Replies

I think GPH makes a valid point here, at least in so much as it’s too early to tell one way or the other if this is an act of “terrorism”.

It’s correct to say terrorism is not by definition any act of violence only Muslims do for political reasons. I think it was Plummz who gave the correct definition of terrorism upthread, which is “any act of violence in furtherance of a political agenda”. There’s no doubt that in the last 10 years at least the vast majority of terrorism has been on the part of Muslims but that doesn’t mean all terrorism is Islamic.

With that said though it’s possible this is not an act of terrorism, and is either an act of a man in fear for his life (unlikely) or a crime of passion. “Premeditation” is key here and something for his and the state’s lawyers to argue about, if necessary.

It’s possible that the man feared for his life after being trapped in a crowd throwing rocks at his car and panicked, flooding the accelerator, mowing people down in front of him then panicked again realizing what he’d done and threw it in reverse to try to get away. This theory might be supported by the fact that he surrendered peacefully (as far as I understand) once he was out of danger.

It’s also possible that after being hit by one rock, or maybe even one person just hitting his car with their hand or a protest sign, he snapped, mowed people over in a fit of rage, then threw it in reverse in a desperate attempt to get away when he realized what he’d done. This might also be supported by the fact he surrendered peacefully. This wouldn’t be terrorism though as terrorism really, I’d argue, by definition requires premeditation. And one second of snapping into rage is not premeditation it’s a crime of passion.

Again these are all facts that need to be sorted out in the courts. If, in the next day or two the man pleads guilty accepting a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter or some such we can know it wasn’t terrorism but a crime of passion or panic that escalated horribly, as described above. But if it can be shown the man was some kind of Neo Nazi or had some other similar history, and that rocks were never thrown at his car or there’s no other evidence he could have felt his life was in immediate danger then it actually could be terrorism. But again true premeditation must be shown as well.

It should be trivial to show evidence of rock damage on the car they have the car as well they can examine it for such damage. If it exists the man should be given the benefit of the doubt on this in my opinion after all that’s what our criminal justice system is all about.

The point is it’s too early to tell one way or the other. I thus fully support the president’s statements on the incident, and hope he doesn’t fall into the same hype surrounding it, driven by the leftist media and their wretched desire to label this a “hate crime” or “terrorism” so they may finally achieve their evil desire of labeling all conservatives as terrorists (despite all the stories in recent months and even weeks of violence perpetrated by leftists).

I’m disappointed Sen. Cruz has gone this route. I don’t know why he’d be so eager to label it terrorism, when all the facts aren’t in and in doing so only helps the leftists.