Tesla vehicles vandalized across US since Musk began White House role

[Bradskii]

Someone just named the terrorist attacks Telsanacht.

Seems appropriate - have a political opponent - use violence and intimidation to silence him - then rejoice when his business and all his employees suffer.

Is this really the type of politics we want applauded and used?

Well, my last post was something of a waste of my time.

No, it's not 'the type of politics we want applauded'. Because one, we don't want it applauded. And two, it isn't politics! It's violence. It's vandalism. It's not 'political comment'. But neither is your post either. You're just scoring points. Hey, check that out! Stuck it to the Left again! Chalk it up, boys!

 

[partinobodycular]

But we all agree that violence and destruction of property is wrong. Period.

You and I generally agree on such things, but on this point I'm afraid that we don't. Passivity isn't always the answer, and property damage as a form of civil disobedience isn't always improper. People have a right to express themselves, and for those whose voices might otherwise seem to go unheard, civil disobedience is a justifiable course of action. The powers that be would no doubt disagree, but they're generally part of the problem to begin with.

Some people will acquiesce to being unheard... others won't. To vilify them for that is simply to oppress the already disenfranchised.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Terrorist attacks??

Holy hyperbole Batman!

If we're being completely fair, this does meet the technical definition of terrorism (that is, criminal violence perpetrated for a political purpose). That said, vandalism is pretty low on the scale of "criminal violence."

 

[Belk]

You and I generally agree on such things, but on this point I'm afraid that we don't. Passivity isn't always the answer, and property damage as a form of civil disobedience isn't always improper. People have a right to express themselves, and for those whose voices might otherwise seem to go unheard, civil disobedience is a justifiable course of action. The powers that be would no doubt disagree, but they're generally part of the problem to begin with.

Some people will acquiesce to being unheard... others won't. To vilify them for that is simply to oppress the already disenfranchised.

I'm not seeing burning some poor schmucks tesla just because Elon is doing stupid stuff as civil disobedience. That generally involves breaking the law in such a way as to voluntarily suffer the consequences to prove the injustice. This looks much more like angry vandalism.

 

[probinson]

Terrorist attacks??

Yep.

What falls under 'domestic terrorism'​

The U.S. doesn't have a stand-alone federal domestic terrorism law. But at least 32 states and Washington, D.C., have their own state-level domestic terrorism laws. The FBI defines domestic terrorism as, "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."​

​

People might look at vandalism at a Tesla dealership and question whether it's terrorism, says Hoffman. ​

​

But going back to the 1990s, the FBI, as the lead agency responsible for investigating terrorism in the United States, has investigated acts of vandalism and arson like those committed by eco-terrorism groups and treated them as domestic terrorism, he says.​

​

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5333315/tesla-attacks-ag-bondi-domestic-terrorism-trump-musk

​

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I don't know any MAGA people who own Teslas. The left are vandalizing the left.

Plenty of techbros would own them, but I agree with you - vandalising people's cars is stupid, no matter who is doing it.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

the left riots all over the country in 2020, burns police stations, shoots people in the streets, causes hundreds of millions in property damage, while Democratic lawmakers cheer it on. And this comes after the storming of the Wisconsin capitol

so you tell me who is "sending the message" that this type of behavior is acceptable

Were those people given presidential pardons?

Trump is sending the message that this kind of behaviour is acceptable, by handing out pardons to January 6th criminals.

 

[BPPLEE]

Were those people given presidential pardons?

Trump is sending the message that this kind of behaviour is acceptable, by handing out pardons to January 6th criminals.

Most of those people were never charged but many who were arrested were paid thousands after lawsuits

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-pay-13-million-protesters-arrested-during-george-floyd-protests-2023-07-20/#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%2C%20July%2020%20(Reuters,protesters%20in%20the%20United%20States.

The city agreed Wednesday to pay $9,950 to each of the more than 1,300 protesters arrested by New York police officers during various protests between May 28 and June 4, 2020, according to a release by the attorneys for the plaintiffs.
Also the people who were pardoned for Jan 6th had already served time or were still incarcerated when they were pardoned so it’s not true that they weren’t punished

 

[Always in His Presence]

Suspected Tesla arsonists hit with federal charges in acts of 'domestic terrorism': AG​

Tesla vehicles in Las Vegas set on fire with Molotov cocktails​

A suspect set several Tesla vehicles on fire Tuesday after launching multiple rounds of Molotov cocktails at a Tesla Collision Center in Las Vegas, police said. (Hal Sparks and Souphany Vannavong via Storyful)

 

[Always in His Presence]

DOJ Says Attacking Tesla Property Is ‘Domestic Terrorism’​

In the days since, the Trump administration has rallied behind Musk with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi denouncing the Tesla vandalism as a form of “domestic terrorism” and vowing to prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. Bondi made good on her promise on Thursday announcing that the Justice Department has levied charges against three people accused of using Molotov cocktails to destroy Tesla property.

