Van Plows Through Trump Voter Booth Signup Tent? (1 Viewer)

[Megla]

Where in that story does it say that people were literally sitting at the table when he drove towards the tent? (As jonessed claimed)

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just amazed that people are so eager to assume facts not in evidence here.

Really,

"He then drove through the tent and over their tables and chairs."

"who said she was narrowly missed by the car said."

What other reason would they have for chairs

 

[[scooter]]

Where in that story does it say that people were literally sitting at the table when he drove towards the tent? (As jonessed claimed)

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just amazed that people are so eager to assume facts not in evidence here.

Really,

"He then drove through the tent and over their tables and chairs."

"who said she was narrowly missed by the car said."

What other reason would they have for chairs

Do you really think that all chairs are always occupied?

 

[BroadwayG]

Really hope some walmart surveillance video surfaces on this.

 

[Megla]

Do you really think that all chairs are always occupied?

Whatever

 

[[scooter]]

I mean, this is basic SAT test stuff here, people.

The tent contained a table and chairs. A man drove through the tent. A person was narrowly missed by his car.

Question: how many people were sitting inside the tent?

A. 1
B. 3
C. 6
D. It's not possible to determine that information based solely on the evidence presented.

The correct answer here is "D".

 

[[scooter]]

This whole thread is a classic example of confirmation bias at work. We've got liberal posters softening the driver's actions ("he drove up slowly"), and we've got conservative posters exaggerating the driver's actions ("plows through Republicans", "table they were sitting at").

It's a great sociological experiment, whether intentional or not.

 

[Dickies]

This whole thread is a classic example of confirmation bias at work. We've got liberal posters softening the driver's actions ("he drove up slowly"), and we've got conservative posters exaggerating the driver's actions ("plows through Republicans", "table they were sitting at").

It's a great sociological experiment, whether intentional or not.

The reality seems to be right in the middle of the two statements.

The article I read said he approached slowly, then two people in the tent approached him, and he suddenly accelerated.  The people who were approaching him had to get out of the way.  Hopefully there is video, because it just seems bizarre.  

 

[The Commish]

He then drove through the tent and over their tables and chairs.

Well, this is easily proven false by their own photos in the twitter feed.  Yes, the tent, table and chairs are turned over but not mangled in any way consistent with being run over with a large vehicle.

Honestly, I don't know why this even matters.  The guy was a moron and I suspect that the truth is somewhere between "plowed" and "slowly rolled through"....we won't ever know the specifics so I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 We've got liberal posters softening the driver's actions ("he drove up slowly"), and we've got conservative posters exaggerating the driver's actions ("plows through Republicans", "table they were sitting at").

I'm liberal.

1. I said his intent is important and it looks like it was to mess up the booth, not people. Otherwise instead of "flipping them off" he would have pulled out a gun and killed them.
   
2. I said he deserves to be shot. Completely unacceptable  Like using a stick of dynamite to destroy the booth while people are still around.
   

 

[Dickies]

I'm liberal.

1. I said his intent is important and it looks like it was to mess up the booth, not people. Otherwise instead of "flipping them off" he would have pulled out a gun and killed them.
   
2. I said he deserves to be shot. Completely unacceptable  Like using a stick of dynamite to destroy the booth while people are still around.
   

He doesn’t deserve to be shot....

 

[[scooter]]

 We've got liberal posters softening the driver's actions ("he drove up slowly"), and we've got conservative posters exaggerating the driver's actions ("plows through Republicans", "table they were sitting at").

I'm liberal.

1. I said his intent is important and it looks like it was to mess up the booth, not people. Otherwise instead of "flipping them off" he would have pulled out a gun and killed them.
   

The bolded is an extreme exaggeration, no?

There are many things that he could have done to hurt people which fall below "shoot them with a gun".

I'm just pointing out how cognitive bias can cause people to insert things into a story ("sitting at a table") which were not there.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The bolded is an extreme exaggeration, no?

There are many things that he could have done to hurt people which fall below "shoot them with a gun".

I'm just pointing out how cognitive bias can cause people to insert things into a story ("sitting at a table") which were not there.

He could have kept driving and chased em down if that was his intent.  No?

 

[Max Power]

According to JSO investigators who tracked him down, Timm admitted to purposefully driving into the tent because “someone had to take a stand.”

Timm told investigators he saw the registration tent after he went to pick up food and cigarettes at Walmart, according to JSO.

He then showed investigators a video he recorded while driving towards the tent, according to JSO, but the video cut out before he hit the tent. According to the report, Timm said he was upset that the video ended before “the good part.”

Timm said he waited until there were no people in front of the tent before he ran it over although, JSO investigators noted in the report, the video showed people still standing there.

Witnesses said he “flipped off” the people near the tent before driving away.

The suspect told investigators he does not like President Trump and that was part of the reason he wanted to run over the tent, according to the arrest report.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/02/11/man-driven-by-dislike-of-president-trump-in-gop-tent-attack-report-shows/

Well there you go...

