Submitted by Thetimmybaby t3_y9513j in news
[deleted] t1_it3t0v7 wrote
[removed]
sweetpeapickle t1_it460ds wrote
We see a lot of it here(WI). Too much, as watching him "act" in the courtroom is infuriating. Glad I wasn't picked for the trial, as I probably would be laughing in horror at the spectacle. And besides, my mind was made up the day after it happened.
d01100100 t1_it4ci6s wrote
> The only coverage I saw since the event is him acting like a buffoon in court. I never see him grouped with the savage from Uvalde, Buffalo, Carolina, etc.
One would argue that this should be how it is treated to minimize the chance for copycats.
No press, coverage, notoriety, or infamy shall be given beyond the status of the case once completed.
[deleted] t1_it4lgnx wrote
[removed]
deepeast_oakland t1_it429vt wrote
Has there been any evidence presented that this guy was trying to murder people that day? Did he get behind the wheel and travel to the parade with the intent to kill people?
sweetpeapickle t1_it46evf wrote
He had the intent when he chose that street that specifically was blocked off for the parade.
deepeast_oakland t1_it4aa9a wrote
Is that what happened? Did the state present evidence to what the man "intended" to do when he chose that street to drive down?
bannana t1_it4ce2e wrote
he doesn't have to have the intent early on or before turning down the street - he made the choice to harm when he saw people and kept driving and since he has a history of attempting to run over someone with a car this isn't new for him.
deepeast_oakland t1_it4hue6 wrote
The OP was wondering why this guy wasn't being talked about the same way as
>Uvalde, Buffalo, Carolina, etc.
I'm pointing to the difference between these crimes and the one committed here.
vikingsquad t1_it4t2po wrote
That’s not what the legal definition of intent is. Intent in this instance refers to the fact that his actions had only one foreseeable outcome, which was death or grievous injury to the people along the path he drove his vehicle.
Horknut1 t1_it4nvwf wrote
You don’t understand what intent is, or murder (“first degree intentional homicide” in WI), in a legal sense. He doesn’t have to formulate the intent a half hour before the parade, 20 miles away. He injured something like 70 people and killed 6. Intent can be formulated as the act is occurring. If you choose to ignore barricades and police and PARADE FLOATS and drive full speed through a parade without stopping once, good luck arguing you didn’t have intent to kill.
deepeast_oakland t1_it4uigi wrote
Sure, but do you see how that's different from the Uvalde, Buffalo, shooters did or the guy Carolina?
Horknut1 t1_it4yf3s wrote
I think the difference between this and Rittenhouse is that there was a real question for the jury for Rittenhouse.
There is not an iota of question of guilt for this guy.
deepeast_oakland t1_itcqcv0 wrote
The OP didn’t mention Rittenhouse.
[deleted] t1_itdbjyv wrote
[removed]
ExSphere t1_it4w0j0 wrote
Yeah, when he ran over the first person and didn’t stop and kept running over people. This is textbook terrorism and I’m not sure how you can defend this.
deepeast_oakland t1_itcq8r2 wrote
I’m not defending it.
The op asked why this wasn’t being treated the same as these other incidents.
>Uvalde, Buffalo, Carolina, etc.
Those two shooters woke up that day and decided to kill lots of people. The Carolina guy attacked people at a political protest.
That’s why this incident is being talked about differently, yes the guy is a awful terrible human being that deserves death or at least life in prison. But I haven’t seen any evidence that he was TRYING to kill people that day.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments