4 ms·

That is not a meaningful distinction. A car attack planned 30 seconds in advance is as dangerous as one planned 3 weeks in advance.

zaroth 9y ago
The law certainly finds a meaningful distinction between spur of the moment versus premeditated attacks. Also a terrorist attack is carnage for a specific purpose, not just any carnage at all. I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. I'm not trying to defend any particular action, just that it does seem very distinct from, for example, a bucket of TATP and nails left in the subway. I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville.
- tomjakubowski 9y ago
  I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. Oh, please. Take one minute to watch the (graphic, disturbing) videos from the scene and observe that, before the attack, the Charger was nowhere near the "mob" when he made the decision to gun the engine to plow through it. Fields started his attack run from well down the street, perpendicular to the marching counter-protestors.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- burkaman 9y ago
  > I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville. Why? Unless you have some kind of power over the defendant, there's no reason to reserve judgement until after the trial. Are you unwilling to make a judgement about, say, Julian Assange until he's tried in a court of law? Did you reverse your opinion about Joe Arpaio when he was pardoned? I have a lot of faith in the justice system, but verdicts are wrong all the time, and should be one of many factors in how you view the world.
  - angersock 9y ago
    The purpose of a court of law, at least historically in the US, is to make sure that evidence is brought out and the situation explained and explored. We should not dismiss that lightly.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      I'm not dismissing it, but unless you have power over someone involved, there's no reason to pretend you don't have an opinion until after the trial, or to unquestioningly accept the verdict. In this particular case, there's enough evidence already available to draw a nonbinding conclusion. Of course you should still pay attention to any new evidence or testimony in the trial, and don't dismiss the result if it disagrees with your early conclusions. But it's ok to think OJ was guilty, it's ok to think Arpaio is guilty, it's ok to have an opinion about Julian Assange even though he hasn't been tried.
angersock 9y ago
I think it's a reasonable distinction--one basically can't be defended against, and the other can benefit from ubiquitous surveillance (theoretically) in advance. The problem is that if random acts of violence are conflated with systematic terrorism, we grossly inflate the numbers in such a way as to be constantly crying out for further surveillance and erosion of rights. And when the attacks keep happening, because they're spur-of-the-moment lunatics, we will proceed to clamp down harder. So, no, we have to draw the difference between the two.

zaroth 9y ago

The law certainly finds a meaningful distinction between spur of the moment versus premeditated attacks. Also a terrorist attack is carnage for a specific purpose, not just any carnage at all. I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. I'm not trying to defend any particular action, just that it does seem very distinct from, for example, a bucket of TATP and nails left in the subway. I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville.

tomjakubowski 9y ago
I'm not sure there's even any evidence it was planned at all (even 30 seconds in advance) versus a panic response to being under attack by a surrounding mob. Oh, please. Take one minute to watch the (graphic, disturbing) videos from the scene and observe that, before the attack, the Charger was nowhere near the "mob" when he made the decision to gun the engine to plow through it. Fields started his attack run from well down the street, perpendicular to the marching counter-protestors.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
burkaman 9y ago
> I personally am waiting for after the trial to draw any conclusion about Charlottesville. Why? Unless you have some kind of power over the defendant, there's no reason to reserve judgement until after the trial. Are you unwilling to make a judgement about, say, Julian Assange until he's tried in a court of law? Did you reverse your opinion about Joe Arpaio when he was pardoned? I have a lot of faith in the justice system, but verdicts are wrong all the time, and should be one of many factors in how you view the world.
- angersock 9y ago
  The purpose of a court of law, at least historically in the US, is to make sure that evidence is brought out and the situation explained and explored. We should not dismiss that lightly.
  - burkaman 9y ago
    I'm not dismissing it, but unless you have power over someone involved, there's no reason to pretend you don't have an opinion until after the trial, or to unquestioningly accept the verdict. In this particular case, there's enough evidence already available to draw a nonbinding conclusion. Of course you should still pay attention to any new evidence or testimony in the trial, and don't dismiss the result if it disagrees with your early conclusions. But it's ok to think OJ was guilty, it's ok to think Arpaio is guilty, it's ok to have an opinion about Julian Assange even though he hasn't been tried.

angersock 9y ago

I think it's a reasonable distinction--one basically can't be defended against, and the other can benefit from ubiquitous surveillance (theoretically) in advance. The problem is that if random acts of violence are conflated with systematic terrorism, we grossly inflate the numbers in such a way as to be constantly crying out for further surveillance and erosion of rights. And when the attacks keep happening, because they're spur-of-the-moment lunatics, we will proceed to clamp down harder. So, no, we have to draw the difference between the two.