Domestic Terrorism: Man Deliberately Rams Vehicle Into Tent Full Of GOP Volunteers

[Joe in PNG]

You know how rich, white, privileged trust fund kids attending Ivy League schools like to pretend that they are somehow part of the Oppressed 99%? The kind of overwrought bathos of screaming about how one is under Right Wing repression, all the while knowing they'll not suffer one whit from their public stand (and may even benefit from it)- those kids? Or how some will claim PTSD, and then demand safe spaces & trauma counseling because somebody said something they didn't agree with? The kind of inadvertently hilarious hysterical histrionics they do that get roundly mocked and satirized, the ones that inadvertently end up making light and cheapening real oppression and trauma and discrimination?

It's that kind of Oppression Pr0n, but the Right wing version.

[BWT]

Terrorism - noun

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

Driving a van into a GOP tent? Assaulting a teenager because he wears a hat? Try to set a GOP building on fire?

Seems like terrorism. Unless you guys just don’t like people who commit violent crimes to intimidate people of other political beliefs being labeled terrorists for some reason?

But this is pretty clear cut case of intimidation and violence to try to silence a political movement of different views via violence.

I don’t think we’re anywhere near a Civil War.

[Borderland]

Terrorism - noun



https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

Driving a van into a GOP tent? Assaulting a teenager because he wears a hat? Try to set a GOP building on fire?

Seems like terrorism. Unless you guys just don’t like people who commit violent crimes to intimidate people of other political beliefs being labeled terrorists for some reason?

But this is pretty clear cut case of intimidation and violence to try to silence a political movement of different views via violence.

I don’t think we’re anywhere near a Civil War.

I don't like anyone who commits a violent crime. I don't really care why they did it. Political, religious, cultural, race, having a bad day, voices in my head or whatever you want to use as a reason. What difference should it make? There are enough laws to prosecute someone who assaults a group with a vehicle. It's a class B felony in this state. Max 10 years in prison or 20K fine or both.

If it had been a group of democrats Trump would probably have pardoned the guy anyway.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't like anyone who commits a violent crime. I don't really care why they did it.

Well, that's not the view of most of modern law enforcement, criminology, psychology, legal, etc. world.

Motivation is a primary factor in analyzing, charging and prosecuting many violent acts.

[BWT]

I don't like anyone who commits a violent crime. I don't really care why they did it. Political, religious, cultural, race, having a bad day, voices in my head or whatever you want to use as a reason. What difference should it make? There are enough laws to prosecute someone who assaults a group with a vehicle. It's a class B felony in this state. Max 10 years in prison or 20K fine or both.

If it had been a group of democrats Trump would probably have pardoned the guy anyway.

What does Trump have to do with this?

I just, and kind of what I’m getting at is I think this stuff needs to be labeled properly, and then thoroughly condemned by a society as an intolerance of violence.

That’s what concerns me is this is social reform and pressure via intimidation and violence. Why can’t we call a spade a spade?

Something else that bothers me about your posts is you’re categorizing everyone else in (whites, KKK, then upper middle class whites) broad swathes in this thread. But then when we need to label something as legitimately terrorism - it’s “well let’s not jump to conclusions”. Or bringing up things dating back 50-60 years to muddy the waters in this discussion.

Thoughts?

[HCM]

Splitting hairs, ain't you, boss?

No.
.
All violence, unrest etc is not terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force/violonce or threat there of specifically to influence a government or population in support of political or social goals.

Domestic Terrorism is terrorism not in furtherance of, inspired by or on behalf of a designated international terrorist organization.

[Borderland]

Well, that's not the view of most of modern law enforcement, criminology, psychology, legal, etc. world.

Motivation is a primary factor in analyzing, charging and prosecuting many violent acts.

It certainly is. If the investigation determined that 1) you weren't impaired, 2) no mechanical defect was found with the vehicle and 3) you left the scene I'm thinking that you were somehow motivated to kill those people. Would it matter if they were Nazis? Maybe someone on a jury or a judge would see that as a factor to be considered because just about everyone hates Nazis.

Why should a person's political beliefs enter into a case of vehicular assault? Isn't that what we're hashing out right now with Trump/Barr interfering in the legal process? Stone was a Trump confidant so there were some political considerations in his sentence, were they not?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The issue of hate crime or terrorism motivation has been discussed before. As HCM, a terrorist act has a different motivation and planned impact than getting pissed off at the neighbor over the lawn and running him over.

You may not think it is a crime to want to specifically terrorize a group of people and disrupt their psychological health and everyday lives. It has nothing to do with hating or loving Trump.

One problem with hate crime laws is that they may not be applied equally to terrorists of various motivations. The folks who protest the idea of the hate crime associated with such killings, probably have, either overtly or implicitly, some sympathy for the cause.

You may not think that: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/n...h-attacks.html is just the same as simple assault. It is not.

[blues]

It certainly is. If the investigation determined that 1) you weren't impaired, 2) no mechanical defect was found with the vehicle and 3) you left the scene I'm thinking that you were somehow motivated to kill those people. Would it matter if they were Nazis? Maybe someone on a jury or a judge would see that as a factor to be considered because just about everyone hates Nazis.

Why should a person's political beliefs enter into a case of vehicular assault? Isn't that what we're hashing out right now with Trump/Barr interfering in the legal process? Stone was a Trump confidant so there were some political considerations in his sentence, were they not?

Pre-trial hearings are the venue where such factors are hashed out by the prosecution and defense in front of the judge or magistrate to determine what may or may not be admissible in regard to an individual's past or present acts or associations.

The judge will have to make a call as to what is relevant to the case, and what may be prejudicial to the defendant.

It all depends on the statute, and how any information may be useful in determining state of mind, motive, etc. It may or may not be necessary for a jury to hear, or during a bench trial...or it may be something to be considered for an enhancement in regard to sentencing.

Generally, I don't care if a murderer has a particular ax to grind, is a misogynist, politically motivated or hates a particular group of people. The act alone often suffices for what I might consider apt punishment. That said, there are times that beliefs, state of mind and such are relevant factors to be considered.

[Borderland]

No.
.
All violence, unrest etc is not terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force/violonce or threat there of specifically to influence a government or population in support of political or social goals.

Domestic Terrorism is terrorism not in furtherance of, inspired by or on behalf of a designated international terrorist organization.

Were the people involved in the Cliven Bundy incident terrorists? If they were why weren't they all arrested? I know a few were but by and large, most weren't. Mostly, the federal cases against those activists were dismissed based on procedural error by the feds regarding evidence.