ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assault incidents , Charlottesville riot , James Alex Fields , protest incidents , racism incidents , terrorism incidents

Reply
Old 20th August 2017, 05:06 AM   #121
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Yes, you are of the opinion that to question the accepted narrative of this event makes one a Nazi apologist. That's what I took from the statement,
No, I am of the opinion that to give the Nazi terrorist the benefit of doubt is to post Nazi apologetics.


Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Are you claiming this individual was working as part of a cell, had worked out in advance where his targets were, had completed intel and surveillance, had rehearsed the attack, had considered escape and exploitation and was taking orders from someone higher up in the organisation?
Not every ISIS terrorist is part of a cell, nor have they done any particular prep work. See the Stockholm terrorist as an example.

Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
I can't be sure but it looks very much to me like it was one POS who acted alone, on a spur of the moment urge without remotely considering the potential repercussions.
Like many terrorists.

Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
To suggest that it was part of a pre-planned operation is ridiculous.
Nobody knows, but it's still terrorism. Terrorism doesn't require pre-planning.


Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Quite, but this wasn't one of them.
Yes, it was.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 05:07 AM   #122
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
How would you describe those who formed the group that the victims were in and what do you think were the intentions of this group on that particular day?
Protesters protesting Nazi scum who had come with military weapons rather than just sticks and maze.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 05:09 AM   #123
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Very, very small point.......... they are brakes not breaks.
Thangs four heeling migh spalling.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 05:12 AM   #124
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
...This attack was just as premeditated as an ISIS attack...
This is almost certainly completely FALSE.

ETA: Besides, I think you are giving this Nazi punk POS too much credit.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 20th August 2017 at 05:15 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 05:15 AM   #125
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 4,619
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Oh, so you're playing a game of 'gotcha' taking an overly literal reading of my post and trying to catch me on an inconsistency, because you assume I have a certain ideological position? Well, it's a forum tradition I suppose.
No, calm down.

Quote:
I've certainly seen people in this thread make excuses for the driver
Agreed 100%.

Quote:
...and I have seen people imply the protesters were violent thugs who should have expected something like that.
I haven't seen that at all.

Quote:
a mob of hippies and anarchists.
Thank you

Quote:
I don't think he could have ploughed into them by accident. And I think that's bad, even if the people he was trying to murder weren't very nice either.
Agreed.

See! Not a gotcha in sight and thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

Last edited by bluesjnr; 20th August 2017 at 05:20 AM.
bluesjnr is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 05:48 AM   #126
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,626
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
No dog in this fight, but -

http://i.imgur.com/ldg2nZv.jpg

He did brake and from the looks of car's posture, possibly swerving to avoid hitting the guy in the green shorts.

Maybe didn't want to kill a white guy. Who knows.
Am I correct in thinking the white light on the rear panel is a reversing light, and would be lit if the car was simultaneously reversing and braking?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:14 AM   #127
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,506
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
I'm not making that case, would you be willing to answer the question I put to you? I'm interested to know, from you, what label you would use to describe those who formed the group that the victims were in, and what you think were the intentions of this group on that particular day?
Far as I know, that was a group of counterprotesters and that their intention was to voice their opinions regarding white nationalism and disrupt the rally.

Now, I would not at all be surprised that some counterprotesters had more aggressive intentions than what I just said, but I haven't seen any reason to think that the particular group targeted by the driver consisted of the most radical elements of the counterprotest.

I've given my answer. Now why not supply your own answer to the same question? Following that, perhaps we can discuss the relevance of these questions.

Last edited by phiwum; 20th August 2017 at 06:17 AM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:35 AM   #128
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,367
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
I don't see how the intentions of a crowd justify ramming into them with a speeding car.
Unless someone would like to argue that this was the only way to prevent greater harm...

Maybe he thought they were zombies?

Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Since all ISIS attacks are premeditated...

That's not necessarily known to the public in the days following the attack. In fact, I'd argue that the mere labeling of the incident as a "terrorist attack" leads one to assume premeditated violence without any further evidence. How often does anyone really follow up on the story? Only when the perpetrator is known to be white do you (at least from your participation so far in this thread) and others seem to pause and say, "Hmm. Well, maybe something more benign was going on..."

That's selective critical thinking at best.

Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Am I correct in thinking the white light on the rear panel is a reversing light, and would be lit if the car was simultaneously reversing and braking?

Yes.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 20th August 2017 at 06:38 AM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:35 AM   #129
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 4,619
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Far as I know, that was a group of counterprotesters and that their intention was to voice their opinions regarding white nationalism and disrupt the rally.

Now, I would not at all be surprised that some counterprotesters had more aggressive intentions than what I just said, but I haven't seen any reason to think that the particular group targeted by the driver consisted of the most radical elements of the counterprotest.

I've given my answer. Now why not supply your own answer to the same question? Following that, perhaps we can discuss the relevance of these questions.
I think the exact group the victims were with were largely peaceful protestors as you describe in your opening paragraph.

It is known that the larger group were joined by Anti-fa thugs earlier on in the day. That's my opinion of members of Anti-fa, thugs. Thugs who regularly utilise violence, vandalism and civil disobedience to further their aim. It is a matter of record that it was these people that attacked the Nazi Group - who attacked first, I don't know and frankly it matters not.

As for the Nazi's - they are to a man, POS and not really all that different from the mob I've just described when you pop the lid off and look inside.

The relevance of my question? To you, none. None whatsoever as it was not directed at you but at Porpoise of Life as he/she had announced that this thread had identified people that she/he would henceforth "stay away from". Apart from intimating his/her disgust at people defending the driver I wasn't clear what, if any, other criteria he/she might be employing in such a hit list.

I was interested to find out more.

That's it in a nutshell and I hope that clarifies things for you.
bluesjnr is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:42 AM   #130
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
That's not known by the public in the days following the attack. In fact, I'd argue that the mere labeling of the incident as a "terrorist attack" leads one to assume premeditated violence without any further evidence. How often does anyone really follow up on the story? Only when the perpetrator is known to be white do you (at least from your participation so far in this thread) and others seem to pause and say, "Hmm. Well, maybe something more benign was going on..."

That's selective critical thinking at best.
I would defy anyone to provide examples of the level of "critical thinking" we're seeing in this thread from any other thread about a terrorist attack involving someone with brown skin or an Arabic name.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:48 AM   #131
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 4,619
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
That's not known by the public in the days following the attack. In fact, I'd argue that the mere labeling of the incident as a "terrorist attack" leads one to assume premeditated violence without any further evidence. How often does anyone really follow up on the story? Only when the perpetrator is known to be white do you (at least from your participation so far in this thread) and others seem to pause and say, "Hmm. Well, maybe something more benign was going on..."

That's selective critical thinking at best.
I simply think that the whole event needs a more critical eye. There can be no argument that Fields Jr has committed a crime, it is a matter of fact. How he came to commit that crime is open to scrutiny.

Your accusation of racism is a non starter in this instance. When have I mentioned the colour of the perpetrators skin as being relevant to how much scrutiny the event should receive?

I object (for a given value of objection) to the event being labelled a terrorist act as I think it muddies the water and is an emotional knee-jerk.

Finally, I don't think I've suggested anything about this event as being in any way benign and have not put forth any theory that would support that accusation.

Are you mixing me up with somebody else?

Last edited by bluesjnr; 20th August 2017 at 06:56 AM.
bluesjnr is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:52 AM   #132
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't think when he started accelerating can be concluded from simply eyeballing the video.
And the countless witnesses who reported seeing the same thing? Oh right, i forgot that they were in on this conspiracy.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:55 AM   #133
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Even people who think it was cold blooded murder should consider that it was a non terrorism hate crime.
Brilliant argument. I'm completely convinced.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:57 AM   #134
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
And the countless witnesses who reported seeing the same thing? Oh right, i forgot that they were in on this conspiracy.
Funny you should mention that. We know witnesses are extremely unreliable for some of the same reasons just watching a video is unreliable.this is not the place to make a claim that counts on the accuracy of eyewitnesses.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 06:59 AM   #135
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Brilliant argument. I'm completely convinced.
There is simply no evidence yet that the intent was to affect political discourse or whether he hated them and simply wanted them to die.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:09 AM   #136
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Funny you should mention that. We know witnesses are extremely unreliable for some of the same reasons just watching a video is unreliable.this is not the place to make a claim that counts on the accuracy of eyewitnesses.
Of course you have to put up completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof to make any conclusion impossible. I mean we got to be "skeptical" here right?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is simply no evidence yet that the intent was to affect political discourse or whether he hated them and simply wanted them to die.
I don't see how those are mutually exclusive in fact i'd say they are highly related. Going by your earlier post we'd be hard pressed to know whether he simply accidentally drove into them. Why are you so presumptuous?
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 20th August 2017 at 07:10 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:13 AM   #137
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Of course you have to put up completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof to make any conclusion impossible. I mean we got to be "skeptical" here right?



I don't see how those are mutually exclusive in fact i'd say they are highly related. Going by your earlier post we'd be hard pressed to know whether he simply accidentally drove into them. Why are you so presumptuous?
I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:18 AM   #138
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
And the countless witnesses who reported seeing the same thing? Oh right, i forgot that they were in on this conspiracy.
It would actually be rather foolish to rely much on eye witnesses here.
For starters, eye witnesses are NEVER a reliable source to determine velocity or acceleration of a motor vehicle. Just simply never ever.
But in this case, it is clear that the vast majority of witnesses can be assumed to be biased against the attacker, on top of being emotionally distressed by the awful results of the attack.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:22 AM   #139
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,642
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.
Honestly, unless you're saying that he's a psychopath (is that your argument, because it may fit with more evidence?), then killing or attempting to kill people who you "hate" (as you termed it) but who you do not actually know, pretty much makes it political, at minimum. And if murder of innocents to make a political point is how one wishes to define terrorism, then it would becomes terrorism.

Personally, I think there's too much of this Obama/Trump concern of "will they call it terrorism... stay tuned". How about "Nazi thug murders person and attempts to murder several other with his vehicle". It weren't a love triangle. Let people make of it what they will. I see no value in calling it terrorism or not calling it terrorism other than to make GOP nazi enablers and apologists squirm, and there is a certain value to that, after all.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:29 AM   #140
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,367
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Your accusation of racism is a non starter in this instance. When have I mentioned the colour of the perpetrators skin as being relevant to how much scrutiny the event should receive?

Well, explicitly sharing one's awareness of the perpetrator's skin color is not necessary for skin color to be a factor in one's argument. I'd say that most "casual racists" wouldn't think to mention it; it's just a significant undercurrent pushing their thinking in a particular direction.

Not that I necessarily think that you are overtly or even casually racist, but there was a certain curious rigidity in your counter-argument that "all ISIS attacks are premeditated" that you seem reluctant to apply to this neo-Nazi's attack.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that you should be equally rigid toward this incident. I'm simply (perhaps too simply) trying to point out that there may be no significant difference between the information available to the public in the days following an actual ISIS or ISIS-inspired attack and this attack.

Quote:
I object (for a given value of objection) to the event being labelled a terrorist act as I think it muddies the water and is an emotional knee-jerk.

I'd agree that it's not terrorism in the sense that Mr. Fields likely hadn't planned the attack for months. However, I'm not sure "months of planning" is a requirement for terrorism. Also, I'd argue that his attack was still very much premeditated: as he was coming down the street, approaching the crowd of counter-protesters, he had more than enough time to consider his options.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 20th August 2017 at 07:40 AM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:35 AM   #141
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.
No it's obvious you have taken a position simply because you have continued to try undermining, by way of completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof, the conclusion that this was "terrorism" and more broadly that he actually intended to hurt anyone.

If you were uncommitted you wouldn't engage in these kind of dishonest denialist rhetoric.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:37 AM   #142
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.
Right.

I have in the last couple of days very certainly taken an extreme stand against nazi scum in Charlottesville, the Nazi sypathizer Presiden and several of their Nazi enablers on this forum.
I have most clearly stated that this attack by a piece of **** Nazi scum ******* was intentional homicide - he deliberately drove into the crowd at reckless speed with criminal intent, and he did so for ultimately nefarious reasons (his hatred of people of color, a certain religion, people of minority sex identification...); that makes him, IMO, a murderer (with the caveat that I am not versed in US criminal law and its criteria to differentiate between classes of murder, or between murder and manslaughter).

I have at no point even hinted I also regard him a terrorist - it's possible, but I doubt it, and see no evidence for it.

