@snood,
snood wrote:
MontereyJack wrote:
Why is layman ttrying so desparately to exoneraate a Hitler lover that eyewitnesses saw tvhit at leAst 20 people with his car?
Yeah kinda begs that question, don't it?
Begs what question? That he, as a known fact, "hit 20 people with his car?" NOBODY has claimed that.
I'll will briefly respond to all the strawman claims.
1. I am not trying to "exonerate" him. That said, I happen to believe in the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.
2. The first thing I said was that I was among the first to conclude that it was "terrorism," when the first reports came out.
3. But that easy conclusion was later undermined by other facts, including the charges filed against him.
4. I never claimed that he hit nobody. I simply observed that the NYT said that. I presumed they had conducted a lot of interviews, etc., before publishing that "correction." I certainly didn't believe it just because the NYT said it, because they lie and mislead constantly. But it's not the kind of thing they would lie about, so....
5. I had seen a number of videos, but none of them showed him hitting anybody. Some have since been brought to my attention that do seem to make it likely that he did.
The facts will come out. I'm sure they have fully interrogated this guy, and chances are that, until he got a lawyer appointed, he said a lot.
There is a video, and yes I have seen it, out there that appears to show him being rushed by antifa and his car hit with a baseball bat right before he accelerated. I commented that
maybe he just panicked when attacked and floored it to get away from the threat. I'm willing to entertain that that could be possible, but I never contended that it WAS the case. Unlike the cheese-eaters here, I'm not automatically convinced, beyond doubt, that what I want to be true HAS to be true.
Let's assume that the NYT was wrong and his car did hit some people. That, alone, would certainly not prove a case of "terrorism," which is largely dependent on premeditation and intent. They have NOT charged him with first degree murder, let alone "domestic terrorism." The question is: Why not?
My real objection is to the guy being convicted by the press without even hearing his side of the story, subjecting witnesses to cross-examination, etc.
Every rag I see says this was an act of terrorism. But there's no way they could "know" that based on what's been revealed so far.
If he's guilty of "terrorism," then OK, he'll probably be convicted of it after all the evidence is in. But I'm not willing to hang him for that without a trial, sorry, cheese-eaters.
