Club Q, where police said the first call came in minutes before midnight, described it as a “hate attack.”
Amazing they can decide so quick when then denied Waukesha all the way through.
Colorado Springs police said early Sunday that the FBI was assisting in the investigation of the overnight shooting and did not comment on a motive.
Well this reeks already
Police identified the suspect as Anderson Lee Aldrich, a 22-year-old man. He was injured and subdued, authorities said, after firing with a “long gun.” They are investigating the motive.
Amazing they can decide so quick when then denied Waukesha all the way through.
Most likely just a paranoid caller who would have called any act of violence directed at anyone as a 'hate attack' because someone attacked them. Not because any sort of hatred was relevant.
Nothing in the article really tells us anything.
It could be anything, frankly. Jilted ex-lover, angry former employee, gangland style attack, political terrorism, religious terrorism, kinda anything.
Have we actually seen anything on that being a proper hate crime? As far as I can tell, the dude may have been so narcissistic that he just barreled through people because they were in his way, and he didn't give a shit because he had some SovCit idea about being a free traveler and refusing to succumb to boat piracy.
He even apparently tried to hide in a white dude's house.
He might have said some racist shit online, but that doesn't really tell us that this was a reprisal attack for Rittenhouse being freed.
Enough evidence to demonstrate that the intent was malicious and based off of the prejudices of the individual involved for the sake of those prejudices. Confessions are perfect, but demonstrating intent is hard.
What is the intent of the criminals actions at the time of his actions? Is the crime entirely based off of his intentions?
Say a Latino was robbing a Korean, and the Latino shot him as they were struggling over the gun. It's still a murder (though maybe not a pre-meditated one), but it's not clearly a hate crime. On the other hand, if the Latino is walking away with the stolen goods, turns around, shoots him in the head, and yells "fucking chink!" after killing him? That's a hate crime. It might not be a confession, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that criminal has a "depravity of mind" that warrants additional punishment.
I can understand why people claim hate crimes shouldn't be separate crimes, or just reduced as aggravating factors, but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
My point is that you can't read mind, either this is a hate crime or hate crimes need to be removed entirely.
Hence your question is wrong, it should not be "was the Waukesha massacre a hate crime" but rather a statement about hate crimes being different from crime is stupid - this being an entirely different thing not specifically related to the Waukesha massacre as, if anything, would point to the need of hate crime as the dude was a monster.
I do agree that hate crime is stupid in general and it is mostly used by leftists for political gain. I have no problem with removing hate crime as a category.
I don't know if it should be removed as a category, but even if it was I'm not going to complain because it should still be counted as an aggravating factor.
However, I don't think we can just say "well we can't read minds", we can still read intent.
Then you did not understand my argument. Other then him out right saying he killed them because they were white there is no other proof that you can have in this case or most other cases. We know he hates white people and he mass murdered white people. What other proof can we reasonably have here to prove a hate crime?
Either the category itself is stupid or this is 100% a hate crime.
I think I didn't understand your argument, because you didn't understand mine.
I never said the category isn't stupid. I was actually asking if we knew something about his intent. I hadn't heard anything from the prosecution that could vouch that it was a hate crime, and despite all of his craziness he never started screaming about Yakub or Kyle Rittenhouse in the trial.
but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
Take Lee Rigby for example.
Yeah and I've seen niggers who do that just for giggles. No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group.
But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable. But these guys do the same level of crime completely at random. They'll do it to any group, without care, so you can't even be safe by being "one of them."
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line. The guy who beats gays to death out of bigotry shouldn't receive more or less than the guy who still beat a guy to death but did it out of jealousy.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
No, most people who are wealthy learn that people want their shit and protect it.
No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group. But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable.
I never said that they were universally less depraved or less intolerable. There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line.
I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
tl;dr you're allowed to be a hateful bigot, ideological zealotry is subjective and may sometimes be a good thing, the prosecuting government will be able to define "zealotry" as needed to prosecute dissidents, it will have a chilling effect on non-criminals who might share the ideology (codifying the natural but harmful instincts of the mob reacting to violence or a moral panic)
I see the argument, and I'm not even agreeing to the existence of hate crimes generally, but I think we're stumbling between two simultaneous effects:
Chilling Effect v. Disincentivzation of Rationalization
Obviously we don't want a chilling effect that will instantiate viewpoint discrimination to the general public. By my argument is that we also don't want to tolerate the mentality that violence is acceptable against the public because of those viewpoints.
Now, when it comes to incitement, you do want to chill incitement because someone should be afraid of ordering others to kill people.
At the same time, a chilling effect is supposed to be about making innocent people self-censor. Whereas using intent as an aggravating factor only occurs after a crime has been committed. We do consider intent into crime because we do want to chill criminal rationalization. I see it in the same way we'd want to stop an honor killing, and frankly, I think honor killing justifications should be considered an aggravating factor because of exactly the same post-hoc rationaliztion
I think there's a line we're crossing between:
He deserves to die
I killed him because he deserves to die
and once we cross that line, we have to actually strike that rationalization down because it's actually being used as a threat against the general public.
I saw 2 or 3 posts. He's got less of an anti-white history than most New York Times journalists. What, if any, evidence do we have on why he launched the attack? I'm not even sure the prosecution knows.
The real question is who give a shit? Hate crimes are fake and gay. Murder is murder. Running over one person on purpose should get you the rope, let alone a dozen.
Why is it that whenever it's blacks, gays or leftists it's 'a hate crime' yet you can have a black guy beating down an Asian woman screaming 'I hate chinks!' or ploughing through white people in a car and it's 'too early to tell motive'
This is why no one trusts authority anymore for good reason.
Law enforcement officials said Aldrich’s “interactions with law enforcement” are part of the broader investigation, and they would not say if he’d previously been contacted by police. A man with the same name and matching age was arrested in June 2021 for threatening his mother with “a homemade bomb, multiple weapons, and ammunition,” according to media reports at the time. That man was arrested after a brief standoff.
Howard Black, spokesman for the 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, would not confirm Sunday morning that Aldrich was the same man arrested in June 2021. Black said the June 2021 incident “is all part of the investigation and will be released as appropriate.”
Suuuuure. 2 guys with the same name and age, in the same area. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
They were going to have a drag event in the following days, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some built-like-a-brick-shit-house tranny beat the hell out of him. It's been known to happen.
As a matter of fact, the Denver Post reported this as a statement from the club:
Club Q is devastated by the senseless attack on our community. Our prays and thoughts are with all the victims and their families and friends. We thank the quick reactions of heroic customers that subdued the gunman and ended this hate attack.
Sounds like at least someone fought back.
Active shootings are fucking crazy, so at this point it's unknowable if anyone shot him, or he was just physically attacked. I'd suspect that we'd hear about it if his injuries involved a gunshot wound, or he might even be included in the shooting injuries by the police briefing.
This is an example of an instance of an active shooter weidling a shotgun (loaded with birdshot) being stopped and detained by a civilian with mace and balls of steel.
I wonder if mass shooters are more likely to be subdued by civilians in higher trust societies or subcultures. If you care about the people around you, you are probably more likely to intervene on their behalf even if it means you pay the price for prematurely ending the attack.
I think high trust societies don't have mass shooters at all because even the shooters find meaningful lives, and people they can trust. Like, if we go back, say, 80 years to a normal fifty-nifty suburb. A shooting or murder of any kind would be regional news. Our society already degenerated into a low trust and fully atomized society.
If we go back to the Texas A&M shooting in the 50's, people still scattered and it was the police that had to charge the clocktower.
I think what determines if people are willing to step in is less of a high-trust, but the authoritarianism or institutionalized culture. People are going to be less willing to step in if they are thinking "that's someone else's problem", "this isn't my business", or "the authorities should handle this".
That being said, I would suspect that authoritarian societies or institutionalized people are already going to be low-trust, so it would correlate well.
Amazing they can decide so quick when then denied Waukesha all the way through.
Well this reeks already
It'll stop being a "hate attack" as soon as the attacker has been revealed as a Muslim, just like the Orlando shooting.
The body count is too low to be an CIA op or a white guy.
Most likely just a paranoid caller who would have called any act of violence directed at anyone as a 'hate attack' because someone attacked them. Not because any sort of hatred was relevant.
Nothing in the article really tells us anything.
It could be anything, frankly. Jilted ex-lover, angry former employee, gangland style attack, political terrorism, religious terrorism, kinda anything.
Have we actually seen anything on that being a proper hate crime? As far as I can tell, the dude may have been so narcissistic that he just barreled through people because they were in his way, and he didn't give a shit because he had some SovCit idea about being a free traveler and refusing to succumb to boat piracy.
He even apparently tried to hide in a white dude's house.
He might have said some racist shit online, but that doesn't really tell us that this was a reprisal attack for Rittenhouse being freed.
How would you prove anything being a hate crime?
This was a guy who hates white people, black supremacists that killed a bunch of white people.
What standard do you need to call it a hate crime? A confession?
Enough evidence to demonstrate that the intent was malicious and based off of the prejudices of the individual involved for the sake of those prejudices. Confessions are perfect, but demonstrating intent is hard.
What is the intent of the criminals actions at the time of his actions? Is the crime entirely based off of his intentions?
Say a Latino was robbing a Korean, and the Latino shot him as they were struggling over the gun. It's still a murder (though maybe not a pre-meditated one), but it's not clearly a hate crime. On the other hand, if the Latino is walking away with the stolen goods, turns around, shoots him in the head, and yells "fucking chink!" after killing him? That's a hate crime. It might not be a confession, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that criminal has a "depravity of mind" that warrants additional punishment.
I can understand why people claim hate crimes shouldn't be separate crimes, or just reduced as aggravating factors, but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
My point is that you can't read mind, either this is a hate crime or hate crimes need to be removed entirely.
Hence your question is wrong, it should not be "was the Waukesha massacre a hate crime" but rather a statement about hate crimes being different from crime is stupid - this being an entirely different thing not specifically related to the Waukesha massacre as, if anything, would point to the need of hate crime as the dude was a monster.
I do agree that hate crime is stupid in general and it is mostly used by leftists for political gain. I have no problem with removing hate crime as a category.
I don't know if it should be removed as a category, but even if it was I'm not going to complain because it should still be counted as an aggravating factor.
However, I don't think we can just say "well we can't read minds", we can still read intent.
Then you did not understand my argument. Other then him out right saying he killed them because they were white there is no other proof that you can have in this case or most other cases. We know he hates white people and he mass murdered white people. What other proof can we reasonably have here to prove a hate crime?
Either the category itself is stupid or this is 100% a hate crime.
I think I didn't understand your argument, because you didn't understand mine.
I never said the category isn't stupid. I was actually asking if we knew something about his intent. I hadn't heard anything from the prosecution that could vouch that it was a hate crime, and despite all of his craziness he never started screaming about Yakub or Kyle Rittenhouse in the trial.
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
This is just you projecting a preconceived notion you have to justify your belief. You are working backwards from the conclusion you want to make it sound better.
Yeah and I've seen niggers who do that just for giggles. No need for ideology, they simply do it for thrills and the "status" of being seen as the most violent/crazy of the group.
But wait, you said status seekers were less depraved and less intolerable. But these guys do the same level of crime completely at random. They'll do it to any group, without care, so you can't even be safe by being "one of them."
At a certain level of violence, the levels of evil aren't worth categorizing as worse than the other because its already over the line. The guy who beats gays to death out of bigotry shouldn't receive more or less than the guy who still beat a guy to death but did it out of jealousy.
No, most people who are wealthy learn that people want their shit and protect it.
I never said that they were universally less depraved or less intolerable. There's going to be an element of individual context at play.
I agree with you on this.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
Let's try this: why should we not try to disincentivize a criminal's rationalization via ideological zealotry with additional sanctions?
I like this guy's answer.
https://KotakuInAction2.win/p/16ZEDzrXLJ/x/c/4TnQaxJLfxR
tl;dr you're allowed to be a hateful bigot, ideological zealotry is subjective and may sometimes be a good thing, the prosecuting government will be able to define "zealotry" as needed to prosecute dissidents, it will have a chilling effect on non-criminals who might share the ideology (codifying the natural but harmful instincts of the mob reacting to violence or a moral panic)
I see the argument, and I'm not even agreeing to the existence of hate crimes generally, but I think we're stumbling between two simultaneous effects:
Chilling Effect v. Disincentivzation of Rationalization
Obviously we don't want a chilling effect that will instantiate viewpoint discrimination to the general public. By my argument is that we also don't want to tolerate the mentality that violence is acceptable against the public because of those viewpoints.
Now, when it comes to incitement, you do want to chill incitement because someone should be afraid of ordering others to kill people.
At the same time, a chilling effect is supposed to be about making innocent people self-censor. Whereas using intent as an aggravating factor only occurs after a crime has been committed. We do consider intent into crime because we do want to chill criminal rationalization. I see it in the same way we'd want to stop an honor killing, and frankly, I think honor killing justifications should be considered an aggravating factor because of exactly the same post-hoc rationaliztion
I think there's a line we're crossing between:
and once we cross that line, we have to actually strike that rationalization down because it's actually being used as a threat against the general public.
Yes he has a long history of posting explicitly anti-white and "blacks are the real Jews" stuff
I saw 2 or 3 posts. He's got less of an anti-white history than most New York Times journalists. What, if any, evidence do we have on why he launched the attack? I'm not even sure the prosecution knows.
So why aren’t those journalists being brought up on hate crimes? Oh right, because they didn’t drive through a parade of white people.
Your reasoning is just retarded sometimes, Gitz.
At least you were smart enough to mostly steer clear of the forum when your favorite protected class was having one of its worst months ever.
Well, the New York Times drivers didn't drive through anyone, they're just racist trash. There has to be an actual crime.
Gamers aren't a protected class.
The real question is who give a shit? Hate crimes are fake and gay. Murder is murder. Running over one person on purpose should get you the rope, let alone a dozen.
I was just curious if there was anything to do with the idea that this was a reprisal attack for the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.
Did he use an AR?
just "a man"? no descriptor? mighty sus.
Why is it that whenever it's blacks, gays or leftists it's 'a hate crime' yet you can have a black guy beating down an Asian woman screaming 'I hate chinks!' or ploughing through white people in a car and it's 'too early to tell motive'
This is why no one trusts authority anymore for good reason.
Because they hate whites, and want us all dead. Asians count as white since they're successful.
Wake the fuck up.
Because the murderer lacks institutional power! Duh!
or when a group kidnap a retard and torture him on facebook and say explicitly racial things but it's just forgotten.
Catch and release felon policies come home to roost.
Likely this.
source
Suuuuure. 2 guys with the same name and age, in the same area. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Yeah, it looks like it.
Props to whomever at the bar apparently subdued him.
There is a "dominatrix dragged him out" joke somewhere there.
They were going to have a drag event in the following days, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some built-like-a-brick-shit-house tranny beat the hell out of him. It's been known to happen.
A lot of circumspect language talking about how the shooter was stopped. Anyone got odds on security or someone carrying shot him in under a minute?
As a matter of fact, the Denver Post reported this as a statement from the club:
Sounds like at least someone fought back.
Active shootings are fucking crazy, so at this point it's unknowable if anyone shot him, or he was just physically attacked. I'd suspect that we'd hear about it if his injuries involved a gunshot wound, or he might even be included in the shooting injuries by the police briefing.
This is an example of an instance of an active shooter weidling a shotgun (loaded with birdshot) being stopped and detained by a civilian with mace and balls of steel.
I wonder if mass shooters are more likely to be subdued by civilians in higher trust societies or subcultures. If you care about the people around you, you are probably more likely to intervene on their behalf even if it means you pay the price for prematurely ending the attack.
I think high trust societies don't have mass shooters at all because even the shooters find meaningful lives, and people they can trust. Like, if we go back, say, 80 years to a normal fifty-nifty suburb. A shooting or murder of any kind would be regional news. Our society already degenerated into a low trust and fully atomized society.
If we go back to the Texas A&M shooting in the 50's, people still scattered and it was the police that had to charge the clocktower.
I think what determines if people are willing to step in is less of a high-trust, but the authoritarianism or institutionalized culture. People are going to be less willing to step in if they are thinking "that's someone else's problem", "this isn't my business", or "the authorities should handle this".
That being said, I would suspect that authoritarian societies or institutionalized people are already going to be low-trust, so it would correlate well.
Why would you sacrifice your life to save people who don’t trust you or see any value in your life?
Weird, when you hear of trans and guns you almost expect it to be a mass suicide attempt.
They even kill themselves like men.
The left NEVER takes responsibility for the thousands of muslim terror victims. (nor the black on white crime victims)
But are immediately on twitter blaming conservatives every time there is a shooting
Bad tactics. It reinforces the tranny martyr game.
I mean, all you need to do to "genocide" trannies is declare the impossibility of changing sex.