Hit & Run Killer In San Francisco Claims "I AM A TERRORIST"

The news, at least as the MSM is comfortable reporting it.

The driver in a bloody hit-and-run spree that killed one man and injured more than a dozen people was mentally unstable and feeling stress from a recent arranged marriage, according to relatives.

Omeed A. Popal, 29, was taken into custody Tuesday following a rampage that terrorized pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Authorities believe it began more than an hour earlier when his black Honda Pilot fatally struck a man in the East Bay area.

"He drove on sidewalks, streets, hit people on crosswalks. It runs the gamut," said police spokesman Sgt. Neville Gittens.

Popal was arrested on suspicion of 14 counts of attempted murder and a charge of willful flight after causing serious injury or death, Gittens said.

A woman who identified herself as Popal's cousin said he had been having recurring nightmares about someone coming to kill him and had been taking medication.

"He thought the devil was coming to him," said Zargona Ramish, who went to the family's home Tuesday afternoon while Popal's relatives were speaking with police. "He is a very good person. He is not like that. What's wrong with him?"

Another cousin, Hamid Nekrawesh, said a recent arranged marriage in Afghanistan, where his family is from, may have contributed to Popal's problems.

"The kid grew up here. He wasn't used to the lifestyle in Afghanistan. I'm sure that put a lot of pressure on him," Nekrawesh said.

Obviously terrorism is a suspected motive -- being nuts does not preclude one from being a terrorist; indeed, it's a nice bullet-point to have on one's resume -- by virtually everyone except those in the MSM. A suspicion is hardly proof, but, as per usual, the MSM refuses to even acknowlege the possibility of an elephant in the room.

Elephant? Nah. Just one of those "juveniles."

They guy may just be crazy. The fact that he sped around the vacinity of a Jewish Community Center may be a coincidence. Still, the absurd speed with which the government and media begin chanting "Move along, move along, nothing to see here folks" is shocking. Did I say shocking? I meant "entirely expected."

I have a tip from a reader that I cannot confirm. (Update: CONFIRMED.) I wouldn't publish it, except... well, if Mayor Gavin Newsom is going to report that it's just a mere case of "road rage" before any investigation, why should I be more responsible than he is?

Again, this is an unconfirmed confirmed tip based on someone's memory of a breaking news story a viewable news report. For your edification, here's Kevin's tip:

his guys first victim was right outside my neighborhood, then he drove 30+ miles into San Francisco [paid the bridge toll, and waited in traffic] then picked a central area in which to find lots of people out walking around, where he then ran down 13 other people with his car [an evil honda SUV].

On the local TV news last night, an eyewitness told the tv reporter that when the police took him out of the car, he claimed he was a terrorist.... it has
been the only mention of this, and the press is bending over backwards to make this guy out to be mentally ill, I think something fishy might be going
on...

Again, mentally ill does not equal "not a terrorist."

And here's the video... in which the eyewitness says "I am the terrorist" at the end of the clip.

Via JihadWatch. Thanks to readers for pointing it out.

PS: The government, media, and the left use the word "terrorist" in the most restrictive sense possible -- as an international terrorist, working in cooperation with a major terrorist organization.

By such a definition, a single loan nut can never be a "terrorist." And that's a fine definition.

But generally the law recognizes "terrorism" to be any criminal act undertaken with the intent to frighten, intimidate, or, well, "terrorize" a community. If a single loan nut lights a cross in front of a black church-- well, he can be charged with a a terror-related crime.

A single loan nut making death-threats over the phone can be charged with a terroristic threat.

I know the idiot liberals are going to attack the "scaredy-cat" conservatives for employing the second (and technically, legally accurate) definition of terrorist here, while they cling to their (recently-invented, inaccuarate) gloss on the term; such is idiocy.

But rather than getting bogged down in semantics, I just want to know: Did this guy, unbalanced or not, see his action as part of a jihad against the West? A way to lash out at the Great Satan?

I don't know if this guy was just acting out of rage or a particular sort of Islam inspired rage.

If I could trust the MSM to give me the facts about it, it's possible I could just rule the latter out and say, along with Gavin Newsom, "Just another lone nut."

But I can't trust the MSM, so I can't exclude that possibility.

Update: That possibility is now more than a "possibility."

posted by Ace at 01:21 PM

| Access Comments