Knife attack on CA GOP candidate

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
So intent no longer matters?

We have no idea if he intended to attack him with the knife or not. Are you saying that every time someone brandishes a weapon (or in this case, attempts to brandish it) their intent is to attack someone with it? What sort of insane nonsense is this? If that's the case then we're going to be sending a lot of gun owners to prison. How fun!

The OP says it was a knife attack. Since no one was attacked with a knife, it was not a knife attack. This is common sense for people not blinded by partisanship.

And no one was killed on that Republican baseball practice field either! ROFLMAO.

lolwut. The equivalent to this would be if, instead of shooting someone at the Republican baseball practice field the guy who shot Steve Scalise pulled out a gun and then didn't shoot anyone with it. I'm quite sure the difference between those two things is not lost on Steve Scalise even if it's lost on you, haha.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
So intent no longer matters? And no one was killed on that Republican baseball practice field either! ROFLMAO.

Are you really this dense? Holy crap.

I used to think your posts were mostly an act; supporting theater for your politics, but after that post...yikes. Your ignorance on basic legal concepts is strange, but not as strange as the delight you take from proclaiming it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
We have no idea if he intended to attack him with the knife or not. Are you saying that every time someone brandishes a weapon (or in this case, attempts to brandish it) their intent is to attack someone with it? What sort of insane nonsense is this? If that's the case then we're going to be sending a lot of gun owners to prison. How fun!

The OP says it was a knife attack. Since no one was attacked with a knife, it was not a knife attack. This is common sense for people not blinded by partisanship.
His intent was quite clear...and felony assault is felony assault. This is common sense for people not blinded by partisanship....like the police who arrested this liberal wacko and put his moronic ass in jail.

lolwut. The equivalent to this would be if, instead of shooting someone at the Republican baseball practice field the guy who shot Steve Scalise pulled out a gun and then didn't shoot anyone with it. I'm quite sure the difference between those two things is not lost on Steve Scalise even if it's lost on you, haha.
Yet he didn't kill anybody...despite it being his clear intent to do so.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Are you really this dense? Holy crap.

I used to think your posts were mostly an act; supporting theater for your politics, but after that post...yikes. Your ignorance on basic legal concepts is strange, but not as strange as the delight you take from proclaiming it.
Can you even spell 'felony assault'? I think not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
His intent was quite clear...and felony assault is felony assault. This is common sense for people not blinded by partisanship....like the police who arrested this liberal wacko and put his moronic ass in jail.

Well then you better inform the DA as apparently they disagree with you! No felony assault was charged. Is the prosecutor blinded by partisanship too? After all, you said it was common sense. lol.

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Castro-Valley-festival-stab-attempted-rudy-peters-13221444.php

Farzad Vincent Fazeli, 35, was jailed after the alleged Sunday attack on Rudy Peters at the Castro Valley Fall Festival. Alameda County prosecutors charged Fazeli on Tuesday with a felony count of making criminal threats and misdemeanor counts of exhibiting a deadly weapon and possessing a switchblade.

They didn't charge him for attacking someone with a knife because... wait for this... he didn't attack anyone with a knife. This is what happens when you allow partisanship to overcome basic knowledge and logic.

Yet he didn't kill anybody...despite it being his clear intent to do so.

Right, which is why you wouldn't call the shooting there a murder as that didn't happen. Similarly that shooting was also not a knife attack because no one was attacked with a knife.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article218224930.html
Fazeli was arrested on charges of possessing a switchblade, brandishing a weapon, criminal threats and felony assault, according to the sheriff’s office. Kelly said Fazeli remains at the Santa Rita Jail.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...essional-candidate-switchblade-castro-valley/
Fazeli was arrested for felony assault, criminal threats, brandishing a weapon and possession of a switchblade knife and booked into Santa Rita Jail.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Well then you better inform the DA as apparently they disagree with you! No felony assault was charged. Is the prosecutor blinded by partisanship too? After all, you said it was common sense. lol.

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Castro-Valley-festival-stab-attempted-rudy-peters-13221444.php



They didn't charge him for attacking someone with a knife because... wait for this... he didn't attack anyone with a knife. This is what happens when you allow partisanship to overcome basic knowledge and logic.



Right, which is why you wouldn't call the shooting there a murder as that didn't happen. Similarly that shooting was also not a knife attack because no one was attacked with a knife.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone. The knife was brandished, not actually used. Hence, there is no assault. I thought they might charge misdemeanor assault for throwing the coffee mug, but otherwise, the charges are what one would expect.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article218224930.html
Fazeli was arrested on charges of possessing a switchblade, brandishing a weapon, criminal threats and felony assault, according to the sheriff’s office. Kelly said Fazeli remains at the Santa Rita Jail.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...essional-candidate-switchblade-castro-valley/
Fazeli was arrested for felony assault, criminal threats, brandishing a weapon and possession of a switchblade knife and booked into Santa Rita Jail.

You realize that prosecutors determine what laws were broken, not the cops, right? Durrrrrrrr. What the cops arrest you for doesn't mean shit because they don't know the law.

The actual lawyer in the situation did not charge him with felony assault. Even if they had, as woolfe mentioned it would have been for throwing the coffee mug at him, not for attacking him with a knife because... yet again... he didn't attack anyone with a knife.

You simply cannot be this stupid. I have no doubt if the party labels were reversed you would have little trouble understanding this common sense idea.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. The knife was brandished, not actually used. Hence, there is no assault. I thought they might charge misdemeanor assault for throwing the coffee mug, but otherwise, the charges are what one would expect.

It is frankly baffling that our good friend DSF is arguing for the government to be able to imprison that guy for assaulting someone with a knife when everyone seems to agree that he didn't do it. Doc appears to think that simply having plausible intent to do something is the same as actually doing it.

I guess we'll have to dig that one out the next time conservatives complain about 'thoughtcrime'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
It is frankly baffling that our good friend DSF is arguing for the government to be able to imprison that guy for assaulting someone with a knife when everyone seems to agree that he didn't do it. Doc appears to think that simply having plausible intent to do something is the same as actually doing it.

I guess we'll have to dig that one out the next time conservatives complain about 'thoughtcrime'.

I guess he needs instruction in the fact that all crimes, in addition whatever mental state requirement (mens rea), also have an act requirement (actus reus). Here, the act was that of brandishing a weapon. There was no battery (stabbing) or assault (attempted stabbing). I don't know how much simpler it could be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Why does "stop being racist" have to mean "becoming a democrat"? Maybe that's what they should fix..

Because no one truly believes that democrats will stop calling republicans racist no matter how things change. The charge of racism isn't deployed impartially or with any appreciation of how ambiguous its definition has become, but rather simply as invective; as a means to tell people "agree with me or shut up."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Because no one truly believes that democrats will stop calling republicans racist no matter how things change. The charge of racism isn't deployed impartially or with any appreciation of how ambiguous its definition has become, but rather simply as invective; as a means to tell people "agree with me or shut up."

Maybe if Republicans didn't want to be called racist they shouldn't nominate, elect, and overwhelmingly approve of someone who has been very publicly racist for his entire life.

It is not Democrats' fault that Republicans are called racists. It is Republicans' fault. I don't know why conservatives are so allergic to personal responsibility, own the fact that your movement attracts racists and then maybe change your movement so it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Because no one truly believes that democrats will stop calling republicans racist no matter how things change. The charge of racism isn't deployed impartially or with any appreciation of how ambiguous its definition has become, but rather simply as invective; as a means to tell people "agree with me or shut up."

Yeah, I remember the huge uptick in Democrats calling Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr, racists when they were president. In fact I remember when kanya west said, "Bush hates black people", how all the Democrats came out and defended him. There certainly hasn't been an uptick in calling Republicans racist because of their unprecedented treatment of our first black president. It certainly wasn't related to the amount of videos and investigative evidence of the police and the justice system treating black people different. It definitely wasn't related to the fact that Republicans have been doing everything they can to disenfranchise voters, who mostly happen to be black, right after the supreme court, for all intents and purposes, killed the civil rights act. You and I both know that calls of racism didn't happen because their has been a rise nazi protests or because a Republican candidate for president was endorsed by a KKK member and have a half ass disavowalment from them. Etc etc

Nope! Democrats simply label everyone that has different views as racist, it has nothing to do with the actions of Republicans as of late.


/s
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
So you’re still trying to rationalize an unhinged nutjob attacking a politician. That doesn’t sound particularly rational. Tribalistic perhaps, but not rational.