The problem is of course that we do not have definition for "terrorism" that even a sizable minority here could agree upon. Personally, in order to differentiate "terrorism" from mere "homiced", I certainly would see the following criteria as central:
  • Premeditation - that the attack be planned and prepared ahead of time and not be perpetrated out of momentary rage.
  • A message of terror that is directed at an audience larger than the group immediately attacked. Usually "society". This criteria would differentiate terrorism from e.g. acts of violent intimidation that two crime syndicates levy against one another; or from acts of mere revenge
  • A political framework to justify the deed
As for #1, I see no evidence yet whatsoever that this moron had a plan to kill even 10 minutes before the incident
As for #2, I see no evidence that he intended a message to the society at large, or at least to the "liberal" spectrum of society. It's conceivable he had such an intention, but it is equally conceivable that he considered the "antifa" as a militia and thus a legitimate target of a fight, or that he simply wanted revenge for the defeat he suffered earlier in the day. Several more intentions would be conceivable - we cant know until we have his own testimony, or uncovered records of his communications that speak to his intentions
As for #3, we skeptic, rationally thinking "liberals" ought not be too quick to give Nazis credit for forming a framework of ideas. The base assumption / null hypothesis ought to be that their stupidity suffices as explanation.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:40 AM   #143
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
No it's obvious you have taken a position simply because you have continued to try undermining, by way of completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof, the conclusion that this was "terrorism" and more broadly that he actually intended to hurt anyone.

If you were uncommitted you wouldn't engage in these kind of dishonest denialist rhetoric.
I simply go where the unskeptical arguments are being made.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:45 AM   #144
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It would actually be rather foolish to rely much on eye witnesses here.
For starters, eye witnesses are NEVER a reliable source to determine velocity or acceleration of a motor vehicle. Just simply never ever.
And that's why all eye witnesses accounts are completely inadmissible in all criminal or civil cases involving automobiles.

Quote:
But in this case, it is clear that the vast majority of witnesses can be assumed to be biased against the attacker, on top of being emotionally distressed by the awful results of the attack.
I'm sure most people would be biased against someone who tried to run them over, or at least showed complete and utter disregard for their life.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:45 AM   #145
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Honestly, unless you're saying that he's a psychopath (is that your argument, because it may fit with more evidence?), then killing or attempting to kill people who you "hate" (as you termed it) but who you do not actually know, pretty much makes it political, at minimum. And if murder of innocents to make a political point is how one wishes to define terrorism, then it would becomes terrorism.

Personally, I think there's too much of this Obama/Trump concern of "will they call it terrorism... stay tuned". How about "Nazi thug murders person and attempts to murder several other with his vehicle". It weren't a love triangle. Let people make of it what they will. I see no value in calling it terrorism or not calling it terrorism other than to make GOP nazi enablers and apologists squirm, and there is a certain value to that, after all.
In a related thread I put up story of a hate crime where a man murdered a transgender woman calling her an "it". I'm sure he had anti LGBT politics. But he killed her because he hated her....not to influence US politics or the LGBT community at large.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:46 AM   #146
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,367
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Personally, in order to differentiate "terrorism" from mere "homiced", I certainly would see the following criteria as central:
  • Premeditation - that the attack be planned and prepared ahead of time and not be perpetrated out of momentary rage.
  • A message of terror that is directed at an audience larger than the group immediately attacked. Usually "society". This criteria would differentiate terrorism from e.g. acts of violent intimidation that two crime syndicates levy against one another; or from acts of mere revenge
  • A political framework to justify the deed

This is probably the one point that Mr. Fields' attack lacks that would prevent the label of "terrorism" from applying. That could easily change, however, if/when his statements to police after his arrest are made public.

ETA: As I said in my previous post, I consider it likely that the criteria for premeditation will be met in this case. From an explanation of first-degree murder:
The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. (source)
Now, I believe Mr. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, which is a lower bar. The prosecution may be trying to avoid proving that Mr. Fields intended to kill, which is also a requirement for first-degree murder.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 20th August 2017 at 07:55 AM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:48 AM   #147
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Well, explicitly sharing one's awareness of the perpetrator's skin color is not necessary for skin color to be a factor in one's argument. I'd say that most "casual racists" wouldn't think to mention it; it's just a significant undercurrent pushing their thinking in a particular direction.

Not that I necessarily think that you are overtly or even casually racist, but there was a certain curious rigidity in your counter-argument that "all ISIS attacks are premeditated" that you seem reluctant to apply to this neo-Nazi's attack.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that you should be equally rigid toward this incident. I'm simply (perhaps too simply) trying to point out that there may be no significant difference between the information available to the public in the days following an actual ISIS or ISIS-inspired attack and this attack.




