I've zero sympathy for these arsonists.

I do find it ironic to read the quote, "The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended," said Bondi. , given the frauds and lawbreaking conducted by highly-placed individuals and corporations, resulting in millions of €/£/$ in ill-gained profits, at no significant, if any, penalties upon the perpetrators.

One can only hope that there is a shift and people are held accountable for their actions, equally, under the law.

What I would note, however, is those with the money often have layers of people in place to ensure that 'things are done correctly, but if not, that's on the underling'.

Thing is: That works 'cause the person who takes the action should know if the action was legal or not, and if not, to refuse to take that action, and potentially advise the person giving the instruction that the action is illegal.

The issue comes when the people who should be held accountable are members of the same political tribe as the people who should be holding them accountable. During the summer of love we saw politicians asking for donations to bail funds to support rioters and also the riots tended to happen in places where the DA was a member of the same political tribe and you were likely to get the charges downgraded to a misdemeanour.

This is why we are seeing this happening in predominantly blue areas.

“Predominantly blue areas”

Fuck you and your made-up nonsense. Fucking coward.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

"Three individuals face federal arson charges labeled as domestic terrorism"

FFS, it's not terrorism, it's just a crime.

It is organised and it is targeting a specific group with the intention of intimidation and that group being targeted are private individuals who have no connection to the US govt or Elon Musk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims."

The Telsa owners and the people working at the dealerships are non-combatants. Even Tesla itself is a non-combatant as it is not part of the US government.

Well... this is the definition, apparently:

"The U.S Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

So if the actions taken were politically driven (to intimidate Musk due to his work for the US government), or even simply to discourage people from buying Tesla's, then yes it could be terrorism.

If it's just 'cause they had a bad experience with a Tesla then not so likely.

Still a crime, though, and dangerous: Fire's not predictable and is prone to spread - could have put other properties at risk, along with lives, especially of the firefighters, and as they're busy at the Tesla dealership, they can't then respond to another fire... so there's further consequences. That's why arson is such a serious crime.

I look forward to the FBI taking action against their leader.

Well, some action does need to be taken against the previous FBI leader as more and more evidence comes to light that it was the undercover operatives who were instigating the violence that day.

“More and more evidence”

None, is I believe what you meant to say.

"an individual armed with a suppressed AR-15 firearm who threw eight Molotov cocktails at a Tesla dealership."

I suppose the AR-15 wasn't a problem in itself.

Fun quirk of US weapons laws: Molotov cocktails (which can be readily assembled in your kitchen) are classified as Destructive Devices. You can possess them only as a cop or dealer in arms or need to register them with the government.

The suppressor is similiarly regulated, but the AR-15 is not.

Karen-in-Chief Bondi will love this case: Can crack down on 2A in a MAGA-approved way.

That’s because the Yanks have stupid gun laws (or lack of) and half the population still think they live in the Wild West so, against all common sense, refuse to do anything about it.

For some bizarre reason, this reminds me of the utter uproar in the US when [can’t remember who now] popped her boob out at a Super Bowl. While the rest of the world looked on with a “so what?”, half of America seemed to react like the sky was falling in. And yet it’s perfectly fine to shoot-up a school full of kids - well it must be apparently, because they refuse to do anything about it (in fact it’s even better than that - they actively work and lobby to ensure it keeps happening!)

Janet Jackson

Janet Jackson/Justin Timberland at Super Bowl XXXVIII...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy

A storm in a C-Cup

Fun fact, the gun laws in the "Wild West" were stricter than they are now.

Whilst most people had guns due to the lawless wilderness, in most towns, you had to hand in your gun on arrival.

Also: From: [1]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota."

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

What is a “suppressed” AR-15?

> What is a “suppressed” AR-15?

An AR-15 (assault rifle) fitted with a noise-suppresser would be my best guess.

That will show those pesky rebels the empire means business. NOT

"These kinds of attacks have no place in our community."

Quite right.

Save all that kind of nonsense for the Capitol Building.

Then Trump might give you a pardon.

Was the Capitol fire bombed? No.

But here is the very important key difference. The protest at the Capitol was directed at the government. Not at random people unconnected with the government.

If you look at the First Amendment, it specifically states the right of the people to protest and petition the government for redress. It is there in black and white.

What isn't in any US law is the right to throw a tantrum and randomly destroy private property because the wrong person won the election.

> The protest at the Capitol was directed at the government. ... If you look at the First Amendment, it specifically states the right of the people to protest and petition the government for redress. It is there in black and white.

You seem to have missed out an important word there, so let's have a look are it in black and white (well, whatever colours your browser does hyperlinks in); emphasis added:

>> [1]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

("petition" means a written request, so again, peaceably - you aren't allowed to use the box of signatures as a literal bludgeon).

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Chris Cuomo said "show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAe86my9r7A

AOC said on twitter "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable"

Maxine Waters called for protesters to "get more confrontational"

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html

The Jan 6th protesters were just following instructions!

"What isn't in any US law is the right to throw a tantrum and randomly destroy private property because the wrong person won the election.."

