Re:Released from a gag order regarding a federal investigati...
by CamperBob2 on Friday July 23, 2021 @07:19PM
(#27936769)
Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it?
Yes. The point being, he wrote a manifesto, not a vaguely-ominous sounding tweet.
Re:Released from a gag order regarding a federal investigati...
by mulmen on Friday July 23, 2021 @07:25PM
(#27936823)
Well he did both as far as I know. He had a history of posting racist messages including threats of violence. Ultimately he posted a manifesto and then took action on his words. The video itself was a warning because it started before the shooting. A timely enough warning based on that alone could have prevented this tragedy.
Re:Released from a gag order regarding a federal investigati...
by markdown on Saturday July 24, 2021 @07:09PM
(#27945141)
> He had a history of posting racist messages including threats of violence. Ultimately he posted a manifesto and then took action on his words. The video itself was a warning because it started before the shooting.
Seems you know this background and motivation well. Since it perfectly fits the definition of terrorism, why won't you call him a terrorist? Is it because he isn't brown?
Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it?
I don't see what scale has to do with it.
I also don't see how an absolute statement like "The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed." can be believed. It only takes one counter example.
This is a thread about anticipating crimes based on online commentary, something that could absolutely have flagged the Christchurch massacre.