Witnesses said the driver of the SUV that hit Wilson appeared to do so intentionally, “without even pausing or applying the brakes,” said Assistant District Attorney Colton Carmine of Alameda County.

Carmine said that although statements by Popal’s relatives could lay the foundation for a defense based on mental illness, “it’s fairly beyond dispute that this person went to two universities in the Bay Area and had a large circle of college-educated friends.

“So this notion that this is a horrible American society is just infuriating to me. All I know is that he took advantage of this society, used the resources we make available and did this horrible thing where, only but the grace of God, there weren’t additional murder victims in San Francisco.”

He’s being held in a psychiatric ward, not jail.

“Everyone needs to be killed,” Omeed Aziz Popal calmly told officers as he sat in the back of a police car after a hit-and-run rampage that left one person dead in Fremont and 19 injured in San Francisco.

Just why the 29-year-old unemployed automotive worker allegedly said that remains a mystery. His family says he is mentally ill.

But his comments, as recorded in police reports filed by three officers who spoke with Popal, suggest a level of planning that may belie claims of mental illness, authorities say.

Read more here.

As I’ve said, the SF rampager may not be a Jihadi (don’t know yet, see here and here), but I also don’t by the “crazy” excuse either. And now I feel justified, because we learn today that he told police……

The parents think this is an evil society, so they try to overprotect their kids.

Eh, I dealt with the same thing, growing up. That’s as much conservative Christian as radical Muslim.

Would a phone call from OBL have made the effects of his rampage any different?

Rhetorical question, perhaps… but no. Of course, the same could be said of any crime. So the real question here is “should we treat it differently?”

New point 1. What was this guy doing for the 3 days he was “missing”?

Also, if the parents thought he was so “mentally troubled” and “delusional”, why did they recently find him a bride?

Finally, isn’t the name of his bride, Nahid, a Persian (Iranian) name? Arent most Afghanis Sunni? Is Popal a Shiite?

1. How old is his new bride? 14? Tell the FBI.

She’s clearly not 14.. but she may or may not be the love child of Kirstie Alley and Boy George.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/08/31/MNGMGKSMHB1.DTL&o=0

Definition of terrorism:
Muslim (who is obviously a little crazy) kills infidels and takes credit for it.
(Popol said “I am a terrorist”)

Michele, I think you have been hoodwinked.

When was the last time anyone heard of a person with marriage problems or any problems running over people on purpose? Why didn’t he run over people in Fremont? Because that’s where his Muslim people live. He drove over to San Fran where the infidels live to kill them. To solve his problems.

Interesting point, I hadn’t thought of it like that. I don’t expect the MSM to find the answer to that question, but I’d really like to hear the answer.

No one should apologize, explicitly or implicitly, for suspecting that Omeed Popal was a lone jihadi. No one. Set the record straight if needed, but don’t apologize.

The record of the media and public officials in denying the presence of Muslim te….

When was the last time anyone heard of a person with marriage problems or any problems running over people on purpose? Why didn’t he run over people in Fremont? Because that’s where his Muslim people live. He drove over to San Fran where the infidels live to kill them. To solve his problems.

He is still guilty of “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”
Guilty of DWI – Driving while Islamic

The speculation by bloggers is good thing. Bloggers will filter down to the truth. The authorities are very quick to label it anything but terror, and they shouldn’t be so quick to eliminate possibilities.

The First victim.

If he was so crazy, how did he know how to trick his family?

Should his family be held responsible for not keeping him locked up?
Is “crazy” a new excuse for any heinous act?
Where does “craziness” come into play when one is able to navigate some of the most confusing streets and freeways? How many of his victims were Muslim?
Does running down pedestrians as they walk on their merry way constitue “terrorism?”
Does it not “terrorize” people to think they might be run down while walking on the sidewalk?
Will he be tried for anything?

Let’s not buy into the idea that being crazy is also now a good excuse for a jihad of any stripe.

Readers, you know of my strong views and work debunking the “myth of the lone Muslim avenger;” reporting on the rash of “lone” Muslim shooters who have murdered Americans; and combating P.C. whitewashing of jihad. Most recently, I’ve extensively….

But, he wasn’t thinking, apparently.

So glad I fled that area.

While working nights as a janitor both in the Silicon valley super hi-tech places and in neighborhoods for summer money, I saw some crazy things.

In kindergarten I remember a dad shouting at my teacher because his son wasn’t allowed to wear his 2 foot sword to school.

Not much to do with this story, just felt like sharing.

So really, this is still a case where muslim extremism resulted in dead bodies. This is also a situation that highlights the perils of the American failure to assimilate immigrants. When people segregate themselves from society they can start to believe some crazy things. They do not share the same national identity with the rest of American society. They aren’t playing for our team.

