On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:05:33 -0700, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-04-27 9:46 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
[snip]
Police quickly ruled out terrorism. How?
a: he was "known to the police"
b: Canada isn't as facile or quick to label crimes
as "terrorist" compared to the US (which, to be sure,
often ignored/ignores that possibility when politically
inconvenient..)
Canada is quick to judge as anywhere else, and whether
he is a terrorist or not depends on the color of his
skin.
I don't see how jumping to a conclusion without investigating is
different in one country or another. It was an ethnic festival, so the question needs to be asked, or he was targetting the politicial who had just left.
The articles I read said the perpetrator was known to police due to
"mental health issues". Of course they left it at that - they always
leave things as vague as they can, ostensibly due to "privacy" - so we
are left to wonder how these mental health issues manifested themselves
in the past. Did he limit himself to unhinged rants? Or had he committed previous assaults?
"Investigators ruled out terrorism and said Lo had a history of mental health issues."
Would it be odd for a terrorist to have mental problems?
Maybe the police and media have their reasons to think
mental illness an exclusion for terrorism.
Perhaps this attitude is a vestige of the old anti-racist
slogan that terrorism against whites is justified for it's
therapeutic value as a response to racism, re: Doctor Fanon.
But Filipinos were killed, and the killer is presumably
non-white, so how could this be a racially motivated
crime? It is a well accepted principal that only
whites are are to charged with these crimes. But,
what if the established doctrine that "racial hatred
is always justified against whites" actually had some
collateral damage, couldn't the authorities still blame it
on whites?
His lawyer must be salivating at the police citing "mental health
issues": now they can argue that he's not criminally responsible, send
him away to a psychiatric institution for a few years, then declare him
cured and let him go, which would be a better outcome (for the suspect)
than having him in the slammer for 25 years. (Our Supreme Court has
ruled against giving people consecutive life terms - "life" here is
actually just 25 years - meaning you don't go to jail any longer for
killing 11 than you do for killing 1. And that's assuming he were
convicted of first degree murder. It's entirely common - but not
universal - that even 1st degree murderers only get charged as 2nd
degree killers in some cases.)
Or am I mistaken in my assumption and he killed only white
attendees, wouldn't that make him a hero to anti-racists?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)