New York terror attack: Eight dead as pedestrians and cyclists deliberately hit by truck

[EnterpriseSovereign]

At least eight people have been killed and several injured when a pickup truck deliberately hit pedestrians in an incident described as a "cowardly" act of terrorism by New York's mayor.

A 29-year-old man was shot and arrested following the incident in Lower Manhattan shortly after 3pm on Tuesday.

Witnesses described seeing a vehicle driving down a popular cycling path near the World Trade Centre and hitting pedestrians.

He then emerged from the rental vehicle brandishing two handguns before being detained.

New York mayor Bill de Blasio said that early information pointed to an act of terrorism.

Eight people confirmed dead
Several left with serious injuries
Attacker brandished pellet gun and paint gun
Police say attacker was lone wolf
Mayor describes incident as "cowardly"
Says innocent civilians were deliberately targeted

Link.

[The Romulan Republic]

God damn it.

First, there's the immediate horror of the attack and its victims.

Then, there's what usually comes after: the standard parade of bigotry and authoritarian apologism targeted at Muslims.

It also occurs to me that this could hardly have been better-timed for a distraction for Donald Trump. No, I'm not suggesting a false flag conspiracy. But I expect him to use this as viciously as possible.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, both the immediate victims and the victims of the bigotry and despotism every such attack is used to fuel. For whatever good my thoughts and prayers will do.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well Trump is already threatening to send the suspect straight to Guantanamo, and ranting about immigration controls. It won't be long before he has another go at his Muslim travel ban...

[Tribble]

You know it's actually kind of amazing that it took so long for someone to come up with something as simple as "take truck and plow people over" as a tactic. It might not be quite as flashy as an explosion but it takes practically no planning, its very difficult to predict and counter, anyone that knows how to drive can do it and pretty much any working vehicle that has sufficient mass and can build up sufficient speed will do. As terrorist attacks go, it's pretty scary how effective it can be.

[Soontir C'boath]

^Yea, as far as my lifetime awareness goes, the NYPD would actually go as far as blame the pedestrians/bicyclists when a car/truck crashes into them and when they do go to trial, it's usually a slap on the wrist. Death by car has been accepted* for a long time no matter how much fault the driver holds and yet it was never in a person's mind to "intentionally" do this until the past year or so.

*I've joked once in awhile that if you wanted to murder someone, you can hire someone to crash their car into their target and stay at the scene. Cops will just blame the target instead.

________________
I just hope anti-bike people don't take this as a reason to not build bike lanes.

[TheFeniX]

You know it's actually kind of amazing that it took so long for someone to come up with something as simple as "take truck and plow people over" as a tactic. It might not be quite as flashy as an explosion but it takes practically no planning, its very difficult to predict and counter, anyone that knows how to drive can do it and pretty much any working vehicle that has sufficient mass and can build up sufficient speed will do. As terrorist attacks go, it's pretty scary how effective it can be.

The Home Depot route was... pretty fucking smart. They aren't Turbo Diesels or anything, but they're still V-8s and kept in pretty good repair. Unlike most normal car rental areas, they also don't really give two shits about who is renting them. You've got a valid Driver's License and insurance? You're behind the wheel in like 5-minutes. Don't have insurance? They'll sell you some in another 5 minutes. U-Haul is about the same way: they'll give anyone the keys to a 6 ton moving truck if they'll provide a valid Credit Card #.

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing. I also find myself in the "what the fuck do you even do to combat this?" area. What controls could you possibly put into place? You need a valid reason to rent a car/truck? Do we then extend into all those used car lots where a DL and cash gets you a car in under 30 minutes? The two I've dealt with will sell you short-term insurance on the spot. I mean, it's stupid expensive, but it's available.

[mr friendly guy]

You know it's actually kind of amazing that it took so long for someone to come up with something as simple as "take truck and plow people over" as a tactic. It might not be quite as flashy as an explosion but it takes practically no planning, its very difficult to predict and counter, anyone that knows how to drive can do it and pretty much any working vehicle that has sufficient mass and can build up sufficient speed will do. As terrorist attacks go, it's pretty scary how effective it can be.