Call it what you will, just don’t forget it.

I call it … a coincidence.

Can I forget it now?

Local News was reporting that he said he was a terrorist. Here’s the clip:http://www.ktvu.com/video/9758766/index.html

Call it what you will, just don’t forget it.

Maybe Popal is just crazy, maybe not, but the insanity defense is regularly used by family, friends, and lawyers of perps. John Mohammed, the DC Sniper, was a long-time bad guy who latched on to a cause to excuse his desire to murder. Osama’s call for world-wide and free-lance Jihad gave him permission to act.

We, the public, have been manipulated by the press for so long that many of us are looking for the obvious holes in the story, i.e, religion or race that is not mentioned as a tip off to the “real” story. Maybe this time we were wrong, but somehow, I don’t think “crazy” is the whole story of Popal’s rampage. Will we ever learn the whole story? Probably not. Just like the Oklahoma “suicide” bomber, the FBI takes over,the media moves on and we forget about it. It was highly suspicious, but we may never know the whole story.

But why not wait a day until more facts are out and your speculation is on firmer ground?

I agree, and I said as much on the previous thread. That said, we’ve seen this sort of thing go the other way, so wondering about it isn’t out of line.

That’s a convenient justification but it doesn’t really hold up.

I’m not suggesting that it’s justification. Honest curiosity and subsequent digging doesn’t need justification. Knee jerk jumping to conclusions can’t be justified. I’m saying that allowing fear of what our ideological opponents will say to be a stumbling block to pursuit of the facts is pointless. They’ll smear whether you’re right or wrong or indifferent. You speculate, they’ll say you’ve made a proclamation. They do it all the time. Even when you’ve gotten it right, they’ll call you nuts. So, who cares what they say about you? If you’re honest with yourself and your readers, you’ll do just fine. And if fear of being portrayed in a bad light is reason to not act, then let’s just roll up conservatism and hand Soros the keys to America.

To this day I think fondly of Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz for their coverage of Rathergate, and it inclines me to lend more credibly to WaPo than I do to the New York Times.

That’s because you’re honest. Not everyone is.

You build trust with your readers. And if your response to that is, “Well, we trust you no matter what” — that’s bad.

Yeah, it is. That’s Eschaton. You don’t have that here, and I hope you never do.

Did the chance that he was a jihadi substantially outweigh the chance that he wasn’t in the Popal case? I don’t think so, but I guess people can differ.

They can, they do and they did. All in all, I think reason prevailed even though reflexive judgement tried to sneak it’s way in. I think the system worked.

Because there’s no obvious explanation for it. To believe that Hicks ’shopped the guy, you have to believe that he basically did it for shits and giggles. Would someone risk their career on that?

Not everything that looks like a photoshop artifact is a photoshop artifact. But perfectly symmetrical swirly patterns in a cloud of smoke? Taken by an Arab stringer in Lebanon? When there were already accusations of Hezbollah propagandizing going on? For Reuters?

True, and I agree with keeping cautious about it. But I don’t feel that lack of logical reason for a photoshop is a reason to ignore what, to me, seems to be an extremely obvious example. I mean, if it’s not a photoshop, what is all around the guy’s head, and what is up with that weird tan cloth with writing all over it on his her right shoulder. I can respect a difference of opinion, but I just can’t seem to understand anyone not seeing the obvious photoshop, regardless of whether or not it actually serves any real purpose. Not sure if you read my email exchange with someone at the times who actually asked to look at the specific picture, I sent him (and he looked at) the specific picture but wouldn’t even address my specific questions about it, and basically just directed me to their policies and assured me that they wouldn’t allow manipulation of photographs.

Bryan:

If the original did picture a woman and she wasn’t properly covered according to Islamic dress code. I’m not saying that that’s what happened, just that it’s possible. CAIR certainly gave us grounds for speculating along those lines when it clumsily ’shopped hoods on several women in a photo of one of its public functions.

That is one possibility, but again I don’t think the reason is all that important, because I think it’s just so obvious that it was done. I don’t think the original Hajj smokejob served much of a purpose anyway. He had other images of the same neighborhood with much more smoke, and the one he shopped didn’t gain much from what he added, did it?

I’ll be emailing the Times again (and again and again) until I can at least get someone to attempt to explain how that can be a real image. Perhaps take a look at the images again if you haven’t for a while, as if it’s the first time seeing them and see if you feel differently. I just can’t get over the headscarf sticking out all around the back of his head.

Now I can feel a lot better about 9/11 since those bastards were even crazier.