Vehicle runs into pedestrians in London, 1 arrested

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I thought it sounded like a hate crime when this guy rammed a truck into a group of innocent people outside of a mosque. So far it is one dead and ten wounded and the police there are investigating it as an act of terrorism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/w...on-mosque.html

Color me legitimately shocked, though I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him on sight like the last couple attackers.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You're correct; that's more of a US/Canada thing though we'll see how the American media spins it this morning.

I did notice the Daily Mail put "terrorist" in quotations however in their headline.

CNN is in no uncertain terms calling it a terror attack...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/europe...now/index.html

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Color me legitimately shocked, though I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him on sight like the last couple attackers.

So the bystanders who held him until police showed should have shot him? Or once the police got there they should have shot them?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

CNN is in no uncertain terms calling it a terror attack...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/europe...now/index.html

Good. Lets hope they label every mass shooting motivated by hate in the US going forward as a terrorist attack, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Weitz

So the bystanders who held him until police showed should have shot him? Or once the police got there they should have shot them?

I'm not sure where you got "they should have shot the guy" out of my comment.

[Fuzz]

Be interesting to hear if this is a retaliation attack. Perhaps this guy had family killed in a previous attack? Not that it justifies it, but might explain his "I'm going to kill all Muslims" screams.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm not sure where you got "they should have shot the guy" out of my comment.

Umm.. You mentioned you are not surprised they didn't shoot him on sight, so I was curious if you thought the bystanders who held him till police came should have shot him or if the police should have shot him when they showed up?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by blankall

Police declared it a terrorist attack within minutes. Very different than the usual "until we investigate the attackers motives" line.

Pretty much. We all know why though.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Color me legitimately shocked, though I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him on sight like the last couple attackers.

The last couple attackers, presumably you're referring to the London Bridge attack, were running through the crowds stabbing people when police got there. This guy was being held down and protected from angry crowds.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Umm.. You mentioned you are not surprised they didn't shoot him on sight, so I was curious if you thought the bystanders who held him till police came should have shot him or if the police should have shot him when they showed up?

It's weird that you assume I would want someone to be shot though, that's what I took umbrage with.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Color me legitimately shocked, though I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him on sight like the last couple attackers.

So you don't think the London Bridge attackers should have been shot as they rampaged through the streets stabbing people?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Huh? We always hear about the suspects' race and religion in these things. Every single time. As soon as they know who it is they put it out there.

Media outlets are climbing over each other to learn that kind of information and get it out. That's their job. Whoever gets it first "wins".

There's no dark conspiracy to blame white people.

Its not that the truth doesn't come out in all cases, but with most Islam "motivated" attacks, while they will report on who and why, they will often be slower to annouce, or caveat that they don't know motivations for much longer. In this case basically as soon as they saw he was white they called it and said it was motivated by Islamaphobia.

I wouldn't say its a conspiracy, moreso just cultural stigmatisation and a hesitation to automatically link Arabs/Persians with extremism (don't blame them), as well as the fact there aren't often stories of the "other side" being guilty as well. Helps balance their narrative.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So you don't think the London Bridge attackers should have been shot as they rampaged through the streets stabbing people?

You guys sure are keen on putting words in his mouth. Could be better served by responding to what posters actually say.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its not that the truth doesn't come out in all cases, but with most Islam "motivated" attacks, while they will report on who and why, they will often be slower to annouce, or caveat that they don't know motivations for much longer. In this case basically as soon as they saw he was white they called it and said it was motivated by Islamaphobia.

I wouldn't say its a conspiracy, moreso just cultural stigmatisation and a hesitation to automatically link Arabs/Persians with extremism (don't blame them), as well as the fact there aren't often stories of the "other side" being guilty as well. Helps balance their narrative.

WTF? The guy was shouting "I'm going to kill all Muslims". That doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You guys sure are keen on putting words in his mouth. Could be better served by responding to what posters actually say.

What was he saying then, because that's how it read to me too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zevo

What was he saying then, because that's how it read to me too.

I think he was saying:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him on sight like the last couple attackers.

Can you show where you read "they shouldn't have shot the last attackers"?

[CliffFletcher]

The thrust of his argument is he doesn't approve of the way the authorities and the media have handled recent terrorist incidents. Shooting terrorists on sight is presumably something he expects the authorities to do, but doesn't approve of.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Zevo

What was he saying then, because that's how it read to me too.

He's saying this...

though I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him on sight like the last couple attackers.

Which could be read in a couple different ways..."I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him because he's a white guy and cops only like shooting brown guys" Or, "I'm less surprised they didn't shoot him because he was not a threat after the people subdued him.

Given his history I went with the first interpretation. Color me shocked if it's the second.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think he was saying:



Can you show where you read "they shouldn't have shot the last attackers"?

To me he is either implying that or he's surprised they didn't shoot the white guy. He is the master of the smarmy reply though so...

Edit: what OMGWTF said.

[ResAlien]

Anyway I find it interesting how this is being discussed vs previous attacks. Even looking at the thread title it's quite passive, if one didn't know better one could think an out of control vehicle innocently ran into a couple people.

I can't imagine that the tone of the thread would be arguing the semantics of psych's post if this was a Muslim man who'd driven a van into a crowd of non Muslims. There isn't that exact example somewhere that we could look at and compare is there?

[Regulator75]

This is just violent retribution for all the previous attacks, I wouldn't call it terrorism. More like vigilante justice. This guy will be made a martyr by some.