Comment by jacquesm
9 years ago
If you really insist on continuing to want to split this hair consider the possibility that the act of driving that car into a crowd of protestors was to send a message of what could happen to people that take part in counter protests to Neo Nazis. There, that fits your description of terrorism.
Now of course we can't know if that's true but at the same time your 'roadrage' argument is ridiculous. Roadrage had less to do with this than it has to do with terrorism.
In all fairness, somebody has to split that hair in order to charge him with murder. Looks like prosecutors have decided on second degree for now.
Sure. Note that in many countries acts of terrorism are also simply classed as murder or whatever the end result of the act of terrorism was, there is no specific 'terrorism' section in many bodies of law.
And I personally prefer it that way.
The Barcelona van attack that just happened an hour ago is an example of a vehicular terrorist attack:
https://www.reddit.com/live/zgbfbqqsl4h4
That is possible, but far from known. toomuchtodo is trying to make the most accurate assessment possible based from apparent facts.
> That is possible, but far from known.
Agreed.
> toomuchtodo is trying to make the most accurate assessment possible based from apparent facts.
No, he's trying to reclass a murder as an incident of roadrage. When you drive a car into a crowd at high speed that transcends mere anger, that's murder and in this particular case the perpetrator is someone who deliberately came to a protest of a lot of people who are on the record as wanting to engage in acts of violence. So when they then do engage in those acts it is no longer simple anger.
Simple anger would be if a visitor to a bar would do something like this after being thrown out of a bar. Trying to recast this whole thing as a simple case of an angry protestor at some otherwise peaceful protest is significantly changing the story.
Apparently I conflated toomuchtodo's posts with someone else that did call the suspect a murderer. The "violence intended to further a political goal by terrorizing a significant portion of the populace" is up for debate, but yeah, the murder in question is waaaay closer to that than it is to what toomuchtodo is saying.
edit: toomuchtodo's sibling comment is certainly relevant. Nuance is hard!
I apologize for background chatter, but do be careful of this character. He has a nasty habit of trying to intimidate people by approaching their public identity and suggesting you'd be "better off" and "more productive" if you stopped talking about things he doesn't like.
He's done it to me, for sure.
2 replies →
> No, he's trying to reclass a murder as an incident of roadrage.
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't murder. I said it was not an act of terrorism. Road rage can end in murder. It does not become a terrorist act.
2 replies →