 

[[scooter]]

The bolded is an extreme exaggeration, no?

There are many things that he could have done to hurt people which fall below "shoot them with a gun".

I'm just pointing out how cognitive bias can cause people to insert things into a story ("sitting at a table") which were not there.

He could have kept driving and chased em down if that was his intent.  No?

Yes. That's one of the many things he could have done.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Yes. That's one of the many things he could have done.

But he chose one that didn't hurt anyone. With ample opportunity to do otherwise.

 

[Widbil83]

So if I understand this correctly, a tent staffed by 3 or so Trump volunteers on the edge of a walmart parking lot was run through by a man in a van and no one was hurt. All three networks and CNN have covered it. 

- IMO it's horrible. They haven't ascribed a motive but it seems pretty obviously politically motivated. But right now the President has a video on his own twitter feed featuring a comedic representation of intimidation by a thug biker who is only put off when he sees that the person he was intimidating is Trump supporter. It's actually comedic mocking but the President of the United States puts it forth as an example of how his supporters are (as he puts it) tough guys.

The problem here is political violence. That's a virus that can wrack and ruin nations, once it starts it can't be stopped. It's ugly and disgusting and antidemocratic.  Verbal and physical intimidation in politics or in political activity, of all kinds, needs to be opposed at every turn by all Americans.

But as I understand what matters to you is that this has not been covered by the national media to your satisfaction and people here aren't posting about it enough?

Yes after they were shamed into covering it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Yes after they were shamed into covering it.

This happened 3 days ago. I see every place reporting on it 2 days ago.

 

[[scooter]]

Yes after they were shamed into covering it.

The CNN story was published by 10:48 p.m. on Saturday night, which was about 3 hours after the story was first reported by jacksonville.com. That's not a lot of time for shaming, but I'll give the faux outrage crowd some credit on their ability to quickly mobilize and get to work.

(For comparison, it looks like Fox did not cover the story until Monday.)

At any rate, I think a strong argument can be made that these types of stories should not become national news items unless someone is injured, or if there's a clear attempt to cause grievous injury, or if there is major property damage. Otherwise, it has the effect of making these types of incidents seem bigger and more widespread than they are, it can lead to more serious copycat crimes, and it can sow further discord among the people throughout the country.

Also, when you've got a story that has so many unanswered questions and vague descriptions, it's somewhat irresponsible for a national news agency to simply pass along the (incomplete and/or poorly-reported) local story without attempting to clarify some of the details.

I mean, we've got a thread here that is solely dedicated to criticizing the MSM and its "rush to judgment" strategy, and now we've got people -- excuse me, person -- arguing that CNN should have published the story sooner? Come on.

No one should be proud about shaming CNN or Fox into covering this story.

 

[Henry Ford]

This whole thread is a classic example of confirmation bias at work. We've got liberal posters softening the driver's actions ("he drove up slowly"), and we've got conservative posters exaggerating the driver's actions ("plows through Republicans", "table they were sitting at").

It's a great sociological experiment, whether intentional or not.

The eyewitnesses said he drove up slowly. 

 

[tonydead]

The eyewitnesses said he drove up slowly. 

.....then accelerated. You're familiar with liberal drivers, they are very selective on what they are willing to mash the gas on.  He might have been waiting for the solar panels to charge. 

 

[Henry Ford]

.....then accelerated. You're familiar with liberal drivers, they are very selective on what they are willing to mash the gas on.  He might have been waiting for the solar panels to charge. 

I did actually say in my original descriptive post that he then accelerated. I think it’s a little weird to say “liberal posters said...” when we’re just quoting the eyewitness/victim statements. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But he chose one that didn't hurt anyone. With ample opportunity to do otherwise.

He chose one that had an undue risk of hurting someone.

As long as we’re playing the “what he could have done” game, if he wanted to minimize the risk of injury to others, he could have obeyed applicable traffic laws while operating his vehicle.

 

[tonydead]

I did actually say in my original descriptive post that he then accelerated. I think it’s a little weird to say “liberal posters said...” when we’re just quoting the eyewitness/victim statements. 

Shhhhh, dont screw this up. I wanna learn more about SAT tests and social experiments.  

 

[BigSteelThrill]

He chose one that had an undue risk of hurting someone.

As long as we’re playing the “what he could have done” game, if he wanted to minimize the risk of injury to others, he could have obeyed applicable traffic laws while operating his vehicle.

Well sure, just driving a car can hurt someone.

 

[Dickies]

Well sure, just driving a car can hurt someone.

Thanks, Stealthycat.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Thanks, Stealthycat.

1. Again, he didn't try to run people over.

2. I said it was still unacceptable.

 

[Snorkelson]

Yes after they were shamed into covering it.

I’ve seen less outrage for the guy driving through the tent than for how it was covered in the media, which by the way was thorough. I mean, it was explained pretty well above, and this isn’t a story that garnishes the top headline for days. I’m sure someone drives into a table in front of walmart more often than we know (although not for political reasons.)