Crime Arsonist sets fire to Josh Shapiro's house.

Wow, apparently pro Palestinian and mentally ill. Was out on bail for beating his estranged wife and stomping on his son’s broken leg.

Family tried to get him committed to a mental health facility just a few days prior cause he stopped taking his meds.

Pardon my language, but dude seems like a real jerk.

 
I'm glad that the PA governor and family made it out of their home without being harmed. With all the heated rhetoric and violence the last few years this seems like another terrorist attack. It has similarities to attacks on Teslas, assassination attempts on Trump, etc. With that Democrat politicians would be more vocal in condemning such hate.


Josh Shapiro survives deadly arson attack—now the left must own the culture of political violence it created​




Sunday’s arson attack on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro
is the latest in an epidemic of political violence that’s been plaguing the nation for half a decade — an epidemic driven by the left.

Happily, Shapiro and his family were unharmed, while alleged would-be assassin Cody Balmer is in custody.

Balmer is plainly deranged, but he declares himself a “socialist” in social media accounts expressing a range of far-left beliefs.

 Cody Balmer 3
Cody Balmer was arrested for an alleged arson attack at the Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence while Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were inside the building on Saturday.Dauphin County District Attorney's Office via AP
And the far left’s normalization of violence goes back at least to 2020, when (amid the pandemic and lockdowns) what started as protests in Minneapolis over the death of George Floyd quickly morphed into violent riots nationwide.


Did national Democrats disavow the murderous thugs?


On the contrary, they embraced and praised them: We live in a state of emergency caused by Donald Trump, anything goes!

And that embrace has continued to the present day.

Witness the terror attacks against pro-life groups and the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh around the court overturning Roe v. Wade, attacks echoing violent rhetoric from Sen. Chuck Schumer about Kavanaugh and fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Investigators at the Governor's Residence in Harrisburg on April 14, 2025.3
Investigators at the Governor’s Residence in Harrisburg on April 14, 2025.James Keivom
Damage inside Pennsylvania Governor's Residence showing a burned room with a chandelier and piano after an act of arson3
Damage inside the building after the fire was set.via REUTERS
Witness the widespread effort to minimize and mock the near-assasination of Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

Witness the love lefty Dems from AOC to ex-Rep. Jamal Bowman to President Joe Biden displayed for the violent, Jew-hating neo-brownshirts spewing hate across college campuses in support of Hamas and its Oct. 7 butcheries.

Witness the anti-Tesla terrorism that’s ranged from Molotov bombings to street vandalism because Democrats don’t like Elon Musk.


And witness the deranged reaction to the cold-blooded murder of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, with tens of thousands of toothpick-armed Redditors sending killer Luigi Mangione legal-defense money and hyping him up in the comments.

Just this past weekend, in fact, CNN aired a fawning interview of influencer and former New York Times/Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz, wherein she indirectly cheers Mangione as someone who “seems like this morally good man.”


The left typically uses the word “justice” to conceal the simple, bestial need for violence that animates a large section of its base.

Justice has nothing to do with it, as normal Americans understand.

The question is: Can Democrats?
 
So what is it we have people (clown accounts but still) claiming it is far right terrorism and now the post above saying he's a socialist etc?
 
The guy doesn't seem like a genius and he should go to jail for sure. Although again how did he bypass Shapiros hired 24/7 security and gates and cameras and get through the door?? That is the real mystery.

I'm just pointing out the difference between primary intent vs secondary intent. The primary intent of an arson is to damage property. The secondary intent may be to kill those inside. Not the the same as an assassination in which the primary intent is to kill someone.

There is a clear difference.

Thank God nobody got hurt and they arrested the dipshit though, to be clear. But let's not go crazy with the comparisons.
Here is one on the many, MANY cases where arson was used with the primary intent to kill.



I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill. Just admit the original point you made is completely wrong.
 
Here is one on the many, MANY cases where arson was used with the primary intent to kill.



I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill. Just admit the original point you made is completely wrong.


An exception does not = a rule.

Grow a brain please
 
Yeah, when nobody is asleep in the house.

assuming they knew someone was in the house.

When you commit arson, there is a guarantee of property damage. There is no guarantee of murder. Because maybe everyone gets out or nobody was home.

if you wanted to kill someone, arson is about the least effective way to do it wouldn't you agree?
 
assuming they knew someone was in the house.

When you commit arson, there is a guarantee of property damage. There is no guarantee of murder. Because maybe everyone gets out or nobody was home.

if you wanted to kill someone, arson is about the least effective way to do it wouldn't you agree?
I think it’s safe to say that if it’s past 12am any rational person would assume a house, that is clearly not abandoned, would have occupants inside. Likely sleeping.

Criminals are not rational people and when they get caught, they lie. The problem with assuming the main intent of every arson commited is property damage means that you would have to believe some asshole that set fire to someones house about what their intent was. It should be assumed that every fire set to an occupied house was set with the primary purpose of killing the occupants.

No, I think arson would be one of the most effective ways to trying to kill someone. Leaves very little evidence, and if it fails and the person lives, their lives are still destroyed.
 
I think it’s safe to say that if it’s past 12am any rational person would assume a house, that is clearly not abandoned, would have occupants inside. Likely sleeping.

Criminals are not rational people and when they get caught, they lie. The problem with assuming the main intent of every arson commited is property damage means that you would have to believe some asshole that set fire to someones house about what their intent was. It should be assumed that every fire set to an occupied house was set with the primary purpose of killing the occupants.

No, I think arson would be one of the most effective ways to trying to kill someone. Leaves very little evidence, and if it fails and the person lives, their lives are still destroyed.

No you should assume the primary intent of setting fire to building is just that, setting fire to a building.

Can you name one arson that killed someone and resulted in 0 property damage? No you can't which is the point.

Arson leaves very little evidence? WHAT LOL. A BURNED DOWN HOUSE ISNT EVIDENCE?

if you are trolling you got me
 
No you should assume the primary intent of setting fire to building is just that, setting fire to a building.

Can you name one arson that killed someone and resulted in 0 property damage? No you can't which is the point.

Arson leaves very little evidence? WHAT LOL. A BURNED DOWN HOUSE ISNT EVIDENCE?

if you are trolling you got me
Little evidence of who set it.

The fact that you couldn’t come to that conclusion yourself and needed it pointed out explains this whole conversation.

And no, when an occupied house is set on fire it should be treated as attempted murder. And it is.
 
Little evidence of who set it.

The fact that you couldn’t come to that conclusion yourself and needed it pointed out explains this whole conversation.

And no, when an occupied house is set on fire it should be treated as attempted murder. And it is.

you said "little evidence". Don't try and change it now that you feel stupid.

Why did you avoid my question. Can an arson kill someone with 0 property damage?
 
Back
Top