356
Masked Counter-Protester Arrested After Stopping, Shooting At ‘Free Palestine Rally and March’ in Eugene
(doublesidedmedia.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
356 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3079 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The alleged attack did not happen until after he tried to run marchers over at the intersection of E. 8th Ave. and Pearl St.
Article claims "blocking", not "running over", and it is demonstrably biased against him. I reject your "running over" allegation. If there were any truth to it, this writer would have made that claim.
If he was impeding a lawful use of the road, jail him for that. I'm on record supporting the free use of roadways, and that I believe 3 years imprisonment is an incredibly lenient punishment for deliberately obstructing lawful traffic.
However, "obstructing traffic" does not invite or justify any use of force attacking either him or his vehicle, nor does it negate a self defense claim by a person who has been so attacked.
How were these demonstrators to know if he was intending to run them over prior to his doing so?
It was a credible threat, given the history of fash killing people with their cars at demonstrations and any step taken to protect themselves from that potential threat would be justified.
Not even the overtly biased author of the article was willing to make that claim. You'll need a primary source before you can reasonably make such a claim.
That fascists murder people with their cars?
Why stop there? He's got a dick, so by your personal evidentiary standard, he must have been raping the protesters as well.
If he had been getting his dick out I'd certainly condone kicking it before he could.
...not that you have any proof he does have a dick.
Why are you defending a guy who shot at protesters and refers to himself as "a domestic terrorist" on his own youttube channel though?
As I said, I observed considerable bias in the article. I further observed libelous claims in the comments, far exceeding the bias in the article.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about him. I'm more interested in this site, this author, and you. The inherent bias in the article tells me I should be cautious in trusting them. I should not believe them simply because I like what they have to say.
Do you form opinions on the basis of logic and rationality, or on emotion? Do you trust stereotypes over evidence? Do you subscribe to principles like Hanlon's Razor and Presumption of Innocence, or do you assume malice and guilt?
Your statements here tell me that your opinion is not formed on a rational basis, but from your hatred and disgust of this driver's political position. You have demonstrated to me that your arguments cannot be trusted.
You can "Logical, captain" all you want. You're still going to bat for a right wing populist who surrounds himself in white nationalist imagery.
I don't have to argue that fascist are bad.
Fascists are the only ones who get to assume their position is true without ever bothering to prove it.
No, fascists are the right wing populists who appeal to violent authority to subjugate marginalized persons in attempts to reacquire a fictitious idealized past they have rationalized as stolen from them by these already disempowered groups.
If you're asking me to prove fascism is bad, you're doing to work of fascists.
I'm asking you to respect the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments, which require proof of guilt before condemnation. If you can't even recognize the meaning and necessity of "presumption of innocence" and "rights of the accused", you don't get to lecture me on "fascism".
Hint: the subject of this article is "the accused".
The whatever amendments don't protect a guy who cosplays as a teutonic knight from being told to fuck himself.
You haven't told him to fuck himself. You've accused him of crimes you didn't witness.
I also accuse him of smelling farts. What are you going to do about it?