way this will work is that the prosecution will have the burden of proving the crime -- which includes the requisite level of intent (premeditated / intentional / reckless / etc). The defense will have the burden of proving any affirmative defense (self-defense).
From the videos that I've seen so far, I still don't know what happened before the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd and before the screaming began. However, I tend to think that the self defense argument isn't going to work. At best, and based solely upon the videos, the defense is going to be able to argue down the intent. But the hard part about that will be explaining away the seconds before the final acceleration into the crowd.
|
On August 16 2017 14:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If I can take a stab in the dark. Without the before proof that he was indeed all alone before ramming into the crowd, a good defense lawyer can make it seem that he indeed was, trying to get away. And that the people ran over by his car were unfortunate. He was fearing for his life and made a reckless decision to speed ahead.
They could plead it down to manslaughter instead of premeditated murder. Not bad.
And yet we have very clear photo/video evidence to the contrary. Arguing a hypothetical defense when we know exactly what happened is a pointless exercise.
|
On August 16 2017 14:06 Uldridge wrote:
This might be a question for a certain thread that sometimes seems very alike this one in content, but does the growing political unrest have a basis for a potential civil ... war? I mean, maybe I should tone it down to riots. Let's call them civil riots for now.
So is does it have that potential for civil riots, or am I reading too much into what is happening over the last few months?
No. Read about the riots in the 1960s and remember that we didn't go to war over that. We are not divided in strictly regional lines. But you can expect more violence like this for the duration of Trump's term, if not beyond.
|
On August 16 2017 14:06 Uldridge wrote:
This might be a question for a certain thread that sometimes seems very alike this one in content, but does the growing political unrest have a basis for a potential civil ... war? I mean, maybe I should tone it down to riots. Let's call them civil riots for now.
So is does it have that potential for civil riots, or am I reading too much into what is happening over the last few months?
I'm saying this because I'm noticing a trend of ever increasing polarization between two demographics.
Yes. Put simply, if enough on every level of government isn't done, then yes. Civil unrest is a possibility. But it should be noted, that the south will never rise again. Except in college football.
|
On August 16 2017 14:06 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 14:05 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 14:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If I can take a stab in the dark. Without the before proof that he was indeed all alone before ramming into the crowd, a good defense lawyer can make it seem that he indeed was, trying to get away. And that the people ran over by his car were unfortunate. He was fearing for his life and made a reckless decision to speed ahead.
They could plead it down to manslaughter instead of premeditated murder. Not bad. He is already charged with manslaughter, so they will need to plea lower. But his criminal history and associations make that case almost impossible to make. Motive and intent are easy to prove, especially if he was prolific on any message board. He's charged with second degree murder.
Never mind then, I could have sworn they went with manslaughter and a pile of other charges.
|
On August 16 2017 13:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:49 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. The "left-wing violence" was covered ad nauseam on all news networks. The politicians on both sides, especially the left, condemned the action and did what President Trump didn't. They didn't talk about how terrible the other side was with their violent tendencies or problems. They condemned and shut down violence from their side. There also wasn't a rally where the left chanted about killing other ethnicities or the superiority of the white race before he went to do it. There is no tarring of the whole right. People are taking issue with Trump's inability to strongly condemn the neo-nazis and white supremacists at that rally. They're also taking issue with Nazis and white supremacists and the people on the far right who are attempting to say "but the violent left/antifa", which is seen as an argument to make what happened in Charlottesville okay. Otherwise they'd just say "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "they are" and that would be that. In this very thread people were playing down the left side because they are "only vandals" that are "protesting police brutality." A few things are being conflated here, but I will say that if the bolded part were it I'd be right there with you. But the theme of that tweet is correct. Righty does something bad, other righties condemn, lefties do something bad, righties condemn, righties called racist sympathizers.
That's because those on the far right, including President Trump are claiming that the left side was just as violent in Charlottesville. But we have evidence that that wasn't the case *in* Charlottesville.
As for other examples, you only mentioned the D.C. shooter, which I presented you with my counter argument, which runs completely opposite your claim of "lefties do something bad righties condemn, righties called racist sympathizers." The leftie did something bad, and EVERYONE condemned it. There was no righties called racist sympathizers.