I'd agree that it's not terrorism in the sense that Mr. Fields likely hadn't planned the attack for months. However, I'm not sure "months of planning" is a requirement for terrorism. Also, I'd argue that his attack was still very much premeditated: as he was coming down the street, approaching the crowd of counter-protesters, he had more than enough time to consider his options.
Terrorism is, per definition, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. It does not have to be planned in advance. That it often is doesn't disqualify this incident from being terrorism.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:54 AM   #148
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...we do not have a definition for "terrorism" ... I certainly would see the following criteria as central:
  • ...
  • A message of terror that is directed at an audience larger than the group immediately attacked. Usually "society". This criteria would differentiate terrorism from e.g. acts of violent intimidation that two crime syndicates levy against one another; ...
To flesh out a bit more on this:

I consider a proportion of the militants on both sides to be driven less by politics and more by a sense of adventure, exitement, and even fashion. A lot like Hooligans. Hooligans are hooligans because they like to hide in groups and under masks or behind tinted car windows, drink, shout, wear uniforms, and be violent dicks. And on the side, they are fans of West Ham United, Hertha BSC Berlin, General Lee or Che.

A good day for a Hooligan is when he, hiding among his fellow Hooligans, gets to meet other Hooligans who happen to identify themselves as fans of someone else (FC Liverpool, Schalke 04, Mao or the KKK), and to engage in a major brawl. Lots of fun is being had, and the next day they can brag about how many of the opposing swine they hit with a rock or a bar.

In short, I have little doubt that some of the militants on both sides go to such rallies merely because they love to have a good fight once in a while.

In that context, speeding at the other side recklessly to demonstrate you are a tough dog is indistinguishable from one biker gang throwing a Molotov cocktail into a pub frequented by another biker gang - that's not terrorism, that's inner-crime bullying.


The Nazi murdering kiddo in Charlottesville may have hated the group he raced into not so much for some finer analysis of political differences, but simply he perceived them as part of the other gang his gang had come to town to have a fight with.
Hooligan behaviour.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 20th August 2017 at 07:56 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 07:57 AM   #149
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,385
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
My money is on accident (plus action under shock on the way back up) now. Thoughts?
My level of surprise that you interpret things favorably to the neo-nazis and Trump: nil.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:06 AM   #150
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
And that's why all eye witnesses accounts are completely inadmissible in all criminal or civil cases involving automobiles.
You are usually much too smart to strawman an argument like this. What is clouding your judgement, you think?

But yes, courts are probably giving witness testimony too much weight in many cases. It's a bad habit that's difficult to shed.

(Personal anecdote: I was once called to court to testify in a case about a minor traffic accident. The incident happened as I was accelerating from perhaps 60 km/h to maybe 100 km/h, the guilty party, a commercial truck, was going steady at perhaps 90 km/h, and the victim came with high speed from behind and was forced to brake hard as the perp pulled to the left lane without looking. The court asked me how fast the victim was going initially. This question alone is cause for me to totally, 100% dismiss this judge as completely unfit to be presiding over traffic matters. Why? Because there is absolutely no way that I could estimate that speed with any reliability whatsoever. Zero chance. Impossible.
By the way, what they didn't ask me was, if the accused man sitting there in court was the driver of the truck in question. He wasn't! I think their boss sent a surrogate to fetch the penalty, because the real driver was already maxed out on penalties )

Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
I'm sure most people would be biased against someone who tried to run them over, or at least showed complete and utter disregard for their life.
Exactly. Such witnesses ought to recuse themselves.
Some might even feel motivated to plainly lie, don't you agree?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:09 AM   #151
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I simply go where the unskeptical arguments are being made.
Really? You seem oddly selective and biased to what you see as "unskeptical arguments".
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:09 AM   #152
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
This is probably the one point that Mr. Fields' attack lacks that would prevent the label of "terrorism" from applying. That could easily change, however, if/when his statements to police after his arrest are made public.

ETA: As I said in my previous post, I consider it likely that the criteria for premeditation will be met in this case. From an explanation of first-degree murder:
The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. (source)
Now, I believe Mr. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, which is a lower bar. The prosecution may be trying to avoid proving that Mr. Fields intended to kill, which is also a requirement for first-degree murder.
You quote a criterion for first-degree murder.
I was talking about criteria for terrorism. That bar would be higher (and much narrower), IMO, than the bar for 1st° murder.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:11 AM   #153
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,859
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Terrorism is, per definition, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. It does not have to be planned in advance. That it often is doesn't disqualify this incident from being terrorism.
I both disagree with this definition and doubt your implication that Mr. Field's homicide fits that definition.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:20 AM   #154
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,863
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Did you take the ride down the hill with Google StreetView (just go straight forward a couple of blocks)? This is one bad view.
Thanks for posting that. I just "took the ride".

It still seems to me like he had plenty of time. If he were driving completely recklessly AND got distracted by something, maybe. It still seems a bit far fetched.