Well suicide bombers drove trucks into US barracks in 1983. They augmented such an attack with bombs on the trucks, but it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out we don't need bombs to go against civilians.

A quick glance at wiki says the earliest known vehicle attack was in 1981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

So this type of attack has been known, but for some reason was never "popular" as a terrorist tactic until the recent spate of attacks.

[LaCroix]

Most likely due to the fact than this day and age, explosives are getting harder/impossible to get. You can't even buy fertilizer in any meaningful quantity without being scrutinized. And home-making stuff is hard to conceal and might not work properly unless you are trained thoroughly.

Everyone can get a car, though. Currently it is trucks. Once they get more scrutiny, it will be a pickup truck/SUV with deer bars.

And IF those get more attention, then we'll start see dedicated attack vehicles. Something like crash derby modifications, with reinforcements and moved parts to increase durability after impacts.

[Bedlam]

Could somebody with a better understanding of US law explain the original charges, 'destruction of a motor vehicle and providing material support for a terrorist organization.' the second is fairly understandable but the wording of the first seems odd. Is this just an odd way of saying death by dangerous driving? Or is it actually a crime to destroy a car? There doesn't seem to be any actual charge of murder or attempted murder, is this normal or does it in some way get folded into the material support of a terrorist organization charge?

[LaCroix]

Maybe they only listed the ones they are sure to stick with no wiggle room?

[TheFeniX]

There are "destruction of private property" laws specific to motor vehicles. And since this was a rental, it wasn't his to destroy. Could be an "and jaywalking" type of deal, as said: hit him with whatever they can.

[Zixinus]

There is also the extreme case of the "Killdozer", where someone reinforced a bulldozer to make it effectively bulletproof. The thing was though, is that case was about revenge rather than terrorism, as the targets were mostly places that wronged the owner.

But getting bulldozers into private hands is pretty rare.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Marvin Heemyer

This guy had clearly put a lot of thought and effort into modifying the machine; his rampage would have continued had he not fucked up and gotten stuck.

[Vendetta]

There is also the extreme case of the "Killdozer", where someone reinforced a bulldozer to make it effectively bulletproof. The thing was though, is that case was about revenge rather than terrorism, as the targets were mostly places that wronged the owner.

But getting bulldozers into private hands is pretty rare.

The other thing is that bulldozers don't really do anything suddenly. Vehicle attacks like this one work because even quite heavy vehicles like vans and trucks are capable of quite suddenly accelerating to speeds where collisions with pedestrians are fatal and capable of suddenly turning into the path of those pedestrians.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

There is also the extreme case of the "Killdozer", where someone reinforced a bulldozer to make it effectively bulletproof. The thing was though, is that case was about revenge rather than terrorism, as the targets were mostly places that wronged the owner.

But getting bulldozers into private hands is pretty rare.

The other thing is that bulldozers don't really do anything suddenly. Vehicle attacks like this one work because even quite heavy vehicles like vans and trucks are capable of quite suddenly accelerating to speeds where collisions with pedestrians are fatal and capable of suddenly turning into the path of those pedestrians.

In this case, quite a few of the casualties were cyclists as well- news footage showed several wrecked bikes at the scene.

[Sea Skimmer]

Could somebody with a better understanding of US law explain the original charges, 'destruction of a motor vehicle and providing material support for a terrorist organization.' the second is fairly understandable but the wording of the first seems odd. Is this just an odd way of saying death by dangerous driving? Or is it actually a crime to destroy a car?

Crime to intentionally destroy a vehicle on the road. The media is cutting corners on wording is why the first one is a bit confusing. The actual law written on the charge, I downloaded it, reads text 'Violence and Destruction of Motor Vehicles' and cites damage to both the vehicle he was driving and vehicles he struck while conducting the attack. This charge is extra relevant because the Home Depot truck is considered a commercial vehicle engaged in interstate commerce, and provides part of the basis for making this a federal FBI rather then state case. If he had used his own private car the FBI wouldn't have that got'em to go on. Though his blatant support for Islamic Fail simplifies that matter anyway.

There doesn't seem to be any actual charge of murder or attempted murder, is this normal or does it in some way get folded into the material support of a terrorist organization charge?