Here's the thing, in Charlottesville, Some Far-Righties did a bad thing. Some righties condemned it, Trump did not, Trump said lefties did something bad too. Trump and those defending him are asked to explain how that doesn't make them racist sympathizers.
Your statement is wrong (factually based on the response following the D.C. shooting) and doesn't even apply to Charlottesville. Lefties didn't do something wrong there. And righties are trying to condemn it in the same breath as condemning Nazis. They're not comparable no matter how you look at it.
|
Oh, and before I forget, seeing the weapons after the vehicular assault matters because at least the Nazi can argue that the mob was armed and dangerous. That's a good fact for him.
|
2774 Posts
If they're not showing any proper intent to stopping him I don't think that matters.
|
On August 16 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:54 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:51 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 ZeaL. wrote:On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration. This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position. You clearly have no fucking idea what my position is. Just stay out of this one. Clarify then, because that's what your statement comes off like honestly. No, I want to give Plansix (or someone else) an opportunity to do it first, because there are certain posters in this thread who need to be embarrassed. You're trying to form a legal defence for him, or figure out what it'd look like. Yes, this is correct. What we should all know by now after our experiences with Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Bill Cosby's numerous rape victims is that only idiots pre-judge cases before seeing all of the evidence. There clearly is no dispute that our Nazi friend ran over a bunch of people. What matters is why. Was it premeditated? Did he panic after getting out of a bad situation where he was being assaulted or threatened by other people? Could we frame this as self-defense? This is why I want to see evidence of what happened before the vehicular assault. The way this will work is that the prosecution will have the burden of proving the crime -- which includes the requisite level of intent (premeditated / intentional / reckless / etc). The defense will have the burden of proving any affirmative defense (self-defense). From the videos that I've seen so far, I still don't know what happened before the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd and before the screaming began. However, I tend to think that the self defense argument isn't going to work. At best, and based solely upon the videos, the defense is going to be able to argue down the intent. But the hard part about that will be explaining away the seconds before the final acceleration into the crowd.
There's a single problem with any "thought" one way or the other. If you watch the video again, you see that he goes through a crossroad, where he could've gone either left or right. He deliberately chose to go straight where the crowd was, with enough speed to catch air over a speedbump.
I mean.. I do understand what you're trying to do, but i am very doubtful that he's able to wiggle out of that one without (another) showcase of a blatantly corrupt judge.
That's a good fact for him.
It actually works against him if he drives towards them rather than just turning left/right. That crossroad is less than 30ft away from where the video started with that speedbump.
edit: the screaming doesn't help his case either, at best (in that regard) he gets a statement vs statement, because if you look, there's people behind the cameraman in that video (he wasn't the last person on that road, you see it when he starts running after he's going reverse). It's actually entirely possible (actually very likely) that he already hit someone before the speedbump/had people dodge before the speedbump.
|
On August 16 2017 14:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:54 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:51 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 ZeaL. wrote:On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration. This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position. You clearly have no fucking idea what my position is. Just stay out of this one. Clarify then, because that's what your statement comes off like honestly. No, I want to give Plansix (or someone else) an opportunity to do it first, because there are certain posters in this thread who need to be embarrassed. You're trying to form a legal defence for him, or figure out what it'd look like. Yes, this is correct. What we should all know by now after our experiences with Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Bill Cosby's numerous rape victims is that only idiots pre-judge cases before seeing all of the evidence. There clearly is no dispute that our Nazi friend ran over a bunch of people. What matters is why. Was it premeditated? Did he panic after getting out of a bad situation where he was being assaulted or threatened by other people? Could we frame this as self-defense? This is why I want to see evidence of what happened before the vehicular assault. The way this will work is that the prosecution will have the burden of proving the crime -- which includes the requisite level of intent (premeditated / intentional / reckless / etc). The defense will have the burden of proving any affirmative defense (self-defense). From the videos that I've seen so far, I still don't know what happened before the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd and before the screaming began. However, I tend to think that the self defense argument isn't going to work. At best, and based solely upon the videos, the defense is going to be able to argue down the intent. But the hard part about that will be explaining away the seconds before the final acceleration into the crowd. There's a single problem with any "thought" one way or the other. If you watch the video again, you see that he goes through a crossroad, where he could've gone either left or right. He deliberately chose to go straight where the crowd was, with enough speed to catch air over a speedbump. I mean.. I do understand what you're trying to do, but i am very doubtful that he's able to wiggle out of that one without (another) showcase of a blatantly corrupt judge.