I don't think it's rational behavior to stab anyone like that, no. I'm expressing my complete lack of surprise that it is happening today, based on the fact that I live in this world, and offering suggestions of how to prevent it in the future.

You know, like maybe stop calling the would-be stabbers sub-human filth and declaring them so as part of your official party platform. The GOP could listen, I do offer my advice for free, you know, but they won't.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Who's religion? The assailant isn't Muslim. Zin brought up the fact that Muslims are held to this unfair standard too, as in the case of terrorism. I asked if Zin supported this.

I don't recall bringing religion into this or being muslim, wrg to this dude. I recall bringing into it the fact that he is not an approved WASP.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Because no one truly believes that democrats will stop calling republicans racist no matter how things change. The charge of racism isn't deployed impartially or with any appreciation of how ambiguous its definition has become, but rather simply as invective; as a means to tell people "agree with me or shut up."

I'm pretty sure that the Democrats will stop calling the Republicans racists as soon as the Republicans stop calling the Democrats communists.
To pretend that the Republicans aren't just as guilty as the Democrats of saying "agree with me or shut up" is so fucking disingenuous it's ridiculous. In fact, the Republicans usually one-up the Democrats at that tactic by saying "agree with me or I'll make up some lie to claim you're a threat to America and have you shut up." But of course you ignore that.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
Because no one truly believes that democrats will stop calling republicans racist no matter how things change. The charge of racism isn't deployed impartially or with any appreciation of how ambiguous its definition has become, but rather simply as invective; as a means to tell people "agree with me or shut up."

Behold, a glimpse into the priorities of a snowflake. Take a just a pinch of No True Scotsman, speculate, then generalize, follow up with blanket dismissal. After all, it's not the resurgent, mainstreamed racism that's the story, nope, it's how Democrats hurt feelings by using the term 'racist.' Funny stuff man.

Hey right wing religious social authoritarians! Want to stop having people call you racists? Stop supporting racists and racist agendas. Pretty straight forward really.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Victim blaming is super classy. Saying that someone deserves it based on what their opinion is, is just pathetic. But if you don't align with the left, you're considered the enemy and you deserve anything you get. According to some people around here, and frankly all over the U.S.

Want immigration laws enforced? Well then you're a racist and deserve to get stabbed. Point out their hypocrisy and think for yourself? Well then you can be harassed while trying to peacefully eat and forced to leave. But this is far from the Dems first go at making people leave restaurants who they dont think deserve to be there. Plenty of history of that. The left has proven by increasing violence against those who don't believe the same as they do who the fascists really are.

Tweet from 2 days ago:
"I am coming with a gun and i expect to get numerous bloodstained MAGA hats as trophies".

Totally justified by some people around here.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-inte...at-maga-event-washington-dc-cassandra-1118079

No one fucking said that here. Go back and point it out, as I am currently at a loss as to where you would have seen this argument being made.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Because no one truly believes that democrats will stop calling republicans racist no matter how things change. The charge of racism isn't deployed impartially or with any appreciation of how ambiguous its definition has become, but rather simply as invective; as a means to tell people "agree with me or shut up."

I know some republicans that aren't racist and some dems that certainly strike me as racist, but the fact remains: if you have two barrels, one filled with republicans and one filled with democrats, the net you pull out of the republican barrel is going to be filled with far more racists than the one you pull out of the democrat barrel.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
From what I can determine the charges levied are correct. Because there needs to be a basis in fact for criminal charges then only those which can be demonstrated can be brought and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt established. The offender brandished a knife and he's being charged with it. If he had deployed and advanced than a case for attempted bodily harm with a knife can be made. If he makes contact then attempted murder is on the table. "Thought Police" actions are generally not recognized in a court of law, certainly not a proper one. "He was thinking" or "he might have if" are not grounds for prosecution.

That would be akin to Trump calling on the DOJ to investigate something which is clearly not a crime in that it's an improper use of criminal justice to persecute, not prosecute.

No.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
I know some republicans that aren't racist and some dems that certainly strike me as racist, but the fact remains: if you have two barrels, one filled with republicans and one filled with democrats, the net you pull out of the republican barrel is going to be filled with far more racists than the one you pull out of the democrat barrel.
Meh. It's obvious that a lot of Republicans are struggling to walk back being proud to be a deplorable. How dare Democrats call them deplorable after they said they were proud to be deplorable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane