… Law enforcement sources told CBS News that the Cybertruck was rented to Matthew Alan Livelsberger, an active duty U.S. Army servicemember who was serving in Germany but was on leave in Colorado at the time of the incident. CBS News spoke to two relatives of Livelsberger who were unaware of any involvement in the incident, but who confirmed he had rented a Cybertruck. One relative told CBS News that Livelsberger’s wife had not heard from him in several days.
McMahill said gasoline canisters, camp fuel canisters and large firework mortars were found in the back of the vehicle after the explosion, which occurred about 15 seconds after the vehicle pulled in front of the building. It’s still unclear how the explosives were ignited, he said.
Let’s get this straight: I feel in no way terrorized by anyone targeting the rich or any right-wingers / right-wing politicians. Zero percent terror. Stop calling the thing that makes everyone happy “terror.”
That tracks. They can’t determine if it’s terrorism until they know the perpetrator’s skin color.
White? Conservative? Has lots of guns? Republican?
Just mental illness, depression, etc.
Anything else? Terrorism or career criminal because they stole a snickers a couple times, or had gang affiliation,
Everything is a terrorist attack now. Jaywalk? That’s terrorism on drivers. Checkout with 11 items in a 10 item lane, instant death penalty. Watch out for the speeding terrorism charges, cops can shoot on sight.
It’s only terrorism when it threatens the oligarchs
Are you suggesting that investigating a potential car bombing as terrorism is a case of “stretching the definition too far”?
The word is thrown out a lot without following any clear definition. The guy the FBI just raided with the most bombs ever threatened Kamala and yet no terrorism charge. Luigi supposedly shot a guy, terrorism charges. Maybe they should investigate first and then come to a conclusion if it’s a terrorist action or just a splashy suicide or even just an unbelievable accident.
Luigi didn’t kill anyone. He was with me the entire time.
Possible lame act of terrorism. Although I do commend the driver for ridding the world of a Cybertruck.
Even if it was symbolic it feels weird.
Kerosene and gas? Fireworks? Sounds more like a party in the desert. Also the gas can was an old metal gas can- there’s a reason you can’t really get those anymore. (Hint- they leak and blow up your truck.)
No obvious mechanism and the timing? Sure he could have lit a fuse with a lighter, but, eh. Just as easily have been a faulty electrical system setting off a spark.
Also Tesla/musk has good motive to want it to be intentional. (cybertrucks already have safety problems. And a lot of them have to do with bad wiring.)
Trump has good reason to want to push this guy as a terrorist- namely the drama.
I said this in another thread- a gas can could have also been for a diesel generator, which people do bring with them when they camp and might do so even if they are also bringing along a Cybertruck. Who knows? If it was a terrorist attack, it was a shitty one so it’s not worth worrying about. If it wasn’t a terrorist attack, just some lone crazy, they did a bad job, so it’s not worth worrying about. Any other possibilities: still really not worth worrying about.
But I’m sure that won’t stop the pundits from worrying about it.
Good point on the generator thing.
But yeah. At worst this was some kinda weird symbolic thing rather than a “try to kill as many people as I can” thing.
At worst this was some kinda weird symbolic thing rather than a “try to kill as many people as I can” thing.
These are not exclusive. Killing people could have been the intention - it’s possible that it just blew up on him earlier than intended.
He parked it in the valet drive.
Not something somebody who wants a body count would necessarily do; compared to driving it into a lobby.
Aside from a cybertruck being shit at off road; it’s very heavy and there’s no bollards or other barriers to stop him.
Is it a possibility? Sure.
But it’s also a possibility that he had the kero and gas for other reasons like a party in the desert, and it was all just an accident.
Apparently he was a self avowed “defender of fireworks” and seemed to be, how shall we say, an ardent trump supporter.
Apparently he was a self avowed “defender of fireworks” and seemed to be, how shall we say, an ardent trump supporter.
This won’t stop the Faux News peanut gallery from painting him as an antifa left wing communist Venezuela Democrat who wants to murder babies and spend your money on drugs for the homeless!
They’ll never pass an opportunity to shove as much bullshit as possible into any situation. :/
you’re not wrong, but lets just be honest here, half the time they’re just making shit up anyways.
Even a pinhole of rust in a Jerry can will leak gas into the cabin, faster if shaken on the drive to the hotel. At that point any exposed arc, even just a simple loose ground, could cause the explosion.
He kept the can in the cabin?? Like not the bed? Of the truck?
It’s a cyber truck, the two share the same space, I believe
Oh I thought it still had a separate bed though like a traditional pickup. 🤷 what do I know.
From the pics I’ve seen, there is a bed liner, but nothing that would keep fumes at bay, like a compartment divider, was in place.
There’s a barrier between them which includes a window. It was sealed until the bomb went off
No, it wasn’t “terrorism” but America loves throwing that word around because we all get a hard-on for hating people and witch hunts. They also claim Luigi was making some terrorism, except a focused killing of one person, I believe, is simply called a murder.
As another mentioned, Occam’s razor, but, a different Occam perhaps.
It was a protest, much like monks who immolate themselves have done in the past. Although kinda glad he shot himself, as burning alive does not sound like a fun way to protest.
Evidence:
- Dude was a Green Beret and shot himself before it completely caught fire.
- Prez Ellon’s car
- Orange corpse’s hotel, duh.
Protest against where America is headed or something around that, but it was definitely meant as simply a message, not a mass-killing, not terrorism.
Hell, even add in a dash of Clark County’s (Las Vegas) election results have been highly questioned among all the swing states, although that is a complete stretch leaving Occam’s razor territory and should be disregarded as such.
Had they wanted to harm a large group of people, they would have at least driven it into the entrance and torched the car in the lobby, not parked it outside.
LEO likely has a good picture of everything going on throughout the trip leading up to the fire. Those cars harvest everything. They are connected to AT&T and broadcast telematics the whole time they are on, and also while “off.” When they are off, they record and transmit video footage from all the cameras on the car back to Tesla’s cloud. Tesla has, likely, a very accurate picture of everything that happened with that car up until it burned, unless the dude disabled the cellular modem.
The definition of terrorism is using fear of violence as a political motivator, and I think we all agree that Luigi was trying to make a political statement through the use of violence. Agree or disagree with his message, that was his methodology.
But yes, in this case, this was a self-immolation protest, with no goal of causing fear. Even if a monk accidentally sets a bystander on fire as a result of demonstration, that is an accident, and no one has any reason to be afraid the monk will come for them next.
I think Luigi if guilty was making a commercial statement. He allegedly attacked the health fund with the highest rate of claim denials with bullets marked with a statement about how they don’t serve their customers fairly
Hey, you know what, I wanted to go check my own bias here. It looks like I use the late 20th century and the contemporary definition of “terrorism”, with a mental angle, apparently. Fascinating that the definition apparently shifts over time.
Used GPT to look up the etymology over history for that. (So the obvious grain of salt, but usually definition lookups are fairly straightforward.)
- 18th Century: It referred to the use of violence by a government to instill fear and maintain control.
- 19th Century: The use of violence by non-state actors to overthrow governments or achieve political aims.
- Early 20th Century: Violent acts, often targeting military or symbolic sites, conducted by groups seeking self-determination.
- Mid 20th Century: Cold War Era: Acts of violence committed by both state-sponsored groups and non-state actors aimed at political subversion.
- Late 20th Century: Violence targeting non-combatants, often involving hostage-taking, plane hijackings, or bombings.
- Post-9/11: The use or threat of violence by non-state actors to instill fear, coerce governments, and advance political, religious, or ideological goals.
- Contemporary: Violence aimed at civilians to intimidate or coerce for political, ideological, or religious purposes.
The angle part is, CEOs aren’t civilians based on how the government treats them, how they are trumping up charges that a true civilian would never see happen, and how they always seem to escape the law unless they are caught doing tax evasion. They, like the three branches of Federal government, and movie stars, get to live well outside the laws that we mere peasants have to follow.
Not trying to be contrarian either, I agree, it was likely a political statement through the use of violence.
If this guy is a terrorist then he’s a pretty stupid one. Either way my money is on stupid.
He owned a cybertruck, that’s a safe bet
I’d read it was rented but even renting one qualifies as an act of stupidity.
Does it? If it was a deliberate attack to send the obvious message (“fuck you” to both VP Trump and President Musk), the vehicle choice would be pretty important.
Exploding yourself in a Honda Civic doesn’t say the same thing even if it has about the same amount of space for fireworks
Using fireworks? Yeah, I feel like it does qualify as stupid whether it was intentional or not lol.
They were an idiot for sure but renting a Cybertruck isn’t one of the reasons why
Gonna go ahead and disagree with you there champ.
All right lol
He rented the truck.
Gas cannisters, camp fuel, and fire works. Look of all the random shit that could be considered terrorist related, that just sounds like a redneck prepping to drive out into the Vegas mountains and have a good time.
It’s being investigated. They didn’t take one look at the fireworks and go “yup, terrorism.”
Someone loaded up a Cybertruck with explosives and flammable materials and then it blew up in front of a Trump-branded building. Not investigating whether it was an attempt at terrorism would be far more eyebrow-raising.
Someone pulled up in front of the Trump hotel, detonated their explosives and shot themselves.
Yes, and? Terrorism requires a particular intent. This could just have been a result of mental illness, or some other such motivation.
I’m not saying it is or isn’t. Just that it’s reasonable for it to be investigated as such.
It’s also straight up things that an entertainment company might bring to a gig
Apparently a detonation device, too. While a redneck might have fun blowing stuff up out in the back 40, I think the combination of items and location don’t make this a camping trip.
He probably just set off some of the fireworks before he shot himself.
I will be invoking Occam and Hanlon’s razors on this incident.
1). The simplist answer is usually the correct one.
2). Never attribute to malice what can accuratly be explained by stupidity and incompitence.
Based on the entities who would like the narrative to be anything other than an accident, im not inclined to believe any reports unless they can validate their findings and prove they dont have interests that align with musk or 47, until such a time I believe it was not intentional, likely a manufacturers defect (which are common for that vehicle anyway).
It was a manufacturer’s defect that the truck was loaded with explosives, fireworks, and a detonator? And I’m not talking about the car battery, that was uninvolved.
Was there a detonator? Pretty sure the article says they are still unsure how it ignited.
It had kerosene, an old metal gas can, and a bunch of fireworks. Those could very easily be supplies for a New Years party in the desert.
One generally does not shoot themselves in the head when going to party in the desert.
Shit, is that where I’ve been going wrong?
Like I get we don’t know everything at this point, but a lot of comments saying it could be an accident seem to be glossing over the fact the guy shot himself in the head just before it blew up.
That part wasn’t announced until this afternoon, so it’s understandable.
Depends on the crowd you’re hanging out with.
I hope he got the rental insurance.
I don’t know that it would be of much use to him at this point.
