OK. Fair point.

Now all you have to do is decide whether you think it's good terrorism or bad terrorism.

LOL Aljafrezi.

I wasn't aware there is such a thing as good terrorism.

Well done SoShyt, you got there in the end.

There is room for respectful disagreement on any issue whatsoever. The fact that you don't think so is why I hate your point of view.

Bull****.

I'm against it. However it's only a tiny flash in the pan compared to the acts of violence by Radical Islamists and their apologists

I understand; you respectfully disagree.

"Notice how there was a group of people chasing after the car before it plowed into the crowd."

What?

Nan right wingnuts attack us more in the US and their apologists help prop them up. With things like the above lie.

This is a treasure trove.

DoOrDoNot believes there is room for respectful disagreement with _______

NAMBLA
ISIS
Slavery
Female Genital Mutilation
Flat Earthers
9/11 conspiracy theorists
9/11 attack supporters
Hitler
Stalin
Cannibals
La eMe
Vlad the Impaler

No true Scotsman fallacy.

mongidig says we are dealing with protesters vs rioters. And he says the rioters were attacking the guy. Should be an easy call for them. All he did is kill a rioter in self defense. MAGA

Correct. Because unless you are appealing to an objective standard of morality all your opinions on everything are just that: opinions. Its obvious youre not very educated on epistemological concepts. I know you think you have a monopoly on morality. Most progressives do. However I take issue with your moral premises and the only way for us to resolve them is with respectful discourse or who shoots first. I don't believe in violence so I choose the former.

If there wasn't group's of people with totally opposed beliefs on the above (and other things) then you wouldn't be bringing them up.

As the car was driving down the street people were hitting it with bats. It is unclear what exactly was happening in the video.

It is possible that the driver in the car was driving down the street, felt as if he was going to get attacked, and stepped on the gas. For example, this happened in New York, when a driver felt threatened. He wound up being cleared of charges:

Scroll to 4:56

The situations are different, however. There is no way to tell how the different drivers actually felt.



Here is the video from behind. Notice the car and the speed it is going down the street. It does not seem, to me, that he's planning on running anyone over at that speed.

Pay VERY close attention at the 3 second mark. You clearly see someone on the left of the car swing something at the car and hear it hit the vehicle. Listen closely, you can hear the engine rev at the 4 second mark like the driver suddenly steps on the gas.

What does this actually mean? It means it's POSSIBLE that the driver was trying to get down the street, he felt like he was under attack, and then slammed on the gas out of fear, like the first video I linked to with the bikers.

The issue we have here is the guy in Virginia was a white supremacist. That puts a lot of doubt in my mind. What does make me pause is the biker video makes me side with the driver, yet in the virginia video I side against the driver. I can't explain exactly why.

Edit : For best results, full screen the video and put ear phones on. There is a noise as soon as the video starts, it is unclear what happened, it sounds like the car jumped a curb (even though it doesn't appear that's what happened). You can clearly see the car slow down at the 2 second mark, then hear the engine rev, and the car speed up. It's hard to see and hear, you need to turn up the volume and play it a few times.

Edit Edit : It now seems after watching it 30 times or so that the car revved his engine BEFORE the person attacked his car. The person may have been hitting his car to try to get him to slow down.

I wish I could slow it down somehow. I've changed my mind now 5 times. I can't tell what happened first.

I thought the lefties were supposed to be the moral relativists.

Isn't it amazing how everyone jumps to conclusions before all the facts are made public.

Maybe the guy was scared for his life.

Be respectful to him you learning challenged children.

Wil Wrong-Un prepares the ground for the conclusion to the final installment of his forensic examination of the video, which will be...wait for it..

How about wait to all the facts come out. Then make a judgement.

Unless you appeal to an objective morality then everyone is a moral relativist. For example in some parts of Greece > 2000 years ago your being against man-boy love would be considered to be ridiculous.

I'm not saying that at all. The guy is most likely going to fry.

I will say, however, if I was the lawyer defending him, this is exactly the case I'd make.

The issue is I can't tell exactly the order of events. If the car was attacked BEFORE he hit the gas, and it can be proven, he has a chance of arguing being scared and maybe getting less than expected. If that can't be proven he's a dead man.

NOTE TO SELF: Tomorrow, check BroadwayDogShyt's previous posts to see how long he waited each time before delivering his verdict on Islamic terrorist attacks.

Are claiming that you do that consistently?

You're not a lawyer, you're a failed bean counter who has to work absurdly long anti-social hours into middle age just to keep his family alive.

No one cares about your lol legal strategy.