Car slams into parade in WI

[Sinder]

I feel like normally when domestic terrorism is applied there's a certain intent, a specific intent. Have they said if they have any sort of idea what his intent was?

In terms of talking about shooting you go to a synagogue and you were there because you were trying to take out those you viewed a threat. That is more domestic terrorism than if you just went to say an outdoor space and started shooting people.

It's horrific regardless but that's sorta what I've seen with domestic terrorism. Not all vehicles that have been used in crowd situations have been considered domestic terrorism just by the act of using a vehicle into a crowd.

I believe its all terrorism.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I believe its all terrorism.

And you're entitled to that opinion as are others, but in some ways that will diminish the application of it and dilute the meaning over time. Condemning it and normalizing it by making it so broad that too many things fall under it aren't the same thing.

I was just explaining how I've normally seen it applied.

 

[Moliphino]

I feel like normally when domestic terrorism is applied there's a certain intent, a specific intent. Have they said if they have any sort of idea what his intent was?

In terms of talking about shooting you go to a synagogue and you were there because you were trying to take out those you viewed a threat. That is more domestic terrorism than if you just went to say an outdoor space and started shooting people.

It's horrific regardless but that's sorta what I've seen with domestic terrorism. Not all vehicles that have been used in crowd situations have been considered domestic terrorism just by the act of using a vehicle into a crowd.

Exactly. At least from what I could see from the videos and read in the news, it doesn't seem like he planned ahead of time to drive through the parade. Still a terrible crime, but not targeted terrorism.

 

[punkin]

From law.cornell.com

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

More charges could be added once they study his social media, electronics and such, however, I though I heard one of the police officials saying that domestic terrorism charges do not apply in this case. I’m not sure how he/they came to that conclusion so quickly. Maybe someone can explain.

It's interesting...this is not a domestic terrorist but parents threatening school boards are?

I have been looking at news sources discussing his social media. Seems he had it in for old, white people...and that's exactly whom he hit. There's also some talk that he was in sympathy with the Black Hebrews (who are anti-semitic, anti-white...you have to hear some of the stuff they spout on street corners) so targeting White Christians (it was a Christmas parade) might be an act of terror. That however, is a federal matter. Local police wouldn't bring those charges anyway. There might be a local hate crime that might be brought.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Exactly. At least from what I could see from the videos and read in the news, it doesn't seem like he planned ahead of time to drive through the parade. Still a terrible crime, but not targeted terrorism.

Just “thinking out loud” here. What if someone wanted to kill people but didn’t have an exact plan. Then an opportunity presented itself. I suppose they will have to sort through all his writings, internet searches, songs, texts, and that sort of thing, to see what and where his thoughts were. We already know from his recent history that driving over a human being with his SUV seemed like a good idea to him. Given he got away with that, maybe doing it on a larger scale seemed feasible. I guess we have to try to understand the “why” of his actions. He could’ve taken any streets that were much more clear then the ones he took. From a map I’ve seen, he drove along the entire parade route! Wouldn’t there have been a parallel road he could’ve traveled that would’ve gotten him where he was going faster and without causing mayhem? The horrific video I saw on Twitter didn’t look like he was trying to avoid people, it looked like he was trying to hit them. Being near a sidewalk and then driving back into the middle of the parade where people were walking seems targeted. All he had to do to stop hitting people was stop the car.

See #s 2-7

 

[Donald13]

This just makes me sad. We should not have to go to such extremes. I will never understand what makes people do such things.

I know sometimes it is mental illness, but some people are just plain evil.

In this case, it was reckless regard for human life. He’s a career criminal.

 

[TwoMisfits]

It's interesting...this is not a domestic terrorist but parents threatening school boards are?

I have been looking at news sources discussing his social media. Seems he had it in for old, white people...and that's exactly whom he hit. There's also some talk that he was in sympathy with the Black Hebrews (who are anti-semitic, anti-white...you have to hear some of the stuff they spout on street corners) so targeting White Christians (it was a Christmas parade) might be an act of terror. That however, is a federal matter. Local police wouldn't bring those charges anyway. There might be a local hate crime that might be brought.

And that's where the hate crime/domestic terrorism charge should come from - he did swerve away from a few little kids as he drove down the emptier street, but he also did directly target old Christian white folks at the end...he could have stopped the car when trapped in by parade folks, but decided to continue at top speed and hit who he didn't like, at least according to his social media and group affiliations...

IMHO, it is domestic terrorism plus a federal hate crime at that point - you don't need months of build up to execute a terrorist or hateful act. You just need to make the decision to terrorize/hate when you see where you are and what you can do...and he did...

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

this is not a domestic terrorist but parents threatening school boards are?

Have any situations with parents and school boards been officially labeled as this? Genuinely asking. I could actually see that because it depends on how the parents acted. Did they use specific language, did they make references to past events and make threats because you view the school board members of a group that is harmful to the U.S., etc? So that makes more sense knowing what has occurred in some of these school board meetings.

There might be a local hate crime that might be brought.

And that can be separate than an act of domestic terrorism. It can also be in conjunction with it.

Seems he had it in for old, white people...and that's exactly whom he hit.

He went into a parade with large amounts of children though so if his issues was old people that may not hold up. If it was an issue with white people? Yeah that might be more like it although I could still see it being considered a hate crime but not necessarily domestic terrorism unless more was found (like Christians in particular for instance that he had an issue with).

