Charlottesville Car Crash Video

[Oystein]

Oh if everyone else is going to be such dishonest and disingenuous jerks then surely i can be one as well?
*nipped army of strawmen rant*

Thanks for admitting to making dishonest and disingenuous posts

 

[Oystein]

The issue isn't perceiving it but recalling it afterwards.

The issue is both, plus a couple or three more.

 

[Oystein]

It's literally the dictionary definition.

Nazi Fields fits it because 1. he unlawfully used violence against 2. civilians in order to 3. further his neo-Nazi agenda. It doesn't really matter what he thought he would gain by killing counter-demonstrators. Perhaps he was angry at them because they had the gall to attempt to disrupt his beloved Nazi rally, or perhaps he simply saw them as the enemy and expected to be celebrated as a hero for the cause. Either way suits nicely.

I don't have that dictonary handy. Which dictionary? Or do you claim all dictionaries have the same definition for this highly contentios an politically and emotionally loaded term? That seems highly implausible.
Excuse me that I don't take your word for it.

You can't know the highlighted, therefore, as a skeptic, you should reserve some doubt on those claims.
And no, I don't think your two fantasies fit nicely the description "to further an agenda". Neither of them.

 

[Oystein]

You listed premeditation as one of the criteria for terrorism. Do you wish to define premeditation for terrorism as different from premeditation for first-degree murder?

Yes. More ahead-of-time planning and preparation. I know this is a bit fuzzy yet. But you get the picture. Getting angry and mumbling "I gotta kill that bummer" five minutes before the act counts as premeditation for murder, but doesn't quite allow for "planning and preparation" the way a terrorist act is planned and prepared. I'd say there would have to be a temporal disconnect between a cool phase of planning and a hot phase of fighting.

 

[sphenisc]

I don't have that dictonary handy. Which dictionary? Or do you claim all dictionaries have the same definition for this highly contentios an politically and emotionally loaded term? That seems highly implausible.
Excuse me that I don't take your word for it.

You can't know the highlighted, therefore, as a skeptic, you should reserve some doubt on those claims.
And no, I don't think your two fantasies fit nicely the description "to further an agenda". Neither of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

 

[Oystein]

It's absolutely clear that he intended to murder when he got into the car. He went from the ongoing Nazi rally to get his car - not to go home or run some errands - but to go into the center of town where the counter-protesters where. His motive was murder from the time he got in the car.

If you need help locating James Randi's phone number, I can help you for a small share of the expected $1M you'll win with your psychic powers

 

[Oystein]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

Thanks. Quote:

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.

IOW: What I said. Not what uke2se said.
ETA: Especially this bit:

• It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.

Seems like I provided something close to this dictionary definition earlier - not uke2se.

 

[uke2se]

I don't have that dictonary handy. Which dictionary? Or do you claim all dictionaries have the same definition for this highly contentios an politically and emotionally loaded term? That seems highly implausible.
Excuse me that I don't take your word for it.

In the age of the internet, you don't need one. Here are some definitions:

The one I used was from Google:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Here's one from dictionary.com:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Here's Oxford Dictionaries:

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Top three on a Google search result.

You can't know the highlighted, therefore, as a skeptic, you should reserve some doubt on those claims.

True, I can't. But I can surmise from what he was (a Nazi), what the victims were (anti-Fascists), the situation (a demonstration against a Nazi rally) and the incident (driving at high speed into a crowd) that his intention was to kill and intimidate his ideological opponents. It's reasonable to assume that he was doing this because he was a Nazi and because the victims were anti-Fascists.

And no, I don't think your two fantasies fit nicely the description "to further an agenda". Neither of them.

Not really my problem, is it?

 

[uke2se]

If you need help locating James Randi's phone number, I can help you for a small share of the expected $1M you'll win with your psychic powers

I don't need psychic powers. All I need is the power of deduction.

Why do you think he left the Nazi rally and got into his car to drive down-town, to where he knew the counter-protesters were? Can you give me a plausible explanation that does not include vehicular murder?

 

[uke2se]

Thanks. Quote:


IOW: What I said. Not what uke2se said.
ETA: Especially this bit:

Seems like I provided something close to this dictionary definition earlier - not uke2se.

Are you being willfully obtuse? Read the rest of the wiki article.

There's no fully agreed upon definition, but the definition I provided is generally included.

 

[Oystein]

...
True, I can't. But I can surmise from what he was (a Nazi), what the victims were (anti-Fascists), the situation (a demonstration against a Nazi rally) and the incident (driving at high speed into a crowd) that his intention was to kill and intimidate his ideological opponents. It's reasonable to assume that he was doing this because he was a Nazi and because the victims were anti-Fascists.

Sure, that's all possible - and I am glad you agreed to what you earlier rejecte: That doubt is in order.

Did you think about whether a "Hooligan" frame of mind also might explain this attack?

Not really my problem, is it?

Well, no, as long as you are unconcerned that your arguments fail to convince

 

[uke2se]

Sure, that's all possible - and I am glad you agreed to what you earlier rejecte: That doubt is in order.

Did you think about whether a "Hooligan" frame of mind also might explain this attack?

Yes, I did and I immediately rejected it. Unless you equate a "hooligan" frame of mind with a "homicidal" frame of mind.

Well, no, as long as you are unconcerned that your arguments fail to convince

You. Fails to convince you.

 

[Oystein]

I don't need psychic powers. All I need is the power of deduction.

Why do you think he left the Nazi rally and got into his car to drive down-town, to where he knew the counter-protesters were? Can you give me a plausible explanation that does not include vehicular murder?

Amaaaazing, your mind reading powers!

Another explanation might be "he got into his car to go home". But I would be so stupid as to claim publicly that this is the only plausible possibility.

 

[Oystein]

Yes, I did and I immediately rejected it. Unless you equate a "hooligan" frame of mind with a "homicidal" frame of mind. ...

Yes, indeed I do: Occasionally, hooligans, in pursuit of their weekend hooligan fun entertainment program, kill people. I consider such incidents "murder". Not terrorism.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Really? You seem oddly selective and biased to what you see as "unskeptical arguments".

Really? Check out post 70 in this exact thread.


Skeptic tank posted this

1.) The damage was done prior to flag man, but there's a photo showing not just that bumper mark but about 4 damage spots on the back of his car. These were likely inflicted by people with weapons in a more sparse gathering up at the top of the hill, where we don't seem to have good video or photos at all.

2.) it's been a known and common tactic to disguise weapons as flags for a while. Seriously. I was aware of this since Berkeley. They bring a pipe or fighting stick and put a flag on it so it isn't confiscated or necessarily immediately recognized as a weapon..

I posted this

1) you literally have no evidence for that conclusion.

2) prove it.

The only reason you don't see me hitting this idea more is no one replied.

I would like an apology.

 

[uke2se]

Amaaaazing, your mind reading powers!

Another explanation might be "he got into his car to go home". But I would be so stupid as to claim publicly that this is the only plausible possibility.

It's not plausible at all, because the Nazis were at McIntyre park at this point. The road home for the Nazi terrorist doesn't lead to Water Street. He would also have seen Water Street blocked as he came down 4th streets at high speed, but instead of turning on East Main Street, which would have been easy to do, he barreled down 4th Street into the protesters on Water Street.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, indeed I do: Occasionally, hooligans, in pursuit of their weekend hooligan fun entertainment program, kill people. I consider such incidents "murder". Not terrorism.

With cars? First time I've heard of it, and I've worked extensively with hooligans (of the football kind) in a law enforcement capacity.

 

[Oystein]

@uke2se,

ST earlier posted a question that he loaded with literally several paragraphs of strawmen and false analogies, so much that the entire question had to be rejected as vily insencere and poisoned, as is par for the Nazi course.

However, the naked question was, IMO, fair, and it was this:


Suppose on that very same day, some non-violent Nazi swine had been killed by an armed and fighting antifa activist. You can pad this with details as you wish (weapon used...). The only detail I would insist on is that in the present situation, no one attacked the antifa person.

Consider that the antifa person came to Charlottsville because of some political view and intention, came to Charlottesville to express thatr political view and to fight against a political enemy. In short: Had political aims and goals.
And that antifa person killed some Nazi not in self defense.


--->>> Would you call that antifa person a "terrorist"? <<<---


Remember the Google=Oxford definition - I copy what you copied:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Surely, the use of violence would have been unlawful, the victim a civilian, and the antifa person in pursuit of political aims.


Now in reality, no antifa person actually killed a Nazi, but they did bring weapons, and did use weapons against Nazis, did they not? That's violence, unlawful, in pursuit of political aims, isn't it?


So by your prefered dictionary definitions, what the militant antifa did throughout that day was terrorism.


I reject this claim. I fully expect you however to agree to it without any ifs and buts.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I clipped all the items of your story that have no parallel to the actual incident or are irrelevant (such as what shirt the driver wore, as this could not be seen behind the shaded windows).

I would vote for intentional homicide. As I previously said, I am not competent to go into the finer details of degrees and murder vs. manlaughter.

The shirt he was wearing can be seen when he was arrested. Please don't be so ignorant as to claim that maybe he changed his shirt after he narrowly escaped being beaten to death by the crowd but before he stopped.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Of what relevance is the direction of the one-way street? Pedestrians are not obliged to heed that sign, it's for wheeled traffic!

They're obligated to stay off the street completely.