We still don't see what's down the alleys, and the defense is going to argue (and put on an expert to testify to this point) that people who are under extreme stress and panicked cannot be reasonably expected to have perfect perception and judgment,
Also, the judges had nothing to do with those cases. Jury system, baby!
It actually works against him if he drives towards them rather than just turning left/right.
That's an issue of argument, not of fact. The defense will play it one way. The prosecution another. All in all, I like the fact better for the Defense.
|
United States43754 Posts
I mean he made a deliberate choice to drive into a crowd of people. Unless it was some kind of really convoluted trolley scenario where the only way he couldn't run down an even bigger crowd of people was by running down the group he chose to run down, the context isn't really so important. We saw the space around his car, we saw him accelerate, we saw the crowd he was accelerating into. The reason he hit all those people with his car is because he wanted to hit all those people with his car. If he didn't want to do that then he wouldn't have. Trust me, I own a car and I routinely manage to not kill people with it. It's pretty simple to operate in a way that doesn't result in a crowd getting run down. Even if he were surrounded by a hostile crowd (and the video clearly shows he was not), a car is an armoured metal suit that can slowly and surely reverse you away from the dangerous situation.
I mean if this were the Iraqis behind the Bowling Green Massacre would you be asking for more information about how threatened they felt in the minutes before the imaginary attack took place? The whole "I want to see what happened before the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd" strikes me as reaching, if you're accepting that the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd then that really ought to be enough for you to reach a personal judgement on what happened. You don't see anyone going "before I can really decide what happened at Sandy Hook I'd need to know what those kids said to the shooter before the firing started".
Given my own code of ethics I cannot imagine a realistic scenario in which there could be any mitigating factors were I to intentionally mow down a crowd of people with a vehicle. I'm content to judge an individual based on the act alone and assume that in the very convoluted "a genie proved to me that genies are definitely real and powerful and told me it would kill a bunch of other people if I didn't do this and I still refused and the genie did actually follow through and kill a bunch of people and then told me to do it again so really it was the only way to save even more people" situations I'll be proved wrong.
|
We still don't see what's down the alleys, and the defense is going to argue (and put on an expert to testify to this point) that people who are under extreme stress and panicked cannot be reasonably expected to have perfect perception and judgment
Sure. People panic, stomp on the accelerator and go straight.
.. except, that's not what happened here. He stopped, reversed, took a run up, accelerated hard enough to jump over a speedbump, got off the accelerator, got back on the accelerator all the way until he hit a car. That seems very calculated to me (the "getting off the accelerator part alone), not to mention that if you have people in front of you, you play electricity. The path of least resistance. Reverse.
Unrelated sidenote, i find it curious that a fuck like him is not able to afford a lawyer (and they can't appoint one to him, because the public defenders office has personal ties to someone who was in that crowd somewhere, conflict of interest), but drives a pretty new-ish dodge challenger.
That seems very off to me.
Oh, and the car.. It's so ironic who he bought the car from. The previous owner of the car most likely is an antifa (things like fuck borders, fuck nations, pro world, hippiestuff).
|
United States43754 Posts
No need to worry about his legal fees. I vaguely recall someone in 2016 insisting that if someone were to attack left leaning protesters he'd pay their legal fees.
|
On August 16 2017 14:39 KwarK wrote:
No need to worry about his legal fees. I vaguely recall someone in 2016 insisting that if someone were to attack left leaning protesters he'd pay their legal fees.
Well he's in jail without bail because of it, guess Trumps word is worth a lot.
|
It wouldn't be the first time that Trump screwed over people who stuck their neck out for him. By now it should be obvious that being friends with Trump is a losing battle.