 

[Lukaris]

Replacing them with links with whom?

Mostly in attitude with a shift towards American national ideals. Whatever military, cultural, economic, tourist etc. interactions can be lessened probably the better. Something spontaneous but not forceful or confrontational. A change that might be good for America as long as we do not leave Ukraine hanging and then try to move on.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm not seeing burning some poor schmucks tesla just because Elon is doing stupid stuff as civil disobedience

You're free to see it however you want to, this is America after all. Just keep in mind that what you see one way, someone else may see another way. But if I'm going to respect one person's right to civil disobedience, then I'm going to respect every person's right to civil disobedience. I will not grant to you, a right that I will not grant to someone else. For if I don't, then any claim of rights are moot.

 

[probinson]

You and I generally agree on such things, but on this point I'm afraid that we don't. Passivity isn't always the answer, and property damage as a form of civil disobedience isn't always improper. People have a right to express themselves, and for those whose voices might otherwise seem to go unheard, civil disobedience is a justifiable course of action. The powers that be would no doubt disagree, but they're generally part of the problem to begin with.

Some people will acquiesce to being unheard... others won't. To vilify them for that is simply to oppress the already disenfranchised.

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to set fire to or vandalize another person's vehicle under the guise of "civil disobedience".

Last I checked, vandalism and arson are crimes. If someone wants to misplace their rage on someone whose only crime is owning a Tesla vehicle, I suppose that's their prerogative. But they should be prepared to face the consequences for their criminal actions and not pretend like it's mere "civil disobedience".

 

[partinobodycular]

Mostly in attitude with a shift towards American national ideals.

You say that as if it's a good thing.

 

[Belk]

You're free to see it however you want to, this is America after all. Just keep in mind that what you see one way, someone else may see another way. But if I'm going to respect one person's right to civil disobedience, then I'm going to respect every person's right to civil disobedience. I will not grant to you, a right that I will not grant to someone else. For if I don't, then any claim of rights are moot.

I don't think there is a "right" to civil disobedience. That is kind of the whole reason civil disobedience exists is to point out those without equal rights.

 

[partinobodycular]

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to set fire to or vandalize another person's vehicle under the guise of "civil disobedience".

Your opinion is duly noted, hence the word disobedience.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think there is a "right" to civil disobedience.

There's always a right to civil disobedience, it just depends upon which side of the debate you're standing on.

 

[BPPLEE]

You're free to see it however you want to, this is America after all. Just keep in mind that what you see one way, someone else may see another way. But if I'm going to respect one person's right to civil disobedience, then I'm going to respect every person's right to civil disobedience. I will not grant to you, a right that I will not grant to someone else. For if I don't, then any claim of rights are moot.

Then you support the right of the 6th protesters who were just making their voices heard, to destroy property, that is to be consistent

 

[Belk]

There's always a right to civil disobedience, it just depends upon which side of the debate you're standing on.

I think we must be using different definitions of the word "right" then. My understanding of the term is couched in the bill of rights. I'm thinking you must be using it more broadly as in an action anyone can take to protest or something similar?

 

[Bradskii]

You and I generally agree on such things, but on this point I'm afraid that we don't. Passivity isn't always the answer, and property damage as a form of civil disobedience isn't always improper. People have a right to express themselves, and for those whose voices might otherwise seem to go unheard, civil disobedience is a justifiable course of action. The powers that be would no doubt disagree, but they're generally part of the problem to begin with.

Some people will acquiesce to being unheard... others won't. To vilify them for that is simply to oppress the already disenfranchised.

I can see that a peaceful protest can turn ugly. Opposing protestors. Police throwing their weight around. Emotions running high. I can see how it happens and I can see why it happens. But there's a difference between civil disobedience and storming the Capitol or firebombing a car dealership. Especially if it's planned in advance.

They're either both acceptable. Or not.