The present indictment from the US FBI does not include the murder charges because they are not intrinsically federal crimes when no employee of the federal government was killed on duty. On their own they are matters for state and local courts. Material support for designated terrorists meanwhile, in this case the act of carrying out the attack, regardless if anyone was hurt, is the matter being charged by the FBI.

Once the investigation gets further what will probably happen is state murder charges are filed, and then the Feds will find some excuse to roll them into the federal case but NY state may resist allowing that.

[Sea Skimmer]

So this type of attack has been known, but for some reason was never "popular" as a terrorist tactic until the recent spate of attacks.

Because its such a obviously pathetic tactic with more or less 100% probability of capture/kill of the terrorist is why, and unlike a hostage taking or other low level kinds of attack, it's also typically going to be a short lived event. Terrorism is predicated on creating disproportionate effect meanwhile. The flash matters because otherwise all the living people might realize that terrorism sucks, but fast food is way more likely to kill you. This is why terrorism tends to not accomplish anything in favor of the terrorists unless its only required to function as an adjunt to a conventional or near conventional military campaign. Islamic State exists as a mechanized field army, that's kind of its whole shock and flash thing already established. Once that's gone, which it might be by seriously the end of November, these sort of attacks will almost certainly taper off; long term the inspiration to plain crazy people is more troublesome then terrorists proper.

The disproportionate effect (in favor of the terrorist goals) has been blatantly dis-proven as being effective world wide, but naturally some people never got the message, which yeah no surprise, see the moon landing hoax believers for the level of logic some humans engage in day to day. Leaving THAT aside, all else being equal the less flashy and sudden the method, the less effective it is, even if you're dumb enough to believe terrorism can work. So running people over will always be a low order tactic.

Nice was very effective in terrorism terms, more or less ideal target, but most driving attacks are not, a number of them in Israel killed nobody but the terrorist as did that one in the US a decade ago. And many ideal high payoff target locations like that boardwalk at Nice actually are already protected against this sort of event by bollards, if only to avoid accidents, or else out of prior concern over vehicle bombs.

Driving attacks are dangerous because yeah, nothing can completely stop them, but I mean, seriously, any form of terrorism which actually makes you question if it was terrorism on a factual basis when you first hear about it is kinda not going to change the world right? Terrorists tend to be stupid, a lot of things could happen but that remains the number one defense against it. Smart people want to do things that matter. Some terrorists are smart, but that's how you get Bin Laden always trying to conduct progressively more massive attacks, because he realized that 'more of the same' wouldn't matter, and if each attack wasn't bigger then the last one it was a waste of time. He wrote all that crap out at great length. Wasn't exactly wrong, but because he was unprepared for the success of September 11th he also got way more reaction then he expected and ended up being sidelined with no exit strategy from US most wanted ever.

[Simon_Jester]

Another point about the 'flash' aspect is that these car attacks are not only "wait was this terrorism or an accident" territory, but even when you know they're intentional terrorism, everyone knows anyone can do that. Like, virtually anyone, any time, could do such a thing in theory.

Most people don't know how to make a huge bomb, or send a mail bomb. Most people don't have an arsenal of guns they could stage a mass shooting with. These things provoke terror and spectacle in part because there's at least some psychological distance between the average citizen and the means of launching the attack.

By contrast, a guy who rents a pickup truck and hits people with it is doing something we all know a murderous jackass could do without difficulty. It's... unimpressive, lacking 'flash' as you say.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing. I also find myself in the "what the fuck do you even do to combat this?" area. What controls could you possibly put into place? You need a valid reason to rent a car/truck? Do we then extend into all those used car lots where a DL and cash gets you a car in under 30 minutes? The two I've dealt with will sell you short-term insurance on the spot. I mean, it's stupid expensive, but it's available.

In Israel, you have concrete bumps along the sides of most major pedestrian roads inside cities, presumably because of this.
There have been a few incidents like this here, mostly involving construction bulldozers (which can just plow through other cars, never mind concrete bumps).