 

[Sinder]

And you're entitled to that opinion as are others, but in some ways that will diminish the application of it and dilute the meaning over time. Condemning it and normalizing it by making it so broad that too many things fall under it aren't the same thing.

I was just explaining how I've normally seen it applied.

I disagree.
I think trying to only define it by ideology puts too much of a limit on it.
Driving a car through a crowd of people, running them over and killing them is causing terror.
I'm pretty sure law makers can amend the definition to fit certain things. It doesn't need to be so broad to include too man things but it can certainly be changed to include some things.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I disagree.
I think trying to only define it by ideology puts too much of a limit on it.
Driving a car through a crowd of people, running them over and killing them is causing terror.
I'm pretty sure law makers can amend the definition to fit certain things. It doesn't need to be so broad to include too man things but it can certainly be changed to include some things.

I understand that you are associating the word terror in terrorism but creating panic and terror among people and being a terrorist or committing an act of terrorism are not the same.

The FBI uses the following definition for domestic:
"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

I think sometimes people want more punitive action to follow such acts and I do not in any way disagree. But I would disagree with applying terrorism or domestic terrorism on any act without having known just what the intent behind it. That doesn't make the event any less horrible or any less deserving of grave charges.

But in the end you and I are just talking, it's up to the FBI if they feel this falls under that and I presume as the investigation follows they will have a clearer picture if any such specific motives occurred.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

And there it is

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Have any situations with parents and school boards been officially labeled as this? Genuinely asking. I could actually see that because it depends on how the parents acted. Did they use specific language, did they make references to past events and make threats because you view the school board members of a group that is harmful to the U.S., etc? So that makes more sense knowing what has occurred in some of these school board meetings.

And that can be separate than an act of domestic terrorism. It can also be in conjunction with it.

He went into a parade with large amounts of children though so if his issues was old people that may not hold up. If it was an issue with white people? Yeah that might be more like it although I could still see it being considered a hate crime but not necessarily domestic terrorism unless more was found (like Christians in particular for instance that he had an issue with).

The answer is yes. This was in the news several weeks ago. Not going to post any links but it is easily searchable.

 

[punkin]

And there it is

View attachment 625472

This is one of the quotes I was referencing. Old white people were the targets.

 

[Moliphino]

Just “thinking out loud” here. What if someone wanted to kill people but didn’t have an exact plan. Then an opportunity presented itself. I suppose they will have to sort through all his writings, internet searches, songs, texts, and that sort of thing, to see what and where his thoughts were. We already know from his recent history that driving over a human being with his SUV seemed like a good idea to him. Given he got away with that, maybe doing it on a larger scale seemed feasible. I guess we have to try to understand the “why” of his actions. He could’ve taken any streets that were much more clear then the ones he took. From a map I’ve seen, he drove along the entire parade route! Wouldn’t there have been a parallel road he could’ve traveled that would’ve gotten him where he was going faster and without causing mayhem? The horrific video I saw on Twitter didn’t look like he was trying to avoid people, it looked like he was trying to hit them. Being near a sidewalk and then driving back into the middle of the parade where people were walking seems targeted. All he had to do to stop hitting people was stop the car.

See #s 2-7

View attachment 625469

If more comes to light regarding intent and an ideological reasoning, then maybe domestic terrorism could be a legitimate charge. I'm only going off of what is known now.

Also, the sidewalks were full of spectators, wouldn't things have been worse if he'd driven up on there? Population density was probably lower in the street.

ETA: I'm kind of mentally comparing it to the truck attack in Nice a few years back. That guy was intentionally driving up on the sidewalks to hit as many people as he could.

 

[TwoMisfits]

If more comes to light regarding intent and an ideological reasoning, then maybe domestic terrorism could be a legitimate charge. I'm only going off of what is known now.

Also, the sidewalks were full of spectators, wouldn't things have been worse if he'd driven up on there? Population density was probably lower in the street.

ETA: I'm kind of mentally comparing it to the truck attack in Nice a few years back. That guy was intentionally driving up on the sidewalks to hit as many people as he could.

Not at the point he hit them - at that point, the density was about equal, and a normal, non-evil person would have realized he was screwed and stopped and/or backed up and looked for a side street. He purposely took the opposite tact and decided to hit the crowd and a specific part of the crowd...

 

[Moliphino]

Not at the point he hit them - at that point, the density was about equal, and a normal, non-evil person would have realized he was screwed and stopped and/or backed up and looked for a side street. He purposely took the opposite tact and decided to hit the crowd and a specific part of the crowd...

I'm not arguing that he's not evil, he clearly is. Just that with what we know know, it doesn't seem like a terrorist attack.

 

[punkin]

I'm not arguing that he's not evil, he clearly is. Just that with what we know know, it doesn't seem like a terrorist attack.

It is early yet but he certainly seemed to be following a "worldview" that could be considered terrorist. We just don't know yet.

 

[Julie's Haircut]

And there it is

View attachment 625472

Is that one of his social media posts?

 

[Moliphino]

Not at the point he hit them - at that point, the density was about equal, and a normal, non-evil person would have realized he was screwed and stopped and/or backed up and looked for a side street. He purposely took the opposite tact and decided to hit the crowd and a specific part of the crowd...

I want to clarify, too, that I don't think his swerving to avoid people at times was because he cared about the people at all, but rather that it might have slowed him down. They were obstacles to him, that's all.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

From the videos I've seen it actually looked like he was swerving to avoid hitting people and other obstacles at times. Going for an open lane to speed through rather than just trying to hit everything he could.

His brakes failed, right?