This definitely looks like a murder case to me.
|
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote:
Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run. I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes. I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose. The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position. Well we could look back in this very thread... That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera. As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
On August 16 2017 14:10 Odawg27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:58 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:49 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 13:25 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 11:42 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 11:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems. We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack. With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional. On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening? They should, because this is exactly what is happening. Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument. But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation. The "left-wing violence" was covered ad nauseam on all news networks. The politicians on both sides, especially the left, condemned the action and did what President Trump didn't. They didn't talk about how terrible the other side was with their violent tendencies or problems. They condemned and shut down violence from their side. There also wasn't a rally where the left chanted about killing other ethnicities or the superiority of the white race before he went to do it. There is no tarring of the whole right. People are taking issue with Trump's inability to strongly condemn the neo-nazis and white supremacists at that rally. They're also taking issue with Nazis and white supremacists and the people on the far right who are attempting to say "but the violent left/antifa", which is seen as an argument to make what happened in Charlottesville okay. Otherwise they'd just say "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "they are" and that would be that. In this very thread people were playing down the left side because they are "only vandals" that are "protesting police brutality." A few things are being conflated here, but I will say that if the bolded part were it I'd be right there with you. But the theme of that tweet is correct. Righty does something bad, other righties condemn, lefties do something bad, righties condemn, righties called racist sympathizers. That's because those on the far right, including President Trump are claiming that the left side was just as violent in Charlottesville. But we have evidence that that wasn't the case *in* Charlottesville. As for other examples, you only mentioned the D.C. shooter, which I presented you with my counter argument, which runs completely opposite your claim of "lefties do something bad righties condemn, righties called racist sympathizers." The leftie did something bad, and EVERYONE condemned it. There was no righties called racist sympathizers. Here's the thing, in Charlottesville, Some Far-Righties did a bad thing. Some righties condemned it, Trump did not, Trump said lefties did something bad too. Trump and those defending him are asked to explain how that doesn't make them racist sympathizers. Your statement is wrong (factually based on the response following the D.C. shooting) and doesn't even apply to Charlottesville. Lefties didn't do something wrong there. And righties are trying to condemn it in the same breath as condemning Nazis. They're not comparable no matter how you look at it.
I had a response written out to both before sleep time then screwed up with copy/paste. fffffffffffffffffffffffff
But we'll leave on something I think we will agree on.
Trump should have been more clear on Saturday, many parts of his comments today were...unhelpful, and the events in Virginia were undoubtedly more to the alt-right and Neo-Nazi's shame than antifa's.
|
On August 16 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:54 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:51 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 ZeaL. wrote:On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration. This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position. You clearly have no fucking idea what my position is. Just stay out of this one. Clarify then, because that's what your statement comes off like honestly. No, I want to give Plansix (or someone else) an opportunity to do it first, because there are certain posters in this thread who need to be embarrassed. You're trying to form a legal defence for him, or figure out what it'd look like. Yes, this is correct. What we should all know by now after our experiences with Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Bill Cosby's numerous rape victims is that only idiots pre-judge cases before seeing all of the evidence. There clearly is no dispute that our Nazi friend ran over a bunch of people. What matters is why. Was it premeditated? Did he panic after getting out of a bad situation where he was being assaulted or threatened by other people? Could we frame this as self-defense? This is why I want to see evidence of what happened before the vehicular assault. The way this will work is that the prosecution will have the burden of proving the crime -- which includes the requisite level of intent (premeditated / intentional / reckless / etc). The defense will have the burden of proving any affirmative defense (self-defense). From the videos that I've seen so far, I still don't know what happened before the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd and before the screaming began. However, I tend to think that the self defense argument isn't going to work. At best, and based solely upon the videos, the defense is going to be able to argue down the intent. But the hard part about that will be explaining away the seconds before the final acceleration into the crowd.
You have to make a distinction between judge and judge: do you talk about your personal judgement about whether he is guilty and his act, or about the legal details of what will happen in court? Thise are very different things.
I don't see the need to be very careful and reserved about the first one. He is a nazi who deliberately ran his car into a crowd. I would be very surprised if any additional data ever make me think "oh i've been unfair, he didn't mean it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