[mr friendly guy]

In regards to the "flashiness" of the terrorist tactic which Skimmer and SJ brought up, I wonder if its necessarily for who they are trying to target with the act of terrorism, and I am not referring to the victims here. If one of the goals is to polarise society between Muslims and non Muslims, frankly it wouldn't need to be flashy. At least if you look at right wing talking points. It just needs to kill people and then you'll have the "oh its another Islam attack," from the same people.

[TheFeniX]

In Israel, you have concrete bumps along the sides of most major pedestrian roads inside cities, presumably because of this.
There have been a few incidents like this here, mostly involving construction bulldozers (which can just plow through other cars, never mind concrete bumps).

What about parking lots? Just in my area alone, there's a HUGE theatre that people clump up around the front "drop-off" road, with only a curb separating them from the street. You could literally just give it a bit of gas and turn the wheel and... man, I don't even want to think about it. What about "just another guy waiting in line to pick up his kid from school?" Sure, the line is bumper to bumper, but once you get into the lot, there's plenty of room to manuver. And it takes next to nothing to get up to 15+MPH and start running people over.

[ray245]

In regards to the "flashiness" of the terrorist tactic which Skimmer and SJ brought up, I wonder if its necessarily for who they are trying to target with the act of terrorism, and I am not referring to the victims here. If one of the goals is to polarise society between Muslims and non Muslims, frankly it wouldn't need to be flashy. At least if you look at right wing talking points. It just needs to kill people and then you'll have the "oh its another Islam attack," from the same people.

The aims of terrorism seem to be trying to validate the "clash of civilisation" between the East and the West. They have been extremely successful in creating division within society, no matter how hard people are trying to fight against it.

People will react more emotionally to such attacks than any rational arguments. It's creating a crisis of confidence within multi-religious society because you are getting more and more people to believe that co-existence is not possible without conflict.

[Ace Pace]

In Israel, you have concrete bumps along the sides of most major pedestrian roads inside cities, presumably because of this.
There have been a few incidents like this here, mostly involving construction bulldozers (which can just plow through other cars, never mind concrete bumps).

What about parking lots? Just in my area alone, there's a HUGE theatre that people clump up around the front "drop-off" road, with only a curb separating them from the street. You could literally just give it a bit of gas and turn the wheel and... man, I don't even want to think about it. What about "just another guy waiting in line to pick up his kid from school?" Sure, the line is bumper to bumper, but once you get into the lot, there's plenty of room to manuver. And it takes next to nothing to get up to 15+MPH and start running people over.

Wrong approach. You're looking for binary solutions while mitigations are "lets complicate the attempt". If now a terrorist has to work his way into a parking lot and find enough room to speed and crash into people, then that'll work. But that's a lot less likely than just anywhere on the street.

[Zixinus]

The scary bent of this is that this is another "self-inspired" terror attack, at least if I read these facts right: this guy just watched videos and wasn't actually contacted by ISIS. ISIS did nothing but upload the videos. It did nothing to make this happen or spend much non-renewable resources. This guy decided to do this on his own. How the hell do they get an average guy to start thinking "killing as much as possible random strangers is a good thing!"?

[The Grim Squeaker]

In Israel, you have concrete bumps along the sides of most major pedestrian roads inside cities, presumably because of this.
There have been a few incidents like this here, mostly involving construction bulldozers (which can just plow through other cars, never mind concrete bumps).

What about parking lots? Just in my area alone, there's a HUGE theatre that people clump up around the front "drop-off" road, with only a curb separating them from the street. You could literally just give it a bit of gas and turn the wheel and... man, I don't even want to think about it. What about "just another guy waiting in line to pick up his kid from school?" Sure, the line is bumper to bumper, but once you get into the lot, there's plenty of room to manuver. And it takes next to nothing to get up to 15+MPH and start running people over.

Wrong approach. You're looking for binary solutions while mitigations are "lets complicate the attempt". If now a terrorist has to work his way into a parking lot and find enough room to speed and crash into people, then that'll work. But that's a lot less likely than just anywhere on the street.

E.g. cover schools, major "juicy targets" and some main streets, and you've covered 80%. The last 20% might be harder, but it's amazing how much you can prevent by making things take just a bit more effort (see: the case of the suicide bridge and the guardrail)