Of course, sometimes people "freeze" and make absolutely no decision in a life threatening situation. It's the "deer in the headlights" reaction. Maybe he sees the hostile crowd, and it invokes a "fight or flight" reaction, and his mind can't choose between the two. The instinct screams "fight", while the rational mind is saying "flight", and the result is paralysis, and he slams into the crowd.

I think what you have shown with what you posted is a plausible case that he had no intention of mowing down a crowd of people when he got into his car. Indeed, he could have easily been trying to leave the area with no intention of confrontation at least until his car was going at a high rate of speed toward an unexpected crowd.

However, it looks to me like he had good visibility for at least a block before he hit the people. Even at high speed, it looks like he had plenty of time to stop. Unless he can make a convincing case that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, he's still guilty.

For what it's worth, there were two phases of the incident. There was his ramming into the crowd while going forward, and his running into people going backward. I think any prosecution will have to be based on his actions moving forward, because by the time he throws it into reverse, his life is clearly in danger.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:33 AM   #155
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You are usually much too smart to strawman an argument like this. What is clouding your judgement, you think?
Oh if everyone else is going to be such dishonest and disingenuous jerks then surely i can be one as well?

Quote:
But yes, courts are probably giving witness testimony too much weight in many cases. It's a bad habit that's difficult to shed.
Since people can "Just simply never ever" establish how fast a vehicle is moving or accelerating, which presumably means that Humans are unable to distinguish a completely stationary car and one that's moving under any and all circumstances, i sure as hell wouldn't trust their recollections on any other subject whatsoever.

Why risk being wrong? Even if it's just wrong by a couple of km/h then it's too much.

Quote:
Personal anecdote
Thanks for that expert assessment on the facts and scientific consensus behind the reliability of eye witness accounts.

Quote:
Exactly. Such witnesses ought to recuse themselves.
If this really was a complete accident, or simply caused by negligence, then surely some of the eye witnesses should be able to vouch for the driver. Just because someone is biased sure as hell doesn't mean that their witness testimony should be completely rejected especially if it squares up with someone who isn't biased.

Quote:
Some might even feel motivated to plainly lie, don't you agree?
Everyone could lie about everything. Hence why all witness testimony should be ruled inadmissible in every single criminal or civil case ever. If we're going to embrace solipsism we might just do it so wholeheartedly and consistently.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:39 AM   #156
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Oh if everyone else is going to be such dishonest and disingenuous jerks then surely i can be one as well?



Since people can "Just simply never ever" establish how fast a vehicle is moving or accelerating, which presumably means that Humans are unable to distinguish a completely stationary car and one that's moving under any and all circumstances, i sure as hell wouldn't trust their recollections on any other subject whatsoever.
The issue isn't perceiving it but recalling it afterwards.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:44 AM   #157
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I both disagree with this definition and doubt your implication that Mr. Field's homicide fits that definition.
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.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:46 AM   #158
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,367
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You quote a criterion for first-degree murder.
I was talking about criteria for terrorism. That bar would be higher (and much narrower), IMO, than the bar for 1st° murder.

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?
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:47 AM   #159
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks for posting that. I just "took the ride".

It still seems to me like he had plenty of time. If he were driving completely recklessly AND got distracted by something, maybe. It still seems a bit far fetched.

Of course, sometimes people "freeze" and make absolutely no decision in a life threatening situation. It's the "deer in the headlights" reaction. Maybe he sees the hostile crowd, and it invokes a "fight or flight" reaction, and his mind can't choose between the two. The instinct screams "fight", while the rational mind is saying "flight", and the result is paralysis, and he slams into the crowd.

I think what you have shown with what you posted is a plausible case that he had no intention of mowing down a crowd of people when he got into his car. Indeed, he could have easily been trying to leave the area with no intention of confrontation at least until his car was going at a high rate of speed toward an unexpected crowd.

However, it looks to me like he had good visibility for at least a block before he hit the people. Even at high speed, it looks like he had plenty of time to stop. Unless he can make a convincing case that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, he's still guilty.

For what it's worth, there were two phases of the incident. There was his ramming into the crowd while going forward, and his running into people going backward. I think any prosecution will have to be based on his actions moving forward, because by the time he throws it into reverse, his life is clearly in danger.
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.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 08:52 AM   #160
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,367
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
If this really was a complete accident, or simply caused by negligence, then surely some of the eye witnesses should be able to vouch for the driver.

Let's also keep in mind that Mr. Fields' ideological leanings weren't known until some time after the incident.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.