The Capitol Attack included assaults on police officers, attempted bombing and looting furniture and art. Can you show the passage in 1st Amendment where that is allowed?

Are you game if the same was done with White House?

Why do you post as AC? I thought the Pride Boys and Oath Keepers were not shameful in their thinking, on the contrary.

"Are you game if the same was done with White House?"

It was in 2020 and the protesters attacked and injured law enforcement.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11752998/trump-secure-bunker-friday-george-floyd-protests-white-house/

"attempted bombing"

I assume you mean the pipe bomber which they've never been able to track down despite clear video and cell records. Odd that.

... just publicise the recall notices for Teslas?

The latest one for the truck is:

“ Tesla announced a recall of 46,000 Cybertrucks in the US on Thursday to fix an exterior panel that could detach while driving.”

From https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/20/tesla-musk-trump-work-cybertruck-recall-dan-ives-protests

I respect the right to peaceful protest, but the litany of faults in the Tesla Truck kind of speaks for itself.

... just [1]park your Tesla for a service or [2]drive it around outside a few times?

Obviously, you want to avoid any harm to people, just to the buildings, so you take care to 'phone in and warn them that there is a Tesla nearby and the threat that poses. Except that making that 'phone call is an act of terrorism.

Which raises the question, how do you legally book a Tesla in for a service?

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/21/tesla-model-3-reportedly-explodes-in-shanghai-parking-garage.html

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/tech/brand-tesla-model-plaid-spontaneously-224528567.html

Just like the little eco-ideology shits throwing paint on works of Art their insect brains could never comprehend, we need minimum jail terms for such scumbag behaviour. 15 years minimum without possibility of parole sounds about right.

You've been spreading your bullshit all over this thread. You don't say a peep about what's happening in DC and who the real criminals are. Here's a clue: It's never a good thing to be sympathizing with nazis, because guess what that makes you.

Send them down the lithium mines!

Nobody should be doing this and they should face the full force of the law. Damaging property or intimidating people going about their legitimate business is wrong. Just like the people who were jailed for attacking asylum seeker hotels in the UK last summer. Strong swift punishment will hopefully stop this illegal behaviour and deter others from doing the same. If you don't like Tesla, don't buy one.

I don't like the Labour party, but I believe in democracy. I don't go and smash up their party office or threaten their members. It's wrong.

I hope for the good of Tesla, its millions of customers, its 120,000 staff and shareholders that Musk stands aside as CEO and goes into rehab. He has done some amazing things with Tesla and SpaceX but his comments about Ukraine are plain wrong, just parroting enemy propaganda. He's gullibly fallen for the same misinformation peddled by Russia years ago that led to lefties into waving Palestine flags, supporting the IRA and believing communism is not the same as fascism, when it's actually the same thing.

He now has made Tesla a toxic brand.

Wanton acts of violence and destruction are usually left to young men in their twenties. Folks at middle age usually have too much to lose, but, it seems, not so much with these people.

My worry is, this is just a sign this is going to get worse. Especially as it is being cheered and these people are being regaled as some kind of hero by the younger set.

@Jadith

I doubt this middle aged person had much to lose

[1]"Lucy" article in New York Post

Quote: A 42-year-old transgender woman who allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at vehicles and spray-painted “Nazi cars” at a Colorado Tesla dealership lives with her mother due to “emotional problems” and calls herself “baby” online.

[1] https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/trans-tesla-vandal-who-allegedly-threw-molotov-cocktails-at-cars-lives-with-mom-and-calls-himself-a-baby-sources/

I LOVE Tesler!!!

PS: This is a joke, for those who don’t recognise who/what and when the above refers to.

Hmm, I wonder why the Supreme Court recently had to invent the concept of "presidential immunity" then?

Or why lots of rioters got pardoned a few weeks ago?

To be clear, I think all violence is bad, but such extreme double standards don't give any right to take the moral high ground. Just don't be stupid enough to believe that because some awful people have got away with awful stuff that you will be able to too.

"had to invent"

They did not invent it, it has always been there.

"rioters got pardoned"

Many of those 'rioters' were arrested for simply being on the Capitol grounds and had not taken part in any violence or damage to any property. People who fire bombed police cars during the summer of love got far more lenient sentences as they were of the same political tribe as the DA and judges.

"While we will defend the public's right to peaceful protest, we will not hesitate to act when protest crosses the line into violence and mayhem," said Acting US Attorney Brook Andrews for the District of South Carolina. "These kinds of attacks have no place in our community.

"We are grateful for the prompt response of our first responders and law enforcement. We must remain united in our commitment to safety and respect for all, regardless of political differences."

Uttered (bleated?) by the same outfit trying to deport Mamoud Khalil, for engaging in exactly the kind of "peaceful protest" that they are banging on about.

"Do as I say, not as I do!"

Except that he was encouraging the violence that happened at the university and expressing support for a terrorist group.

What can be seen from this thread is that political violence is entirely acceptable in one direction but not in the other. I am sure that the Democrat voting Tesla owners who have had their cars damaged or destroyed are really supportive of the cause and will continue to vote blue.