Update: According to Lane County Jail records, the counter-protester who was arrested has been identified as Jonathan James Wisbey. Wisbey, age 51, was charged with 1st Degree Menacing, 2nd Degree …
Article claimed he was flying flags from his truck. I would argue that “flying flags” is reasonably comparable to “holding a sign”. “Counter protester” seems an apt description.
Article further claims he didn’t “aim a gun” until after his truck was attacked with him inside. That “gun” was quickly determined to be an air gun.
suddenly pulled into the intersection of E. 8th Ave. and Pearl St., blocking the march.
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.
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.
Article claimed he was flying flags from his truck. I would argue that “flying flags” is reasonably comparable to “holding a sign”. “Counter protester” seems an apt description.
Article further claims he didn’t “aim a gun” until after his truck was attacked with him inside. That “gun” was quickly determined to be an air gun.
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.