If we use that weird definition then, we have to know his intent. We can therefore infer it wasn't terrorism since it obviously couldn't have been premeditated. He would have run them over at the start of the rally, not at the end of the rally when there were street battles going on everywhere, including people being attacked on their way to cars, and the cars being attacked as well.
I think the biggest mistake was to look for a definition of terrorism that was different than the following:
"Terrorism is whatever Muslims do against non-Muslims."
It’s no a “weird” definition. It is the correct definition, weirdo.
I don’t think that is a weird definition of terrorism. I think that is pretty close to the textbook definition.
Terrorism in not just a Muslim thing. There have been countless acts of domestic terrorism in America. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist and his act was terrorism. The loon who murdered 50+ people in a gay nightclub was a terrorist. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. That guy who murdered 5 Dallas police was a terrorist.
How much time do you need for it to be “premeditated”? Though you are right intent matters, I think 1 second is more than enough time. depending on the motive. If he got into the car with the intention to ram political protestors regardless of which side he was on or which side he was targeting, it is terrorism. If he was just driving by, saw the protest and said to himself “I’m gonna get ‘em”, it is premeditation. It could only be an accident if it was truly unintentional. Supposing he was driving by and got pelted with rocks and other objects then it may be partially mitigated under the law as a “crime of passion”, which doesn’t in my book mitigate the moral failing one whit that is just a legal technicality. On the other side, fairly or not, if he was at the protest on foot and was heading home before deciding (for whatever reason) to ram into the crowd then I am sure the prosecutors would call it terror and assign motive to the fact that he was involved in the protest. But it wouldn’t be any less of an act of terror if he was motivated by an attempt to generate a political change be it 1 second or 1 year of plotting.
Trying to violently punish innocent people for expressing their political beliefs (no matter how vile their opinions may be) falls within the definition. Just my opinion of course.