Oh, come on Stat, he was known to officials, for crying out loud. What are the odds he did it for another reason? If that were not known, then yes, it would have been.
Listen to this from the article:
"The motives behind the attack were not immediately known"
Read more:
U.S. Marines prevent massacre on board French high-speed train
International political correctness
The chances that it was islamic terror are pretty much 100%, but the sentence
at this time is absolutely correct. This was the judicial system cannot be charged with prejudice when it does come to trial.
You understand this, right?
Please tell me that your mind is not too weak to understand this. Thanks.
You are missing the point. The statement is a juristic way for the police to CYA, so that then it comes time for the trial, the defense cannot claim that prejudice was involved. If the police say at the current time "the motives behind the attack were not immediately known" and then can later provide evidence of all sorts, including telephone conversations, SMSs, the whole works, to prove it was islamic terror (which is exactly what it was), then they will udate that sentence.
How they are doing it is absolutely right and helps to guarantee that that islamic terrorist bastard will be found guilty. They are removing one more possibility for him to get off the hook.
This is not about politics. It's about the law.
