Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Car drives into Christmas parade in Waukesha, 6 dead

Options
145791012

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    You can't tell that from the video.


    The car was being deliberately driven through a crowd, but you can't claim to know the motivation for doing so from a video. If mass murder was the aim then there were more dangerous routes that they could have driven through the crowds. It was driven without concern for the life of others, but that doesn't indicate it was a plan to "kill whites".



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yes i cannot tell the motivation but driving a car at speed through such a long section of the parade demonstrates an intention to kill. The why is a different question



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    ...and I was responding to the different point that their motivation had been to "kill whites".



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ok then. But i hope we can agree the intention appears to be to kill but no idea of the why just yet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭dog_pig


    He’s being charged with 5 counts of intentional homicide but you still think there’s nothing to suggest his purpose was to kill?



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,161 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Poster did mot say that. None of us know. The police have a view. The courts will determine, not someone watching videos from several thousand miles away

    There has also been no indication of any racial motive so everyone can drop that



  • Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭bewareofthedog


    Surely I can't be the only one who's absolutely baffled by statements like this?

    It's like describing shooting into a crowd of people with a gun as "reckless and avoidable". How is mowing people down a clustered crowd of people at speed in an SUV any different? The outcome of both scenarios is obvious.

    The mind boggles.



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    Nobody knows the motive of the mass murderer yet, but the anger that anyone should even be curious about the motive is incredibly telling.

    We see you.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭ErnestBorgnine


    Someone watching videos from thousands of miles away can give their point of view based on the what they see, that's what happens on a discussion forum right?



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Occam’s razor would suggest a car driven through a crowd was mean to be driven through a crowd unless control was clearly lost.

    That a route through a crowd “could get more dangerous” doesn’t mean much - are you saying be could have killed more were he a smarter driver? 40 were injured anyway.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Possibly. Nobody knows that though.

    The court will try and figure that out, but what we've be told so far gives zero indication as to what was going through their mind at the time yet.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Yes, there was opportunity to drive into more people if that was his intention. Various videos I saw he was driving down one side or other of the road, which was not the bits of the route with most people on if maximum destruction was the aim.

    Intending to hit people out of the way with his car and zero care for the consequences, yes. And that likely meets the definition of the type murder that he's been charged with.

    Kill as many people as possible, I don't think so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,363 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    The footage that I have seen shows a deliberate attempt to maximize casualties and inflict damage. The SUV was not driven in a straight line but instead, it was maneuvered and as used as a weapon. The video is graphic and disturbing so it cant be posted on here.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    But that is you putting your biases onto the motives of his actions. The view I've seen which you are potentially referring to shows people being hit after a change in direction across the road, but the road is just as full of other people in the parade on the other side which he came from, and the video is partially obscured by a tree(?) , and there are even more people in the crowd at the side of the road watching which he doesn't drive through.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    Not when he has been charged with intentional homicide it's not, the hint is in the term intentional.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Can't access the actual state definition of intentional homicide at the moment, possibly the site has crashed. But here is a bit of explanation of the relevant state laws and what they mean. The words used for laws don't always match with how we'd use words like intentional in everyday language.


    "Wisconsin laws do not include a crime known as unintentional homicide. An unintentional homicide - perhaps referred to as an accidental homicide - can still be charged by the state (or the federal government) as a crime. The actual charges that the prosecuting attorney will seek will depend on the circumstances and events leading up to the death, as well as the state's case and the elements of the crime that the prosecuting attorney believes he or she will be able to prove at trial.


    Without Intent


    Intent is one of the elements that must be proven in most crimes; however, the legal definition of "intent" differs from the common perception of the word. An intent under the law merely means that the person intended to do that act which then resulted in the commission of a crime. For example, a drunk driver might not intend to cause a death or even an accident, but if he or she got behind the wheel of a car and drove it, then the intent to drive (which then resulted in a death) is the intent element of the crime of vehicular homicide."

    http://www.attorneytraceywood.com/IntentionalvsUnIntentional.cshtml



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    People need to understand the definitions of certain offences in the USA.

    Ireland is simple, if you intend to kill or seriously injure someone and then you cause their death, that's murder.

    If you don't intend to do either of the above, but cause someone s death then that's manslaughter ( or maybe dangerous driving causing death)

    The states have varying degrees of murder, so intentional homicide does not mean premeditated necessarily, but it's also not just a byproduct of someone's actions.

    Personally, I think we need varying degrees of murder in Ireland also.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    Thanks for that. Though I'm not sure it necessarily negates the point I was making. I need to think about it a bit more tbh before I give a proper reply.



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    I've also read from her website that


    'First Degree Intentional Homicide


    Wisconsin Statute 940.01 defines first-degree intentional homicide as an act committed by any person causing the death of another person with the intent to kill that person or another person.'


    And


    An intentional homicide committed with "just cause" can be mitigated from first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide. Examples of just cause might be an imperfect self defense, adequate provocation (heat of passion crimes), unnecessary defense force, prevention of a felony, coercion or necessity. [Mitigating Circumstances].


    So I believe my initial point still stands, in that the police believe his intent was to kill.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    I don't believe anyone thinks this is terrorism but to say he didn't intensionaly kill people is a little loopy tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,265 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    No. There was no police chase. The police chief has confirmed this.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The picture of the two towers was just from the wiki page and has nothing to do with the definition of terrorism.

    How would you define terrorism?



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How exactly is this terrorism?

    And why would you want it to be?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Unless he admits he intended to carry out a racist killing by use of motor vehicle we can never be 100%. But based on his views on white people I’m going to assume it was an intentional race based killing. It might have been spur of the moment but there is no way he would have ran that number of his own race down.



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I

    Of course. Not gonna be drawn into semantics argument and derail thread



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    So, you're saying if the whitest guy in the world, sporting a MAGA hat, posted online about killing black people, running them over with a car, getting away with it, then some few days later did exactly that, you would have the same stance as yu have now re terrorism?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Where is this posting about running white people over with a car?

    Unless there is another posting all I saw was a badly spelt ranty post from Facebook where its impossible to guess what they actually meant. It was certainly not some manifesto written out declaring his intention.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Maybe he is just an asshole? Maybe he's a criminal asshole.

    Maybe he is a career criminal who just doesn't like white people?

    None of that means terrorism. Do you know the definition of terrorism?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Anyway terrorism or not it is being tried as the equivalent of murder. The page on Wisconsin law doesn’t load but google provides this 4 line summary:

    Judicial Council Note, 1988: First-degree intentional homicide is analogous to the prior offense of first-degree murder. Sub. (2) formerly contained a narrower ...

    (I never thought that intentional homicide could be anything else though).



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement