Crime Eric Clanton, Antifa "Professor Bike Lock" Attacker Arrested!

[Ruprecht]

Truth is objective, for someone who advocates people thinking for themselves, for example, by verifying anything they hear before posting you seemingly lack the ability to admit that your truth will not be everyones, which means you are objectively wrong and remain unable to admit it.

You don't like what /pol/ did? Fine. I did. I am not wrong and neither are you. We just view the subject differently. Coming here and posting:


In replying about gossiping is yet another in a long line of examples of your psuedo-intellectual condescension towards other members. You follow on by stating:


If you think that facts will change peoples opinions, it just exposes your lack of knowledge in the area or perhaps your naivete. Some people act like robots, where you input new data and they change their opinion accordingly, but we are human beings who have feelings, life experience, emotions, instincts and circumstance to consider when forming our opinion. Nowhere near as simple as a robot.

I'd be very curious to see how many of the myriad of posters replying to you in this thread mentioned anything about the 14 bike lock order as proof.

Well you did, for a start.

There's no "pseudo-intellectual condescension", just disgust.

I'm well aware of how many people believe things despite evidence to the contrary, and the more complex or abstract the more likely that is, yet I find most people are capable of telling when obvious bullshit is obvious bullshit based on accurate information. It's not like an order a week after the event, in a tweet which says they are trolling, is particularly open to interpretation...

 

[Ruprecht]

I have never seen you in one of the liberal circle jerk threads telling people to not post unsubstantiated info.
I wonder why that is?

Probably because you've never looked or I dumped/deleted the thread.

 

[MMA IAN]

You've typed nothing that could be construed as any of the following?

• Scoff at the evidence presented
• Express doubt the right guy was identified
• Chastise those who thought the internet goofs were on the right trail
• Impugn internet sleuthing

I definitely repeated that as something that if true would have been an amazing coincidence. Don't recall framing it in any way that suggested it was both a fact and proof he committed the crime.

I think at one point I offered Rupert a bet that the dude would get charged and don't recall him responding. So if he really thought this was a witch hunt his conviction on the matter was lacking. Or he likes betting as much as he likes gossiping.

Anyone who talks down internet sleuthing need only spend a little time over at websleuths to see the incredible results a groups power can achieve. They are comparable to /pol/ albeit they look into more serious cases like serial killing, missing persons, cold cases and the like.

It was only late last year one of the most famous serial killers in Australia, the Claremont Serial Killer from my home town was captured and once his background was revealed, turned out the people researching the matter on websleuths had hit many nails on the head regarding the suspect, some quite obscure such as narrowing down from fabric fiber found on a victim to what make and model or car and what those cars were predominantly used for in the 90s. They deduced it was a station wagon model, not a sedan and the older generation mentioned most of the station wagons in that time were company cars for Telstra, making it likely he was a Telstra employee.

Lo and behold, once arrested, the mans background was a Telstra employee over the period of the murders. They were also able to link a number of other seemingly innocuous details to businesses in the area of abductions which this man, once arrested, turned out to have been involved in. They relied on individuals memories and experiences from the 90s in a number of cases and it was impossible to verify many of the posts as fact or not. Still, they turned out to be scarily accurate.

Web sleuthing is no joke.

 

[Ruprecht]

You've typed nothing that could be construed as any of the following?

• Scoff at the evidence presented
• Express doubt the right guy was identified
• Chastise those who thought the internet goofs were on the right trail
• Impugn internet sleuthing

Sure, my first post was that the bag straps and nose angle wouldn't be enough for him to be charged (they weren't) and that I hope they'd identified the right guy given how broadly the accusations had already been distributed (it seems they have). The majority of my posts after that were disgust at people's willingness to propagate unsubstantiated and even false accusations.
I didn't "chastise those who thought the internet goofs were on the right trail" or "Impugn internet sleuthing" though.

I definitely repeated that as something that if true would have been an amazing coincidence. Don't recall framing it in any way that suggested it was both a fact and proof he committed the crime.

I think at one point I offered Rupert a bet that the dude would get charged and don't recall him responding. So if he really thought this was a witch hunt his conviction on the matter was lacking. Or he likes betting as much as he likes gossiping.

Yes, I don't gamble.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Anyone who talks down internet sleuthing need only spend a little time over at websleuths to see the incredible results a groups power can achieve. They are comparable to /pol/ albeit they look into more serious cases like serial killing, missing persons, cold cases and the like.

It was only late last year one of the most famous serial killers in Australia, the Claremont Serial Killer from my home town was captured and once his background was revealed, turned out the people researching the matter on websleuths had hit many nails on the head regarding the suspect, some quite obscure such as narrowing down from fabric fiber found on a victim to what make and model or car and what those cars were predominantly used for in the 90s. They deduced it was a station wagon model, not a sedan and the older generation mentioned most of the station wagons in that time were company cars for Telstra, making it likely he was a Telstra employee.

Lo and behold, once arrested, the mans background was a Telstra employee over the period of the murders. They were also able to link a number of other seemingly innocuous details to businesses in the area of abductions which this man, once arrested, turned out to have been involved in. They relied on individuals memories and experiences from the 90s in a number of cases and it was impossible to verify many of the posts as fact or not. Still, they turned out to be scarily accurate.

Web sleuthing is no joke.

I'm still holding out hope the internet will solve the Zodiac cyphers. But part of me thinks he sent gibberish after his first attempt was so quickly decoded.

 

[MMA IAN]

Well you did, for a start.

There's no "pseudo-intellectual condescension", just disgust.

I'm well aware of how many people believe things despite evidence to the contrary, and the more complex or abstract the more likely that is, yet I find most people are capable of telling when obvious bullshit is obvious bullshit based on accurate information. It's not like an order a week after the even in a tweet which says they are trolling is particularly open to interpretation...

More condescension, thanks for making it clear where you think you stand in relation to those you disagree with.

Where? Show me the post I made referring to amazon ordered bike locks as proof and I'll get down on my knees and give you a big sloppy one


If you are referring to this where I reply to you, I thought it was clear from the attached screenshot of the police report I was referring to where they state they found multiple U-locks, which were the same object used in the commission of the crime. Nowhere did I say it was regarding an amazon order.

I don't know how many U-locks you personally keep around the house Rupert, but perhaps he just collects them.

I then asked how you verified the u-lock story as false, since I had merely heard it in passing. I accepted your reasoning as logical as I accepted /pols/ reasoning as logical.

I'll ask after you find no post where I suggest the amazon bike lock story as proof that you edit your post to remove the first sentence.

Cheers chief.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sure, my first post was that the bag straps and nose angle wouldn't be enough for him to be charged (they weren't) and that I hope they'd identified the right guy given how broadly the accusations had already been distributed (it seems they have). The majority of my posts after that were disgust at people's willingness to propagate unsubstantiated and even false accusations.
I didn't "chastise those who thought the internet goofs were on the right trail" or "Impugn internet sleuthing" though.



Yes, I don't gamble.

Who said that those things would constitute proof in court? From what I saw, and definitely on my end, the belief was that the police would be able to put the legal case together based on being given the identity of a strong suspect. That certainly gives the impression of doubt. I'll stand by my point that your arguments are better served in a thread where someone has actually been victimized by what you decry.

Gambling isn't my thing either. But every once in a while I get froggy and figure it wouldn't kill me to wind up with a shitty sig for a month or so.

 

[Ruprecht]

More condescension, thanks for making it clear where you think you stand in relation to those you disagree with.

Where? Show me the post I made referring to amazon ordered bike locks as proof and I'll get down on my knees and give you a big sloppy one


If you are referring to this where I reply to you, I thought it was clear from the attached screenshot of the police report I was referring to where they state they found multiple U-locks, which were the same object used in the commission of the crime. Nowhere did I say it was regarding an amazon order.


I then asked how you verified the u-lock story as false, since I had merely heard it in passing. I accepted your reasoning as logical as I accepted /pols/ reasoning as logical.

I'll ask after you find no post where I suggest the amazon bike lock story as proof that you edit your post to remove the first sentence.

Cheers chief.

Well if you take that as condescension, good luck with life.
The disgust was with people's willingness to cut and paste bullshit accusations without fact checking. Not with people disagreeing with me.
In the context of the discussion, it seemed obvious you were arguing in support of the bike lock order story. Why else would you post that as a reply to me saying the story was fake?
Are you saying your posting that was completely unrelated to the post you replied to saying the bike lock order story was fake?
That seems a little strange, but if so I apologise for misinterpreting your post.

 

[Shoemaker]

Well if you take that as condescension, good luck with life.

When you unintentionally speak above people, they tend to think you're intentionally speaking down to them. *shrugs*

 

[Metusalemi]

In an interesting turn of events, Antifa looked to have turned their back on this guy:



They're even editing old tweets pledging support for him to cover their asses:



Pretty funny shit.

When a useful idiot becomes useless, you discard it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

When you unintentionally speak above people, they tend to think you're intentionally speaking down to them. *shrugs*

 

[Gazwald]

Man, Ruprecht still holding out on this lol

Pretty embarassing if i'm honest.

 

[Shoemaker]

You could at least point out how ironically condescending my post was. I constantly leave the net wide open.

Shit, there I go again.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You could at least point out how ironically condescending my post was. I constantly leave the net wide open.

Shit, there I go again.

I got a different kick out of it. Let's take a look.

When you unintentionally speak above people, they tend to think you're intentionally speaking down to them.

When I think of speaking down to someone I think oversimplifying, as if they can't understand basic shit. And that's insulting and pisses 'em off. Whereas speaking above someone is using words and concepts they can't understand (unintentionally or otherwise). In that case they'd be mad that someone was showing off at their expense. So what seem like opposites to me are, in your view, similar enough to be confused.

To your credit, intelligence is challenged both ways and the dumber someone is the less likely they are to see where the shots are coming from. But that'd still be pretty dumb to confuse the two. Wouldn't it?

 

[PHATV]

latest on this guy?

 

[lilelvis]

latest on this guy?

Trial was postponed until August. The 11th I think.

 

[lecter]

It's amazing how this guy got caught because of 4chan

"When I was interviewed at the police station detective Hong had the nerve to say to me, “the internet did the work for us.” "

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2017/08/16/18801580.php

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's amazing how this guy got caught because of 4chan

"When I was interviewed at the police station detective Hong had the nerve to say to me, “the internet did the work for us.” "

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2017/08/16/18801580.php

Dude was two standard deviations of IQ steps away from being another Unabomber.

 

[Deleted member 491001]

Aug 11th court date postponed to Sep 28th btw.

 

[PHATV]

So what ended up being his sentence? Did he go to the slammer for that?

That was not his first time attacking an innocent person, obviously.

Edit to add, props to @Ornife. Probation. A travesty. Did he at least lose his job/pension? Anyone know? Probably got promoted. Heads a department, now.

Article also notes he hit 7 people with that bike lock---that day alone.

3 year probation.

https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/0...deal-in-berkeley-rally-bike-lock-assault-case