# Charlottesville Driver May have Been Panicked into Losing Control of His Car



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.

It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



Yes. every time I feel a bump on the left rear of my car, I end up running over people and killing as many as I can.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 13, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


It's the instinctive thing to do.


----------



## BlackFlag (Aug 13, 2017)

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they were actually just panicked into losing control of their Navy


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 13, 2017)

Perhaps.....but department of memes and 4chan don't seem like the most reliable sources (even if you consider major news networks to be unreliable), and the extremely short video clips are pretty unconvincing either way.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2017)

BlackFlag said:


> When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they were actually just panicked into losing control of their Navy



Somebody hit it with a bat.


----------



## BlackFlag (Aug 13, 2017)

The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions


----------



## Pogo (Aug 13, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



--- and then peeling out in reverse to get away.

No doubt it was slipping on a banana peel that caused him to pose with the Vanguard shield and all that shit beforehand too.  A mere accident.

Holy SHIT the hoops some apologists will jump through........


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2017)

BlackFlag said:


> The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions


So you think that nervously and unintentionally stepping on the gas too hard is equal to a protracted genocidal strategy?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Perhaps.....but department of memes and 4chan don't seem like the most reliable sources (even if you consider major news networks to be unreliable), and the extremely short video clips are pretty unconvincing either way.


That is why there is a video so you can see for yourself, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions
> ...


No, he doesnt think at all.

Where'd you get such an idea for a leftwing Nazi?


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2017)

Pogo said:


> --- and then peeling out in reverse to get away.


Fearful reaction.  He thought the crowd would lynch him.  

If this fellow didn't blow it already by answering a lot of questions before a lawyer got to him he stands a very good chance of walking away.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions
> ...



I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps.....but department of memes and 4chan don't seem like the most reliable sources (even if you consider major news networks to be unreliable), and the extremely short video clips are pretty unconvincing either way.
> ...



Yep. The car traveled another block before it stopped.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2017)

The murdering little bastard will get his day in court. Don't think it will go well for him.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > --- and then peeling out in reverse to get away.
> ...


Nah, he will get manslaughter at a minimum as he has a responsibility to control his vehicle at all times.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 13, 2017)

BlackFlag said:


> The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions


Hyperbole, but it made me laugh.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 13, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



Just last Thursday I accidentally dressed up with a Vanguard shield, wrote a lot of bigot rant on Nosebook and then rammed a line of parked cars before tearing back up the hill in reverse.  

Hey, the transmission got stuck.  It happens.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

Si modo said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions
> ...


His spelling of 'Holicaust' was much funnier.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.


I'm thinking three or four (or more) incidents I've seen on tv news of someone who accidentally stepped on the gas and drove right through a wall or store window.  It happens a _lot,_ and all this fellow's lawyer(s) need to do is collect as many examples as they can find and, provided this fellow hasn't already hung himself by talking, he stands a very good chance of being acquitted of the first degree murder he's charged with.  Unless he confesses, or unless there is strong evidence that he planned it, he can walk free.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2017)

Pogo said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...




I hate it when that happens.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Just last Thursday I accidentally dressed up with a Vanguard shield, wrote a lot of bigot rant on Nosebook and then rammed a line of parked cars before tearing back up the hill in reverse.
> 
> Hey, the transmission got stuck.  It happens.


That can hurt him but it's not absolute proof of anything.  And the criminal law operates on solid evidence, not opinion or circumstantial factors.  Especially in sensational cases like this one.  

E.g., O.J. Simpson.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 13, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.
> ...



Doubtful after driving that fast and that far down a crowded street, unless he can prove his brakes didn't work.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 13, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


I've been in an accident once. Just a fender bender. Therefore, anyone whose "accident" involves a fatality is actually a murderer. Can't possibly kill someone unintentionally if *I *haven't done so!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.
> ...


Old Shits is such an goofball, roflmao


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 13, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I got startled once when I hit a curb. Accidentally hit the gas instead of brake. If the curb hadn't been that tall, I'd have kept going, maybe hitting someone.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


If it is an accident. But this was no accident. The murdering bastard purposely drove into that crowd.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 13, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> I've been in an accident once. Just a fender bender. Therefore, anyone whose "accident" involves a fatality is actually a murderer.



Jeebus, that is simply completely and totally wrong.

An accidental killing is manslaughter not 1st degree murder.

roflmao


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



A city block ahead?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Well, this old goofball earns his way. At 73, the last two weeks in July worked 12 twelve hour shifts in 15 days. As a millwright in a steel mill. And the temps were hitting 90 to 110, outside. How about you, earn your way?

It is pretty evident from all the witnesses that the miscreant purposely drove into that crowd. One questioned not answered is why he was driving down that street at all, as it was obviously blocked from the demonstration. I think there is a good case here for first degree murder.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


That's what it looks like, anyway. If I were surrounded by a bunch of morons hitting my car like that, I'd be scared for my life, too. Negroes and negro-loving morons are a stupid and dangerous bunch.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Watch the video. Looks like someone hit his car right before he hit the people.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

I am NOT blaming the victim.  However, the counter protesters were assembling in an area not cordoned off - cars were present.  Not all streets were cordoned off so that traffic had somewhere to go and so the town wasn't completely paralyzed.  There is a risk involved if folks are going to stand in the middle of through streets.

Doesn't blame the victim, but don't stand in through streets not cordoned off.  Please....have some respect for residents.

Here is a birds eye vid..  Lots of cars stopped by the assembly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2017)

Yes, lots of cars stopped. But one floored the gas, and ran into the crowd. The same one that had already posted his hate on the internet. Pretty damned obvious that was not accidental.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> I am NOT blaming the victim.  However, the counter protesters were assembling in an area not cordoned off - cars were present.  Not all streets were cordoned off so that traffic had somewhere to go and so the town wasn't completely paralyzed.  There is a risk involved if folks are going to stand in the middle of through streets.
> 
> Doesn't blame the victim, but don't stand in through streets not cordoned off.  Please....have some respect for residents.
> 
> Here is a birds eye vid..  Lots of cars stopped by the assembly.



I uh, don't see a collision there.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I am NOT blaming the victim.  However, the counter protesters were assembling in an area not cordoned off - cars were present.  Not all streets were cordoned off so that traffic had somewhere to go and so the town wasn't completely paralyzed.  There is a risk involved if folks are going to stand in the middle of through streets.
> ...


SW quadrant.  The actual collision is blocked by the building, but you can see the cars rapidly pushed into the crowd.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, lots of cars stopped. But one floored the gas, and ran into the crowd. The same one that had already posted his hate on the internet. Pretty damned obvious that was not accidental.


Not the point.

The point is, the assembly appears to be in an area the police had not cordoned off.  Police cordon off assembly areas.  And, the reason it appears it is not cordoned off is the presense of several cars...cars blocked by the crowd.  Cars likely unaware they would be blocked because it was a street not cordoned off.

It's dangerous to assemble in the middle of the road.  I learned that from my parents when I was a child.

.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.
> ...



How then does he explain tearing back up the hill in reverse?  What, he accidentally stepped on the gas, accidentally crashed, accidentally immediately put the car in reverse, accidentally tore back up the hill in reverse, even though he just killed a pedestrian, accidentally driving perfectly straight, and accidentally drove away until he was accidentally caught?

How far do you wanna stretch this?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, lots of cars stopped.


I see one car in that video.





> But one floored the gas, and ran into the crowd. The same one that had already posted his hate on the internet. Pretty damned obvious that was not accidental.



Obviously the guy who hit his car right before he did it was a neo-nazi masquerading as a negro-lover who hit his car on purpose to help this guy's chances in court!


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


He was surrounded and attacked, so he floored it to get away. When he was reversing, you can actually see some aggressors still chasing him. He was trying to get away based on what I see in the video. Maybe his car got stuck on a particularly overweight negro-lover, so he had to reverse the long way out to get away. He should have driven something heavier, like a steamroller, if he wanted to get out of there more reliably.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Still nothing.  I'm assuming by "SW quadrant" you mean lower left.  Don't see it.  No vehicle, no reaction, no nothing.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Oh he was trying to get away, that's clear.

But apparently that was an "accident".


Steamroller huh.  No one would ever catch that.  As long as they were stuck in quicksand....

​


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Still nothing.  I'm assuming by "SW quadrant" you mean lower left.  Don't see it.  No vehicle, no reaction, no nothing.


The bugundy car is rapidly shoved into the intersection.  It was the first car in the two.  The second car was the covertable.  Both were pushed hard by the impact..  Watch the people scatter.

I know the intersection well.  Compare the buildings around the intersection with those in other vids.

Also note many cars were blocked by the assembly


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Aggressors chasing him isn't conclusive of anything.  I'd be chasing a car if it rammed into a bunch of cars and people.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

I think this shows it all.

Hard to watch....


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Still nothing.  I'm assuming by "SW quadrant" you mean lower left.  Don't see it.  No vehicle, no reaction, no nothing.
> ...



OK I can see people spilling off the front of the burgundy car and it just now occurs to me that it's slowed down which throws off all perception when one's looking for an impact.  But the collision itself is invisible, all we see is the front car's inertia.  I can only see a piece of the car behind it (I take it two cars were hit in a chain reaction?).  The perp car isn't visible at all.

Another bogus YouTube title.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Yeah...two cars.  My latest post shows it well (it's hard to watch if you have any conscience, which you do).  The burgundy car was in front of a white convertible with a black rag top.  He slammed into the convertible...with such impact...that both of the stopped cars were rapidly accelerated into the crowd.

Anyway, the crowd shouldn't have been there.  Doesn't justify what happened, but it's much safer to protest in areas where streets are blocked off.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


I was just explaining why he might have been reversing away.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


I suspect they would have been fine if they hadn't attacked the guy's car and put him in fear for his life. It certainly looks like that's what might have happened.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Whether they were protesting, simply crossing the street, on their way to a restaurant or whatever --- the injuries and fatalities work the same way.

I believe the first fatality, the 32-year-old woman, was simply crossing the street.  In a street where traffic is stopped and none are expected to move anytime soon due to pedestrians ---- _regardless _WHY those pedestrians are there --- it's a reasonable assumption that it's OK to cross and one isn't going to be hit by a car out of nowhere going 40 mph.  There is no way to make her death her fault.  None.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I suspect you'd also sue the dead pedestrian for the cleaning bill to get her blood off the car.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Whether they were protesting, simply crossing the street, on their way to a restaurant or whatever --- the injuries and fatalities work the same way.
> 
> I believe the first fatality, the 32-year-old woman, was simply crossing the street.  In a street where traffic is stopped and none are expected to move anytime soon due to pedestrians ---- _regardless _WHY those pedestrians are there --- it's a reasonable assumption that it's OK to cross and one isn't going to be hit by a car out of nowhere going 40 mph.  There is no way to make her death her fault.  None.


I never said it was her fault...several times.  

I've been at many, many, demonstrations/protests over the years.  We never assembled in an unsafe area....meaning standing in the middle of a fucking street where cars are trying to pass.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Whether they were protesting, simply crossing the street, on their way to a restaurant or whatever --- the injuries and fatalities work the same way.
> ...



And again --- cars *can't* pass if there's a waft of pedestrians in front of them.  That's simple physics.

WHY those pedestrians might be there is another matter and unrelated, but the fact that they _are_ there --- for whatever reason known or unknown --- means that it's reasonable to cross the street and not expect to get rammed by a car.  Whether that car was the perp, or hit from behind BY the perp.

The reason for the pedestrians' presence has nothing to do with the dead and injured.  Mass and inertia do.  Nobody was hit by a car until Junior Johnson showed up.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Murderers usually try to get away.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Meh...It's still irresponsible - personal safety-wise -  to stand in the middle of a through street...unless it's officially closed.  Common instructions to folks prepping for a demonstration.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



Democratic Party thuggery and their violence against drivers is getting so bad we're going to see laws like this spread around the country.

North Carolina General Assembly - House Bill 330 Information/History (2017-2018 Session)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat




Nice try. The 20 year old Nazi was headed into the crowd forcing people out of his way when the rear of his car was struck. He did know how to use reverse after killing a young woman and injuring nineteen. which was the clearest path out if his intent was to avoid hitting people.

He's not a random white guy. He is a NAZI. Your effort to befriend him is duly noted.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.

Who knows, I presume the police will figure it out as they're probably compiling all the video and stuff - even the stuff the media won't put out (like before the accident and such.)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo, post: 17923372 





Si modo said:


> Meh...It's still irresponsible - personal safety-wise - to stand in the middle of a through street...unless it's officially closed. Common instructions to folks prepping for a demonstration.



It was officially closed due to two cars stopped blocking any more cars from entering the intersection. When you drive and cars and people are blocking your way do you ram them if you don't see a sign ''officially' closing the intersection? 

Blaming a victim murdered by a NAZI is duly noted.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.



Without hunting down videos I thought I saw that too.

All the more reason you don't just plow forward at 40 mph into what you can't see.


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


He was violently attacked by a known terrorist organization and obviously acted in self-defense.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> .....
> 
> Blaming a victim murdered by a NAZI is duly noted.


Oh observant one...you see what you want to see, rather than my numerous posts saying the exact opposite.

Moron.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.
> ...



Unless someone just smashed in your windshield with a bat and you're in fear for your life...  

I mean if someone smashed in my windshield, I'd likely floor it.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Si modo, post: 17923372
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess the Beltway is also "officially" closed every time I get on it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

EverCurious, post: 17923457 





EverCurious said:


> My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.



When you are driving into a crowd of people you hate you might expect to get your windshield broken. Advantage still Dodge Charger with a Nazi behind the wheel.

His car was not blocked from behind. He had a way out.


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Actually there was a violent criminal on his car smashing in the rear window with a deadly weapon when he threw it in reverse. The video shows that very clearly.

Everyone involved in the attack on the motorist should be charged with domestic terrorism and murder.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> I guess the Beltway is also officially closed everytime I get on it



Yes it is. If you hit the car, truck or motorcycle in front of you, you official get cited. If you intentionally speed up to ram then and someone dies your official citation could include second degree murder.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 14, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> He was violently attacked by a known terrorist organization and obviously acted in self-defense.



Given the calls for violence from all of the left, including their support for assassinations, nobody should ever be charged for anything that happens to the scum.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > He was violently attacked by a known terrorist organization and obviously acted in self-defense.
> ...



Given Trump's continuing support for the KKK and the altRight, that's exactly what they were hoping for.      OOPS


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the Beltway is also officially closed everytime I get on it
> ...


You're an idiot.

Official closure is not a traffic jam, nor is it gridlock.

Official....root of office.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Link to his support.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



With no visible idea where you were going? 

I won't be accepting a ride with you on a foggy day.


----------



## Nia88 (Aug 14, 2017)

I see the Nazi sympathizer defense force is still active. 

We've all hit the gas accidentally before. But we've never plowed into a crowd of people. You generally immediately stop before going at full speed. 

The driver drove at full speed into that crowd and then backed up. 

Even if he did accidentally hit that crowd of people, its still a hit a run with a charge of manslaughter. 

Why did he back up after hitting all those people?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> I see the Nazi sympathizer defense force is still active.
> 
> We've all hit the gas accidentally before. But we've never plowed into a crowd of people. You generally immediately stop before going at full speed.
> 
> ...



I still want to know how the airbags didn't deploy.

Unless they were pre-set not to.

Ruh roh.  There's yer premeditation.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Trump can't say the words WHITE SUPREMECISTS


----------



## Picaro (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Ah, now you have to lie; that's what happens when you have no point, just ranting partisan astro-turfing.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> I see the Nazi sympathizer defense force is still active.
> 
> We've all hit the gas accidentally before. But we've never plowed into a crowd of people. You generally immediately stop before going at full speed.
> 
> ...




But, I'll let the courts decide whether it was deliberate or not.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Picaro said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Only an idiot would post what you  just did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Official closure is not a traffic jam, nor is it gridlock.



Then you have an official right to ram the car front of you and no official citation will be issued. Don't you agree that all traffic laws are official.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



What's your point?


----------



## Nia88 (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Nia88 said:
> 
> 
> > I see the Nazi sympathizer defense force is still active.
> ...



That's a interesting question. Chargers are solid cars. I can't imagine the airbag failing to deploy.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Link to his support.
> ...


Then it's true Obama supports radical Islamist terrorists.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 14, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes it is. If you hit the car, truck or motorcycle in front of you, you official get cited.r.



No, actually you don't, and even if one did, it isn't always the case a judge or a jury will find you automatically at fault. Try again, hopefully after bothering to do some basic research.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Official closure is not a traffic jam, nor is it gridlock.
> ...


Off course traffic laws are official.

We;re discussing official closures.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...



But we can imagine the driver deliberately disabling them because he _planned _to ram something or someone, and intended to get away without an airbag in the way.....


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> I see the Nazi sympathizer defense force is still active.
> 
> We've all hit the gas accidentally before. But we've never plowed into a crowd of people. You generally immediately stop before going at full speed.
> 
> ...


Maybe it had something to do with the terrorist on his car smashing in the rear window with a deadly weapon.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Perhaps you can explain why the altRight praises Trump so much. Obviously they feel empowered by his presidency

The Ku Klux Klan is using Donald Trump as a talking point in its outreach efforts. Stormfront, the most prominent American white supremacist website, is upgrading its servers in part to cope with a Trump traffic spike. And former Louisiana Rep. David Duke reports that the businessman has given more Americans cover to speak out loud about white nationalism than at any time since his own political campaigns in the 1990s.

As hate group monitors at the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League warn that Trump’s rhetoric is conducive to anti-Muslim violence, white nationalist leaders are capitalizing on his candidacy to invigorate and expand their movement.

“Demoralization has been the biggest enemy and Trump is changing all that,” said Stormfront founder Don Black, who reports additional listeners and call volume to his phone-in radio show, in addition to the site’s traffic bump. Black predicts that the white nationalist forces set in motion by Trump will be a legacy that outlives the businessman’s political career. “He’s certainly creating a movement that will continue independently of him even if he does fold at some point.” [_Politico_,


----------



## Nia88 (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Nia88 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Hopefully investigators are looking into that. Because its no way that airbag failed to deploy.


----------



## Nia88 (Aug 14, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Nia88 said:
> 
> 
> > I see the Nazi sympathizer defense force is still active.
> ...



So the solution is to ram your car into a crowd of people?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



That was a joke.  You posted "only an idiot would post that" about an idiot, so what's your point.

Should have appended a


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...



If I were the prosecutor that would be high on my list.


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...


That's not what he did.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 14, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...



  If you feel threatened yes.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps you can explain why the altRight praises Trump so much. Obviously they feel empowered by his presidency
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan is using Donald Trump as a talking point in its outreach efforts. Stormfront, the most prominent American white supremacist website, is upgrading its servers in part to cope with a Trump traffic spike. And former Louisiana Rep. David Duke reports that the businessman has given more Americans cover to speak out loud about white nationalism than at any time since his own political campaigns in the 1990s.
> 
> ...


I believe a lot of the white  middle class people felt marginalized for eight years.

These scum  took it to a higher level.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

Update: CBS has footage that shows the windshield better here - Latest on suspect in Charlottesville deadly car attack


@0:36 both the windshield and back window are busted up no doubt, but it's still a question of when that and the back window were broken...  I'm sure there's footage around from before impact, just a matter of time before it all comes out and puts that debate to rest.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Aug 14, 2017)

The charges have already been reduced to second degree murder.

It would not be a surprise to see it reduced to manslaughter.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The charges have already been reduced to second degree murder.
> 
> It would not be a surprise to see it reduced to manslaughter.



An innocent person is dead, and you see that as a good thing.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

Update 2: Back window was /not/ broken before the accident:






I think the kid in the white threw a bottle at the car, he's got a stick might have hit the car idk)





This dude in burgundy may have smacked the windshield and startled him? (just tossing it out there as someone said he got startled)  It almost looks like the guy is trying to climb onto the car - look at his leg.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

Its just too hard to tell from stills if ^ this all was before or after the dude sped up into them.  There's video somewhere I'm sure, just a matter of time.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

I hope that *boy has enough education to keep his mouth shut, after the arrest.  It's very likely that he was assaulted by libtards during the demonstration, and it's credible his car was assaulted by libtard thugs after the demonstration.   If I were on the jury, I'd acquit him if he argued that he panicked.  And, if the media interviewed me, I'd rip into violent libtarts for causing the panic and the police for standing down in the face of violent attacks that led up to the car accident.

*I can call the young man a boy because he's white.  But, I know that because negroes are a race of be boys and animals, at least as libtards seem to believe, you can never refer to any particular black as a boy or animal.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps.....but department of memes and 4chan don't seem like the most reliable sources (even if you consider major news networks to be unreliable), and the extremely short video clips are pretty unconvincing either way.
> ...



As I said, the video clips are unconvincing.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

*BREAKING!!!!*

*Toddler Hits Mailbox, Panics, Runs Over Kool Ade Stand. *
*TWICE*

**
​


----------



## Slash (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.



New report "Al Qaeda terrorists just wrong place wrong time.  9/11 plan appears to be to fly all passengers to Disney World as a symbol of unity before unruly plane mob hit them in head and they panicked and diverted to twin towers".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The charges have already been reduced to second degree murder.
> 
> It would not be a surprise to see it reduced to manslaughter.




One plus is seeing alt right slime, like you, coming out from under your rocks.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


Yeah....but they always jump out of the way faster than expected.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 14, 2017)

I think using pressure-cooker bombs is pretty effective.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Slash said:


> New report "Al Qaeda terrorists just wrong place wrong time.  9/11 plan appears to be to fly all passengers to Disney World as a symbol of unity before unruly plane mob hit them in head and they panicked and diverted to twin towers".



I'd try to come up with an explanation of how panic caused nazis to throw Jews into ovens, to match your embarrassing stupidity, but no Jews were thrown into ovens.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > New report "Al Qaeda terrorists just wrong place wrong time.  9/11 plan appears to be to fly all passengers to Disney World as a symbol of unity before unruly plane mob hit them in head and they panicked and diverted to twin towers".
> ...



Your planet should import what we here call "humor".


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes. every time I feel a bump on the left rear of my car, I end up running over people and killing as many as I can.



I'd like see see a mob assault you, and when you flee to your car, the mob attacks your car with baseball bats.  I'd like to see how you'd react, if you would handle it as well as you claim you would.


----------



## Slash (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> I'd like see see a mob assault you, and when you flee to your car, the mob attacks your car with baseball bats.  I'd like to see how you'd react, if you would handle it as well as you claim you would.



I'd probably not joint he pro-nazi agenda, so not likely to see that happen.  

Dude had reflexes of a jedi though.  Can hear his engine jumping on the video as the guy starts to swing that bat.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 14, 2017)

Slash said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> ...


If you think that a single person losing control of their car is equivalent to what happened in 9-11, then you are a fucking moron.

Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


That's what I kinda saw. Could be wrong, but I hope he gets a fair trial.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Well 'a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest' has long been known.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 14, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


It is extremely unlikely he will get a fair trial.

He will get Zimmermanned.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> It is extremely unlikely he will get a fair trial.
> 
> He will get Zimmermanned


Yeah, the mob mentality is strong with the Left. The police were told to stand down. They ALLOWED this to happen and they're getting the reaction they worked for.

Not much into conspiracies, but they (Left) worked hard to make this happen, and an innocent young woman died -- a sacrifice to the leftist cause.


----------



## Fang (Aug 14, 2017)

Anyone that brought a bat and swung it, threw a punch, kicked someone, etc should be in jail, not just the kid driving the car. People on both sides were looking for a fight, they found and this is the result. WTF would you expect?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Apparently the OP uses "Ignore" as a safe space against those who call out his idiocy.  Like this thread.

What a wimp.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Apparently the OP uses "Ignore" as a safe space against those who call out his idiocy. Like this thread.
> 
> What a wimp.


You have a right to speak, but do you think you have a right to be HEARD?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> *BREAKING!!!!*
> 
> *Toddler Hits Mailbox, Panics, Runs Over Kool Ade Stand. *
> *TWICE*
> ...



THIS JUST IN

"Quck Draw" McGraw was trying to high-five the protestor at the rally, and he slipped!  Yeah that's the ticket!





--- also he was misquoted afterwards.  What he meant to say was "next time we might have to kiss him".  It was a typo!


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently the OP uses "Ignore" as a safe space against those who call out his idiocy. Like this thread.
> ...



You can choose to hear or ignore whatever you like.  But rhetorical faggotry gets called out whether you "hear" or not.


----------



## Fang (Aug 14, 2017)

As more information comes I'm betting this kid is let go or found not guilty if he goes to trial. Any competent lawyer will argue he legitimately feared for his life and panicked. It's going to be Ferguson and Baltimore all over again from the Left.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> You can choose to hear or ignore whatever you like. But rhetorical faggotry gets called out whether you "hear" or not.


Did you say something?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Fang said:


> As more information comes I'm betting this kid is let go or found not guilty if he goes to trial. Any competent lawyer will argue he legitimately feared for his life and panicked. It's going to be Ferguson and Baltimore all over again from the Left.



What's that lawyer gonna say when the prosecutor points out that the car's airbags didn't deploy?

OOpsie.

Let alone the throwing the car into reverse and running away after he just hit two cars and killed a pedestrian......


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. every time I feel a bump on the left rear of my car, I end up running over people and killing as many as I can.
> ...



That's nice, only he didn't flee to his car. He drove his car into the crowd.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 14, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > You can choose to hear or ignore whatever you like. But rhetorical faggotry gets called out whether you "hear" or not.
> ...



he thinks he did, but no telling what it was.


----------



## ricechickie (Aug 14, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.
> 
> Who knows, I presume the police will figure it out as they're probably compiling all the video and stuff - even the stuff the media won't put out (like before the accident and such.)



I could be wrong, too, but I thought that shattered windshield was suspiciously person-sized, and he may have hit a pedestrian right before he hit the white car.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 14, 2017)

Fang said:


> As more information comes I'm betting this kid is let go or found not guilty if he goes to trial. Any competent lawyer will argue he legitimately feared for his life and panicked. It's going to be Ferguson and Baltimore all over again from the Left.



Yep. This is going to be another Zimmerman style lynching attempt, though, so it will be on for a while; the state pols aren't going to let such a media circus get away from them, and they all have compliant judges in their pockets to keep it going as long as the TV crews keep showing up. Given how little cred the media has, we have to assume it's no more legit than the Zimmerman witch hunt was at this point.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > You can choose to hear or ignore whatever you like. But rhetorical faggotry gets called out whether you "hear" or not.
> ...



Why yes I did, thanks for asking.  I said this:



Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...



and then this....



Pogo said:


> THIS JUST IN
> 
> "Quck Draw" McGraw was trying to high-five the protestor at the rally, and he slipped!  Yeah that's the ticket!
> 
> ...



And finally, this:



Pogo said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > You have a right to speak, but do you think you have a right to be HEARD?
> ...



Thanks for trying to bury reality on the previous page.  Now It's on both.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> > As more information comes I'm betting this kid is let go or found not guilty if he goes to trial. Any competent lawyer will argue he legitimately feared for his life and panicked. It's going to be Ferguson and Baltimore all over again from the Left.
> ...



Two words: "Air bags".


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

ricechickie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.
> ...



It's possible.  Hard to tell the way "shatterproof" glass spreads the shock.  But clearly he sets up, accelerates (which is in no way necessary for "defense" if you're already inside a steel car), crashes into the car and pedestrian, suspiciously without the air bags going off, and then puts it in reverse and tears back up the road.  And reportedly was watching and "casing" the street before he did it.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> That's nice, only he didn't flee to his car. He drove his car into the crowd.



You might be right.  I'm sorry I characterized this kid as fleeing to his car.  After a victorious rally and stomping down his libtard enemies, he probably marched to his car in glorious pride.

Until someone takes a baseball bat to your head and shows me the video, I'm not going to believe that you'd be graceful under fire, as boast you'd be.  Let's see the video!


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> It's possible.  Hard to tell the way "shatterproof" glass spreads the shock.  But clearly he sets up, accelerates (which is in no way necessary for "defense" if you're already inside a steel car), crashes into the car and pedestrian, suspiciously without the air bags going off, and then puts it in reverse and tears back up the road.  And reportedly was watching and "casing" the street before he did it.



Yea, Pogo, 'cause if a mob has been attacking you, even after you get into your car, the last thing you'd do is speed off in your car.  It's no wonder we call them "libtards."

If this boy wanted to hurt someone, he would have rammed the libtards, not another car.  But, maybe your bigotry gives you incite I don't have.  Do you think this boy disconnected his air bags in planning to ram another car and possibly give himself whiplash?


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It's possible.  Hard to tell the way "shatterproof" glass spreads the shock.  But clearly he sets up, accelerates (which is in no way necessary for "defense" if you're already inside a steel car), crashes into the car and pedestrian, suspiciously without the air bags going off, and then puts it in reverse and tears back up the road.  And reportedly was watching and "casing" the street before he did it.
> ...



3 dead and at least 33 injured. He did want to hurt someone.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



1 dead, 19 injured in the car thing.  The other two dead are police officers who died in an unrelated helicopter crash.  The rest of the injured are throughout the protest.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It's possible.  Hard to tell the way "shatterproof" glass spreads the shock.  But clearly he sets up, accelerates (which is in no way necessary for "defense" if you're already inside a steel car), crashes into the car and pedestrian, suspiciously without the air bags going off, and then puts it in reverse and tears back up the road.  And reportedly was watching and "casing" the street before he did it.
> ...



That's exactly what I think, minus the whiplash.  After all ramming your car into a crowded street doesn't exactly indicate the brightest bulb in the light tower does it.

Disabling the air bags means he _knew before doing it _he was going to deliberately plow into something.  And that's premeditation.  Which blows the ridiculous theory of the OP into the tiny shards of hapless apologism that it is.

Trust me, the prosecution will be all over that if he tries to plead "panic".

Then of course there's leaving the scene.  Ain't no way around that.

There's also this, as long as we're required to play Captain Obvious --- 
A "mob" can't "attack you" if you aren't even in their vicinity until you ram your car into them.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

ricechickie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > My eyes are getting old so I might be wrong, but for some reason my head told me it looks like the windshield is shattered before he hits that white mustang.
> ...



Yea I'm rather leaning toward that, it looks like the first vehicle he hit was actually a parked black dodge ram pickup.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



Thanks for the correction. 1 dead and 19 injured shows he did want to hurt someone.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




Probably true.

Instead of being convicted, he'll get off - just like slime zimmerman did. 


_"zimmermanned" _= new word, definition of which is to get away with murder. 

Thanks very much JimBowie1958 -  Most RWNJs don't have the balls to admit that they're alt right.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

There's a video on this page of the ramming from another angle from the other side of the street.

Including the moment right after the impact where he puts it in reverse and then mows down (backwards) at least a half dozen more people.

Also accounts of the suspect's white supremacy rants gong back to high school, as well as earlier that day with the "Vanguard" people.

>> Derek Weimer, who taught history to Fields at Randall K. Cooper High School in Union, Kentucky, described the suspect's "radical ideas on race" to ABC's Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO.

"He was very infatuated with the Nazis, with Adolf Hitler. He also had a huge military history, especially with German military history and World War II. But he was pretty infatuated with that stuff," Weimer told WCPO. He said that overall, Fields was a quiet, respectful student, albeit with radical views. <<​
Gonna be a real stretch to pull this one out.  It will require a level of self-delusion not even explored outside of George Orwell's books.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Disabled his airbags??

Certainly sounds like premeditation, doesn't it. 

Same with the alt right rioters who took guns, clubs, baseball bats, hard hats, pepper spray, shields and then beat up people. 

Lucky they didn't shoot anyone but they certainly went prepared. And they came from out of town, out of state to stage that riot. 

American Taliban. 

Interesting that trump's approval hit 34% this morning. Seems most of the US sees him for the racist pos he is.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

You see that woman nail his ass?


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Slash said:


> I'd probably not joint he pro-nazi agenda, so not likely to see that happen.



There's an honest thought.  Unless you're someone who libtards might accuse of being pro-nazi, you're in little danger of violent mob attacks... because violent mobs are made of libtards.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.

At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.

Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > I'd probably not joint he pro-nazi agenda, so not likely to see that happen.
> ...



Just shut up. You are sounding dumber with every post.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Disabling the air bags means he _knew before doing it _he was going to deliberately plow into something.  And that's premeditation.  Which blows the ridiculous theory of the OP into the tiny shards of hapless apologism that it is.



You think this boy, with premeditation, disabled his airbags and rammed a car a car on the road?  What's the libtard's reasoning for him choosing to hit a random car, rather than hitting libtards? 

If the car really didn't have working airbags, anyone with an above-libtard IQ would figure it was a car that was in a previous crash and the airbags weren't replaced.



> Then of course there's leaving the scene.  Ain't no way around that.



Yeah, fleeing a violent mob of libtards is really suspicious.  Not.



> Same with the alt right rioters who took guns, clubs, baseball bats, hard hats, pepper spray, shields and then beat up people.



The alt right protesters knew libtards were planning violence, and so some self-defense is in order.  Violence is a standard protest method for libtards, especially when those libtards are protesting against alleged fascists.  But, it was the libtards who started the violence and the police who stood aside and let it happen.



> American Taliban.



Sub-human libtards.  No wonder they take right-wing "supremacy" so personally.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > There's an honest thought. ....
> ...



Yeah, I guess it was very dumb for me to credit you with an honest thought.  I won't make that mistake again.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 14, 2017)

The first vehicle hit was a parked black dodge ram pickup from what I have found.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Disabling the air bags means he _knew before doing it _he was going to deliberately plow into something.  And that's premeditation.  Which blows the ridiculous theory of the OP into the tiny shards of hapless apologism that it is.
> ...



He was never "fleeing" anyone except the Law, after the act.

The freaking Nazi kid came from freaking OHIO.  That ain't "fleeing"; that's "advancing".  Across two other states.

The freaking Nazi kid stood around chanting whitepower Nazi shit with a shield.  That ain't "fleeing" either.

Then the freaking Nazi kid set up as if on a drag strip, deliberately rammed into a crowd, then threw it in reverse and deliberately ran over some more.

_THEN_ he started "fleeing".

Dumbass.


----------



## Ted Frazier (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


Can you quote a cop directly?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".

He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"

That of course was after he "accidentally" stood chanting racist slogans with a Vanguard shield.  He just picked it up, he didn't know what it was.

Then he "accidentally" disabled his air bags so they wouldn't deploy, getting in his way in case he "accidentally" ran some people over.

Then he "accidentally" accelerated directly into a crowded street containing the very people he had just been ranting against.  Pure coincidence.

Then he "accidentally" hit the car, killed a pedestrian and injured dozens more.

Then he "accidentally" put the car in reverse and "accidentally" ran over several more, driving a perfectly straight line -- "accidentally" of course --- back up the street to where he could "accidentally" get away.

Then he "accidentally" took off, innocently unaware that leaving the scene of an accident, let alone one where he just killed somebody, was against the law.

This follows a long line of "accidentally" espousing Nazi propaganda as far back as high school.

Coulda happened to anybody.


Yeah you run with this Sparkles.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

This will come out in the trial.  The police will collect whatever video they can of the car, which will include at least one video of some libtard thug hitting the car with a baseball bat, before the fatal collision (i.e. justifiable panic). 

The Defense will point out that the car the boy hit had nothing to do with the violent libtard counter-protest, and that it was only a three-car chain reaction that caused caused another car to hit libtard pedestrians (i.e. no intent to hurt a libtard).

I think there's zero chance of a second-degree murder conviction.  Even a manslaughter conviction can be avoided with a good defense.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.



Word from who?



> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.



"Good Morning America" isn't mainstream?



> as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand



I saw nothing to indicate that.

At what time in the video does this supposed attack by liberals occur?


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> 
> He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"
> 
> ...



You're misrepresenting the situation.  I asked a DIRECT question and your response is dressing.  Care to take another shot at it, or is your spine too weak for the "challenge"?


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> He was never "fleeing" anyone except the Law, after the act.



When your car plate is on video, there's no fleeing the law.



> The freaking Nazi kid stood around chanting whitepower Nazi shit with a shield.



I didn't hear that he was chanting white-power nazi sh1t, but only a dumbass would think that's relevant.



> Dumbass.



You're not shy about signing your posts.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.
> ...



From the other apologist thread by Bowie that tried to make the same sorry case, that's who.

Gotta keep up with the Echo Chamber Pot.


----------



## aaronleland (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> 
> He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"
> 
> ...



You can't hang the poor guy for being clumsy.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > He was never "fleeing" anyone except the Law, after the act.
> ...



As already noted --- not the brightest bulb.  Thinks of disabling his air bags, doesn't think to hide his license plate.

Surely you can relate to that level of intelligence in planning, given your posts here.




BulletProof said:


> > The freaking Nazi kid stood around chanting whitepower Nazi shit with a shield.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't hear that he was chanting white-power nazi sh1t, but only a dumbass would think that's relevant.



As relevant as disabling your air bags since it goes directly to *intent *--- which is exactly the topic here.

It's in my last link.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> You're misrepresenting the situation.  I asked a DIRECT question and your response is dressing.



I asked you a couple direct questions.

Who precisely is giving you "word" the guy was under attack?

You claim the video shows it. Where? At exactly what time in the video does it occur?



> Care to take another shot at it, or is your spine too weak for the "challenge"?



Care to take a shot at explaining the crazy claims you made, or were you castrated as part of your alt-right cult initiation ceremony?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

aaronleland said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> ...



Gotta wonder how he managed to drive that car from two states away without running over about 400,000 more people enroute.

By "accident" of course.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > You're misrepresenting the situation.  I asked a DIRECT question and your response is dressing.
> ...



I see pussy cat.  I ask A DIRECT QUESTION and provide a video, and you avoid the entire thing.  I believe that makes you dishonest.  Answer the OP in a meaningful way and I'll respond in-kind.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 14, 2017)

This reminds me of the two British police officers whose car was surrounded by an IRA mob in Northern Ireland.  Rather than trying to ram their way through the crowd, they let themselves be murdered.  Maybe the Charlottesville driver had other plans.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'



Well the far left will not accept anything other than what their religious leaders tell them./

He should still get the electric chair, oh wait the far left made sure that can not happen as it is cruel form of punishment.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

I believe a motorist has the right to use his car to escape a crowd of rioters who have attacked his car. Not Guilty.


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> ...



You got owned. Now shut up and go play with your crayons.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

jwoodie said:


> This reminds me of the two British police officers whose car was surrounded by an IRA mob in Northern Ireland.  Rather than trying to ram their way through the crowd, they let themselves be murdered.  Maybe the Charlottesville driver had other plans.



That's why there won't be a murder conviction.  The driver was attacked first and in fear of his life, and he rammed a random car in the street rather than the huge crowd of fascist libtards to either side of the street.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> I see pussy cat.  I ask A DIRECT QUESTION and provide a video, and you avoid the entire thing.



I watched the whole video. I conclude that you lied about the video, being nothing in it shows anything like what you claimed. 

Again, If you disagree, point out at what time in the video the supposed attack on the car occurs. Odd, how you can't manage such a simple task.



> I believe that makes you dishonest.



Were you thinking you could just bluff your way through by pointing to a long video and making up a fake story about it, hoping nobody would watch the whole video?

You can only pass your BS off on your fellow alt-right culitsts, because they all just BELIEVE what they're told. We liberals, with our finely tuned BS-detectors, will always see through your scams.


----------



## toobfreak (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of the two British police officers whose car was surrounded by an IRA mob in Northern Ireland.  Rather than trying to ram their way through the crowd, they let themselves be murdered.  Maybe the Charlottesville driver had other plans.
> ...



Makes sense to me.  The truth is always the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Left claims.  It isn't hard at all to believe, considering some of the other things Leftist counter-protesters have done in recent months butting their noses into other people's rallies, the White Supremacists were rallying in Virginia at a peaceful demonstration championing their beliefs until a Leftist Thuggery Mob of fanatics who simply can't stand anyone who disagrees with them, came along and started a huge fight.  It was the Left who caused all the violence and deaths including the guy in the car who was trying to flee to save his life.

And Donald Trump was right all along.


----------



## Rustic (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> 
> He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"
> 
> ...


The guy was/is an evil son of a bitch…

BTW - Airbags did not go off if you hit a deer or something like that you stupid motherfucker I've hit deer at 60-70 mph several times And the air bags have never depolyed.


----------



## Dalia (Aug 14, 2017)

CNN and always CNN that tells us false stories and really went down the ladder.
He was a White Supremacist, but they are not certain of the information they advance. And the leftists were for peace and love FALSE They were violent.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 14, 2017)

Scamp said:


> I believe a motorist has the right to use his car to escape a crowd of rioters who have attacked his car. Not Guilty.



I believe a motorist is going to need enough of a sense of direction to know that "escaping" something means heading "away from" it, rather than "directly into" it.

Self-delusion is a deep well.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

Has the liberal media showed the video of this protesters car being attacked and hit with a bat? 
 I'll bet the Jurors will see this video.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > I believe a motorist has the right to use his car to escape a crowd of rioters who have attacked his car. Not Guilty.
> ...



The video shows a rioter in a crowd hit the rear of the motorists car with a bat. This scared the motorist into a panic and he went forward to escape. But his escape was blocked by the van. Then the motorist, obviously fearing for his life, put it in reverse and tried again to escape an imminent threat to his life...


----------



## MikeK (Aug 14, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Has the liberal media showed the video of this protesters car being attacked and hit with a bat?
> I'll bet the Jurors will see this video.


You'd win that bet.  Rest assured.  

Right now they are having trouble finding a public defender to handle this case because of its sensational nature.  So the state is going to allow this defendant to choose his lawyer and the state will pay the bill.  This advantage will attract some of the best trial lawyers in America.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



Why did the cops even left him drive down that street??? WTF!!


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And that applies to you as well as me.  

There have now been multiple angles of video shown, and I still don't see solid evidence that would make me think the driver was fleeing from the baseball bat hitting the rear of his car.  It is hard to tell, but it doesn't seem as though a) he was driving particularly slowly or cautiously before his car was struck, or that b) he suddenly accelerated after his car was struck.  Ignoring any evidence or supposition about the driver's character or beliefs, I think saying this was an accident caused by a man in fear for his life would be a very hard sell for a jury.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

The defense attorney can show the jurors videos of motorists being attacked during riots and pulled out of their vehicles and brutalized.


----------



## Dalia (Aug 14, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


He did not seem to have enough policemen too.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 14, 2017)

Dalia said:


> He did not seem to have enough policemen too.


The police were pulled back. The Democrats wanted it to go down like this.

They're willing to sacrifice a young woman's life to drive Trump out of office. That's all that motivates them.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Zimmerman was found not guilty......are you saying that trial was biased in favor of the defendant, and that this trial will be the same?


----------



## Dalia (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


It's hard to judge he seems to speed up after the man hits the car with the baseball bat


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Zimmerman was found not guilty......


Not from lack of trying


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I agree it's hard to judge if he sped up.  I think that is likely to make the videos available hurt the defense rather than help.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 14, 2017)

Not like we haven't seen similar before...


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman was found not guilty......
> ...



Well, of course the prosecution was going to try and get him convicted.  That is their job.  

My point is that if one thinks Zimmerman got an unfair trial, the fact that he was found not guilty would imply the trial was unfair in his favor, rather than against him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > He did not seem to have enough policemen too.
> ...



Soros should be charged as an accomplice


----------



## Dalia (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





Montrovant said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Yes, i found a video that very graphic and i don't know if i could show it or not at the forum ?


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

Anyone remember Reginald Denny?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



I don't know Jim. I think you are grasping at straws.
So, this guy is driving towards the counter-protesters that are walking down the street, I mean the road is filled with them.
My first question is, why is he driving into a street filled with people in the first place? 99.9999% of us wouldn't be doing that.  If he's so innocent, what was he thinking?  What was he trying to accomplish?  He could have backed up, there sure were a lot fewer people behind him? Instead he sure appears to have one mission, go forward into the crowd.
So, could you please explain this?
Thank you.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Can't convict someone if there is reasonable doubt.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


The dead pedestrian? No. How about the guy who hit the car?

If you want to get technical, I suppose it's possible to charge the people who attacked the car with felony murder. It's established in American law.


----------



## Dalia (Aug 14, 2017)

I would put the video it is very graphic !
*
Caution

*


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

Fang said:


> Anyone that brought a bat and swung it, threw a punch, kicked someone, etc should be in jail, not just the kid driving the car. People on both sides were looking for a fight, they found and this is the result. WTF would you expect?




He is not a "kid".

He's 20 years old and managed to stick it out in the military for two whole months.

Some of you are working awfully hard to defend the American Taliban. You cannot change the facts however. They came from other states, armed with guns, clubs, bats, pepper spray, carried shields and started beating up people several hours before their scheduled start.

The US fought a war against these these thugs and now we have to fight that war again, this time on our own land.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Dalia said:


> CNN and always CNN that tells us false stories and really went down the ladder.
> He was a White Supremacist, but they are not certain of the information they advance. And the leftists were for peace and love FALSE They were violent.


News Distribution Network, Inc.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > I see pussy cat.  I ask A DIRECT QUESTION and provide a video, and you avoid the entire thing.
> ...



Let's be clear.  Are you saying?
*
A. *It's not the same car

or

*B.* It's the same car, but it's under attack after the incident occurred.


And listen up pussy cat, I'm honest to a fault.  In honesty, I cannot believe I have to point this out for you.  All the while you claim I cannot manage a simple task?  WTF is wrong with you? There's a car.under attack by leftists.at the beginning of the video.  Are you blind or clouded?  See the fucking 2 second mark, you imbecile.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> 
> He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"
> 
> ...



Yeah, if you watch the video it's kind of hard to believe it wasn't intentional.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

Muhammed, post: 17923509 





Muhammed said:


> Actually there was a violent criminal on his car smashing in the rear window with a deadly weapon when he threw it in reverse. The video shows that very clearly.
> 
> Everyone involved in the attack on the motorist should be charged with domestic terrorism and murder.



He didn't back out until after he hit the car in front of him. Nice try.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Let the investigators and judge decide.  If he's guilty of intentional harm so be it.  I'm asking for the truth, and so far, not a single liberal will tell me true or not.  In simple terms, point blank questions:

*A. *Is it the same car, see 2 second mark.  *Yes or no?*

*B.* It is the same car, but it's under fire after he plowed into a car. *Yes or no?*


All I see is denial.  If he was under attack before he hit the gas, we'll, I think I understand the liberal denial. That would be pathetic, of course, but they do an awesome job with propaganda.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
It comes down to this...If you are in your car, and a rioting crowd attacks your vehicle to kill you or your loved ones...And they hit your car with a deadly weapon... Do you have the right of self defense and escape? Or do you have to just submit to the criminals?


----------



## MindWars (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



good find,   but when you think about how many  SPY cameras are on every corner they should have every step of the incident.  Unless of course the police DEPT conveniently had them shut off for that perfect timing.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
> It comes down to this...If you are in your car, and a rioting crowd attacks your vehicle to kill you or your loved ones...And they hit your car with a deadly weapon... Do you have the right of self defense and escape? Or do you have to just submit to the criminals?


You have the submit! The dumb liberal white college student who hasn't ever worked and the stupid negro with a mile-long rap sheet deserve your property more than you do!


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Aug 14, 2017)

Did her fellow leftist kill her?  Today the Heather tshirts have already been distributed.  When were they printed and distributed?   It's like it was all planned and ready to go.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


From the link:



> In an interview Saturday night in Toledo, Ohio, with The Associated Press, Samantha Bloom said of her son James Alex Fields Jr., "I just knew he was going to a rally. I mean, I try to stay out of his political views. You know, we don't, you know, I don't really get too involved, I moved him out to his own apartment, so we -- I'm watching his cat."
> 
> Bloom was informed by The AP reporter that the rally was indeed organized by white nationalists. "I thought it had something to do with Trump. Trump's not a white supremacist," she said.
> 
> "He had an African-American friend so ...," she said before her voice trailed off.



She's a lying bitch. She knew her son is a Nazi.  She friended his Nazi Facebook page.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
> It comes down to this...If you are in your car, and a rioting crowd attacks your vehicle to kill you or your loved ones...And they hit your car with a deadly weapon... Do you have the right of self defense and escape? Or do you have to just submit to the criminals?



 Fortunately, none of that ever happened. The car was parked blocks away from the crowd when the man got it and drove toward a crowded street. Upon arriving at the street which was filled with people, he accelerated into the crowd where many didn't see him coming until they were hit.  After running into another car which prevented him from going any further forward, he reversed and backed away, only to be later caught by the police blocks away.


----------



## Scamp (Aug 14, 2017)

Thanks Dalia for that latest video. I hadn't seen that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 14, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
> It comes down to this...If you are in your car, and a rioting crowd attacks your vehicle to kill you or your loved ones...And they hit your car with a deadly weapon... Do you have the right of self defense and escape? Or do you have to just submit to the criminals?



There was no riotous crowd at this seen. Nice Try. Nazi lover.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Let the investigators and judge decide.  If he's guilty of intentional harm so be it.  I'm asking for the truth, and so far, not a single liberal will tell me true or not.  In simple terms, point blank questions:
> 
> *A. *Is it the same car, see 2 second mark.  *Yes or no?*
> 
> ...



Crickets?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

Scamp said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
> It comes down to this...If you are in your car, and a rioting crowd attacks your vehicle to kill you or your loved ones...And they hit your car with a deadly weapon... Do you have the right of self defense and escape? Or do you have to just submit to the criminals?




As usual, the RWNJs have their own version of what happened. What would you jackasses do with out your alternative facts?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2017)

MindWars said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...




You notice they attacked him AFTER he ran into the car ahead. 

You DID notice that, right? 

What is wrong with your people? Why are you attacking your own country? Do none of you know anyone who fought or died in WWII?

I am so ashamed of you.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 14, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


God, you try hard. Is that being said on stormfront?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Scamp said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
> ...


And your point is? If someone starts out in a good neighborhood, drives to a bad neighborhood and gets robbed, he obviously wanted to get robbed? Your argument makes no sense.

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd.





> Upon arriving at the street which was filled with people, he accelerated into the crowd where many didn't see him coming until they were hit.


In the video I see him getting attacked *before *the collision.





> After running into another car which prevented him from going any further forward, he reversed and backed away, only to be later caught by the police blocks away.


If you can't escape one way, try another way. How is this inconsistent with someone running for his life?


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 14, 2017)

Was he also under attack when he was abusing and threatening his wheelchair-bound mother?  One of his teachers said he was obsessed with Nazi Germany.

*Mom Of Charlottesville Suspect Repeatedly Called 911 On Her Son For Threats*

*Charlottesville Terrorist James Alex Fields, Mom Repeatedly Called 911 Over Violent Behavior*


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


No.  He's a racist asshole who thought this was Germany back in the 1930's when hate was cool.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Lakhota said:


> Was he also under attack when he was abusing and threatening his wheelchair-bound mother?  One of his teachers said he was obsessed with Nazi Germany.
> 
> *Mom Of Charlottesville Suspect Repeatedly Called 911 On Her Son For Threats*
> 
> *Charlottesville Terrorist James Alex Fields, Mom Repeatedly Called 911 Over Violent Behavior*


I hope he has a big black cellmate?


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Let the investigators and judge decide.  If he's guilty of intentional harm so be it.  I'm asking for the truth, and so far, not a single liberal will tell me true or not.  In simple terms, point blank questions:
> ...


The way he was driving, I would've hit him with a bat to.

According to your logic, Timothy McVie didn't know there was a bomb in the back of his rental.


----------



## Reasonable (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


Another neonazi trying to excuse the despicable act of proven neonazi driver. 
Yup typical Trump Supporter..


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 14, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Was he also under attack when he was abusing and threatening his wheelchair-bound mother?  One of his teachers said he was obsessed with Nazi Germany.
> ...



The FBI/DOJ are now involved - so he may get a needle or chair.


----------



## Reasonable (Aug 14, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Did her fellow leftist kill her?  Today the Heather tshirts have already been distributed.  When were they printed and distributed?   It's like it was all planned and ready to go.


Yes her death was planned by the left to get free t shirts, ya stupid c*nt..


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...



I asked a point blank mother fucking questions.  Therefore you're saying the video shows it is the same car, and he was attacked afterwards? If true, how did you know the car was attacked afterwards, per the video?  Educate me.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Lakhota said:


> The FBI/DOJ are now involved - so he may get a needle or chair.


Right now he's a "tossed salad".


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Lakhota said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Don't mind Lakhota, he doesn't comprehend jurisdiction and investigation.


----------



## Reasonable (Aug 14, 2017)




----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Reasonable said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> ...



Can you believe these people (e.g. "reasonable") call themselves "liberal"?  Wholly fuck.  Never mind that, they can't even read, comprehend, or so much as respond to two simple relevant questions.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> I asked a point blank mother fucking question.  Therefore you're saying the video shows it is the same car, and he was attacked afterwards.  You know this because?


I saw the video.  He could've turned left onto that street before he hit the gas and deliberately plowed into a group of people. Then, he backed up doing the "Rachel Corrie manuever".

He's an asshole racist Nazi lover; now he's a bitch!


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Don't mind Lakhota, he doesn't comprehend jurisdiction and investigation.


And you seem to be too pussy to own your own hate?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


The additional video footage really helps to fill out the bigger picture. Now I see why the leftstream media just keeps spamming that one. I look forward to additional footage coming out as attendees post their own videos to social media. Of particular interest; is video of the deceaseds actions, and involvment prior to the incident with the car.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Don't mind Lakhota, he doesn't comprehend jurisdiction and investigation.
> ...



Sure sounds cool.  Let me know when you have the courage to address two simple relevant questions.  In case you missed it (ha!) here you go:

*A.  *The car at the 2 second mark in the video is the same car that rammed the car & people. *Yes or no?*

*B.* It is the same car, and it's under fire after he plowed into a car & people. *Yes or no?

C. *For clarification, it is the same car, which was attacked before he plowed into the car & people. *Yes or no?*


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Sure sounds cool.  Let me know when you have the courage to address two simple relevant questions.


I read your questions.  They don't change the fact that this was an act of right wing terrorism.


----------



## Reasonable (Aug 14, 2017)

Only a racist Trump Supporter would try to make excuses for this neonazi vermin.
Dude,,   You're an asshole


----------



## Vastator (Aug 14, 2017)

Reasonable said:


> View attachment 143694


Well he's breathing , and still geneticly viable. And someone else is not.... Probably not the best meme to choose given the circumstances...


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Vastator said:


> The additional video footage really helps to fill out the bigger picture. Now I see why the leftstream media just keeps spamming that one. I look forward to additional footage coming out as attendees post their own videos to social media. Of particular interest; is video of the deceaseds actions, and involvment prior to the incident with the car.


Much like a neutered dog, you just don't get it, do you?  Your hatred is not welcome in this country.  It is about as un-American as one could be.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Not all the facts are in, but it looked deliberate in the vids we've seen.  I looked for a vid that might show an attack prior to his punching it, but didn't see any attack,

Hard to see with the tinted windows, but I couldn't see any airbag deployment.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Reasonable said:


> Only a racist Trump Supporter would try to make excuses for this neonazi vermin.
> Dude,,   You're an asshole


Did that protest happen in Charlotsville or Weimar?


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Not all the facts are in, but it looked deliberate in the vids we've seen.  I looked for a vid that might show an attack prior to his punching it, but didn't see any attack,
> 
> Hard to see with the tinted windows, but I couldn't see any airbag deployment.



See the video in the OP.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Not all the facts are in, but it looked deliberate in the vids we've seen.  I looked for a vid that might show an attack prior to his punching it, but didn't see any attack,
> 
> Hard to see with the tinted windows, but I couldn't see any airbag deployment.


Your post is proof, there are those on the right who have a set of balls (and still have their moral compass).


----------



## Vastator (Aug 14, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > The additional video footage really helps to fill out the bigger picture. Now I see why the leftstream media just keeps spamming that one. I look forward to additional footage coming out as attendees post their own videos to social media. Of particular interest; is video of the deceaseds actions, and involvment prior to the incident with the car.
> ...


Your post is just Pavlovian spew.  What hatred? You're such an ignorant fuck, that you're lashing out at everyone who doesn't drink the Heyer kool aid; and assuming they are hate filled neo Nazis. Get a fucking grip you fraud. Half of you leftist have felt nothing but a hard on since this girls death, thinking that surely this event will bring people around to your way of thinking... And for the most part it hasn't. This both confuses, and enrages idiots who allow themselves to be guided by emotion. People like you...


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

This is dedicated to James Alex Fields...


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Eyewitnesses: James Fields' Car Was 'Attacked,' Police Set Up Rally-Goers To Be Assaulted - Big League Politics


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Your post is just Pavlovian spew.  What hatred? You're such an ignorant fuck, that you're lashing out at everyone who doesn't drink the Heyer kool aid; and assuming they are hate filled neo Nazis. Get a fucking grip you fraud. Half of you leftist have felt nothing but a hard on since this girls death, thinking that surely this event will bring people around to your way of thinking... And for the most part it hasn't. This both confuses, and enraged idiots who allow themselves to be guided by emotion. People like you...


I also like long walks on the beach, a good book and single malt scotch.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Not all the facts are in, but it looked deliberate in the vids we've seen.  I looked for a vid that might show an attack prior to his punching it, but didn't see any attack,
> ...


I've seen the vid taken of the car from the rear.  Yes, there is a guy who tries to whack the car, but that was right before impact.  The car was already engaged in cooking down the street.  So, I discount that.  He was already at a high rate of speed, especially considering the crowd.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

And, it appears from the driver's standpoint, he didn't know there were two cars stopped - their presense was blocked by people.  If those two cars weren't there, I would bet good money he would be charged with many more deaths.

So tragic.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> 
> He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"
> 
> ...


where is it proven he disabled the airbags? i see nothing online to verify this.

not arguing but collecting facts,n putting down speculation


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Look at all these people who would have been nailed, but for the two stopped cars.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Scamp said:
> ...



He had been in the crowd for quite a while before he attacked. He couldn't help knowing what he as driving into. The people were plainly visible for blocks before he got there. Try to defend all you want. You can't.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of the two British police officers whose car was surrounded by an IRA mob in Northern Ireland.  Rather than trying to ram their way through the crowd, they let themselves be murdered.  Maybe the Charlottesville driver had other plans.
> ...


if im in fear of my life, i dont drive into the,heart of my fears. i leave.

im waiting for,more facts but from the video alone if im running away, into parked cars is a bad call.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Look at all these people who would have been nailed, but for the two stopped cars.


sure doesnt seem like hes trying to leave the crowd as he claims


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...


That's the way to display the witch hunt mentality.  Why bother with a trial?  Just hang him right now.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'




Did your eyes notice there were no plates on the vehicle?

That shows premeditation.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Not all the facts are in, but it looked deliberate in the vids we've seen.  I looked for a vid that might show an attack prior to his punching it, but didn't see any attack,
> ...


There's actually several who know wrong when they see it,


----------



## Vastator (Aug 14, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> ...


Possible. But one of the earlier stories mentioned that the car was recently purchased. Sometimes people drive without a tag till they get one. I see it here all the time, and wonder how these people aren't getting pulled over... But they don't.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> In the video I see him getting attacked *before *the collision.



Do you see him getting attacked *before* he starts accelerating toward the crowd?  In the very short clip of someone swinging a bat at his car (I can't tell if they hit the car or not from the clip) it doesn't seem as though he suddenly accelerates after the car is hit by a bat.

If the available video shows him accelerating after the car is struck by a bat, this might be a convincing argument.  What I've seen so far doesn't seem to indicate that is what happened.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


The people may have been visible, but I don't blame him for not reading their minds and knowing their intent. Maybe he wrongly assumed they were peaceful protesters that wouldn't try to murder him on sight.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

Si modo said:


> There's actually several who know wrong when they see it,


Your side needs to check your boys.  Hey, we silenced Rosie O'Donnell.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...


usually has dealer tmp tags by law.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > In the video I see him getting attacked *before *the collision.
> ...


I don't recall seeing a video that showed events that far back. All I saw was violent protesters who were violent before the collision. Perhaps it's an indication of how they acted upon seeing him.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'



Did your eyes notice there were no plates?

That suggests premeditation.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Aug 14, 2017)

g5000 said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> ...



She raised a Nazi.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

ill wait for all facts before making decisions.

seems,the american thing to do.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> ...


um…






feel kinda stupid yet? back window looks,damaged also. hard to be sure though.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I don't understand what you are trying to say here.  The video shows the car before and after someone takes a swing at it with a bat.  If the argument is that the driver was in fear for his life after the bat attack and that is what caused him to ram the crowd and cars in front of him, why would you need to see something further back?


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Do you?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 14, 2017)

iceberg said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Supposed to... But I see it all the time.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

Vastator said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


i see a plate.

people need to believe less and research more.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 14, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> ...



Actually, the plates WERE on the vehicle.  That is how they figured out who he was at first. 

And, for those of you who are saying that this idiot was scared because he was under attack, you should really watch the video that shows him starting up, and then shows him hitting the cars from the back.  His car wasn't attacked until AFTER he had ran through the crowd.  The mark from a baseball bat came from someone who swung it at the car as it hit the one in front of it. 

Nope, sorry, this was premeditated, and the guy should go to jail for a long time.  I'm waiting for his statement as to why he did it.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'




awful lot of clubs and weapons in that video


----------



## Si modo (Aug 14, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > There's actually several who know wrong when they see it,
> ...


I don't have any boys or team or whatever.  I do my own thing.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Aug 14, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...



It was a rental I believe.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 14, 2017)

I find it odd that no one has id'd the deceased in any of the video footage. Strange...


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Aug 14, 2017)

iceberg said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...


Just going on reports.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 14, 2017)

If he was attacked then he should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.


----------



## iceberg (Aug 14, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


research more.

believe what makes you happy less.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



What does his ability to read minds have to do with his choice to turn and drive away from the crowd, or to accelerate into the crowd and injure and kill people?


----------



## Fang (Aug 14, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that brought a bat and swung it, threw a punch, kicked someone, etc should be in jail, not just the kid driving the car. People on both sides were looking for a fight, they found and this is the result. WTF would you expect?
> ...



There you have it. Luddly Neddite is OK with people swinging bats, smashing property and rioting if they agree with his/her politics. Shameful.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> And, for those of you who are saying that this idiot was scared because he was under attack, you should really watch the video that shows him starting up, and then shows him hitting the cars from the back.  His car wasn't attacked until AFTER he had ran through the crowd.  The mark from a baseball bat came from someone who swung it at the car as it hit the one in front of it.



You should really find another video.  The car was also attacked before the collision.  In fact, he was driving slow until he was attacked.  



> Nope, sorry, this was premeditated, and the guy should go to jail for a long time.



If a jury agrees with you, it's a shame that abortion of libtards is illegal.


----------



## Ted Frazier (Aug 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > You're misrepresenting the situation.  I asked a DIRECT question and your response is dressing.
> ...


I think it's from a right wing blogger.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


You said "Do you see him getting attacked *before* he starts accelerating toward the crowd?" I'd need to see further back in time to see that.


----------



## Ted Frazier (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of the two British police officers whose car was surrounded by an IRA mob in Northern Ireland.  Rather than trying to ram their way through the crowd, they let themselves be murdered.  Maybe the Charlottesville driver had other plans.
> ...


Because a right wing blogger said that an anonymous cop told him so.


----------



## Ted Frazier (Aug 14, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> ...


Either your airbags weren't working, or you're full of shit.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


*Turn *and drive away? Did you watch the video? People were practically climbing on the car! I doubt it would be possible to turn the car around if the people *weren't* violent. Add to this the factor that he was in immediate danger and what you're requesting is next to impossible.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Ted Frazier said:


> [Either your airbags weren't working, or you're full of shit.



Hitting a deer usually would trigger the air bags.  But, only someone as ignorant and bigoted as libtard could presume the kid disabled his airbags (but didn't remove his plates) in a plan to rear-end another car (rather than directly plow through the mob).  

If the air bags didn't go off, but should have, it just shows the car had been in a previous collusion and the air bags weren't replaced.  That white kid is among the most screwed in society, a white guy widely discriminated against and demonized for being white, but is poor.  He's not the kind who would rush to spend hundreds, if not a couple thousand, dollars for new air bags.


----------



## Rustic (Aug 14, 2017)

Ted Frazier said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


No, they are not supposed to go off if you had something like a deer. It Has to be a major object. 
You watch too many Hollywood movies dumbass


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 14, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Well, some hypothetical attack making him accelerate before any video is pretty pointless to speculate about.  What I meant was to ask if the bat swung at the back of the car in the video happened before he accelerated into the crowd.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Liberal comments are hilarious.  One proven fallacy after another.  ILMAO @ no license plates proves premeditation. Ha ha, you guys climb on the bus, it breaks and you're off the bus. You take another bus, that breaks too and it's off to another bus.  Fuck you people are so irrational, and you constantly paint reality in the "abstract"?.

It looks possible the guy was violently attacked by the left beforehand.  I haven't seen anyone dispute this. If true, and liberals choose not to acknowledge this, it will be because they'd rather life as a fool than lose grip on yet another desirable yet false narrative.  From my observation, they're doing that as validated by this thread. ALL liberal media organizations are doing the same, so they're in good company.


Few things of many "we" learned over the last few days. The situation is very telling. 

1. Their desire to remove the Robert E Lee monument demonstrates how they're uneducated, hypocritical, inconsistent, and of course respond to things emotionally.  That and they fail to envision the results of their actions.

2. I've yet to see a single liberal acknowledge it was leftists who were responsible for the majority of violence in Charlotte. Same applies to liberal news.  Personally, I've seen few instances of a weaker spine. It truly demonstrates the impact leftist propaganda has had.  Course, they might be fully washed as opposed being cowards.  This is very sad, either way.

3. And yes, if the left attacked him prior to he hitting the gas, NAZI scumbag or not, he's going to have a defense, and liberals aren't going to like it.  They'll have two choices.  Continue living within the confines of their liberal programming, or recognize and even admit the incident they hoped for was misrepresented, because the people they support were VIOLENT participants.  Worse yet, that violence may have led up to the death of one of their own.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


It's hard to tell from the shaky camera, but I think I do see a notable increase in speed as soon as the bat hit the car. I think he was trying to get out there in an orderly fashion until things because too violent and he had to act immediately. It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 14, 2017)

This man, Rex Kramer, is the god-father of the entire alt right movement...


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Aug 14, 2017)

He was supposed to prove he was down with the cause by dying.  Scalise  didn't die and Democrats will never forgive him for it.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 14, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> 
> He just "accidentally" set up his car on an imaginary drag strip after casing the place.  Just thinking "what if this were a drag strip?"
> 
> ...



The same thing happened to my cousin!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 14, 2017)

Ted Frazier said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



There is an explanation. Rustic drives a 1954 International pickup.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> I've yet to see a single liberal acknowledge it was leftists who were responsible for the majority of violence in Charlotte. Same applies to liberal news.



Libtards pretend there was no violence by the counter-protesters, even though those people started it and was responsible for the majority of it.  The only hint from them that they are aware that there fellow libtards were violent is when they blame the lawful demonstrators for inciting violence through speech.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Aug 14, 2017)

There's a video shot from about 15' away from his drivers side and people are running toward the the car before he moves


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> If he was attacked then he should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.



Even manslaughter would be a hard case to make.  Manslaughter requires a willful disregard for human life.  Panic or fleeing for his own life is not a willful disregard for human life.  It's a non-crime, like the majority of collisions that left about 40,000 people dead last year in traffic fatalities.  

Really, the only way he's getting convicted is if he can't keep his mouth shut, especially if he says it was deliberate.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Word is police reported the culprit was under attack and was "scared" before he hit the gas.  I'm not making excuses for the guy, as most liberals would emotionally desire.  Me, I'm a truth seeker and reject all narratives (i.e., independence).  In my mind, if murder was intentional, then hang him high. As of now he's been charged with 2nd degree murder.
> 
> At any rate, here's this video that isn't mainstream.  It's possible that it's not mainstream because it doesn't suit the narrative, as it seems to show the guy was under attack by liberals beforehand.  I've only been told BS by liberals, with no explanation (i.e., emotional responses interfering with desirable narrative).   My question for the board, is this the car and did this happen before or after he hit the gas?  To my eyes this is the car and this occurred beforehand.
> 
> Mother of Charlottesville suspect: 'I just knew he was going to a rally ... I thought it had something to do with Trump'


 If the police had reported it, then the car must of had been under attacked. It is because the police were against the movement that he had stand for.


----------



## Rustic (Aug 14, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


 I do have a couple muscle cars. But I drive a 2016 dodge ram 3500 or my SRT eight grand Cherokee every day.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > I've yet to see a single liberal acknowledge it was leftists who were responsible for the majority of violence in Charlotte. Same applies to liberal news.
> ...



Well, in fairness, any KKK or white supremacists may have started it.  That said, you can argue the left started it, by forcing their FUCKING free-lance methods down our throats.  

Nobody has been able to say if the organizer is white national or supremacist.  I think that's important.  Maybe I've missed it. 

Regardless, odds are high leftists started violence on most occasions, and it certainly appears that way by video. But you're spot-on, I've yet to see a single leftist admit to the facts.  Primarily, they haven't come clean to admit to violence triggered by the left.  They project only to declare white supremacist violence, and liberal news is doing the same................Interesting times.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > If he was attacked then he should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
> ...



You're probably right.  Obviously, if he's guilty "we" can only hope he's hung by a rope.  Hopefully justice serves the cause. 

Course liberal narrative prevents a hanging.  I suppose a white Republican male could be an exception. They'll skip the rope however, it's too effective, thus must be nonsense, which is core essential progressiveness. 

I wonder how many leftists were locked up over this?  Last I heard, throwing feces & urine on people, assault, and property destruction are crimes.  They even assaulted the organizer as he exercised his right to free speech. If he's pro NAZI then I suppose he somewhat deserves it.  Either way, it's another demonstration how leftists assault our Constitutional rights.  Overall, they desire to overhaul our Constitution to suit.

Besides, you know, some of our founding fathers owned slaves, womanized and stuff.  They weren't progressive, at least not to today's high standard (cough!). Chelsea Manning, Spike Lee and George Soros are some nice alternatives for new world order.  Hillary too, maybe Bernie.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 14, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...




Wholly shit, watching the first video right now.  I don't know this guy but he's SPOT ON.   Maybe I was wrong about Kessler.  He doesn't sound like the con-man I labeled earlier. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Regardless, odds are high leftists started violence on most occasions, and it certainly appears that way by video. But you're spot-on, I've yet to see a single leftist admit to the facts.  Primarily, they haven't come clean to admit to violence triggered by the left.  They project only to declare white supremacist violence, and liberal news is doing the same................Interesting times.



Libtards came with violence of their mind.  They were equipted for it.  This is their M.O.  And, if the media had video of the right starting it, we would have seen it.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 14, 2017)

Libtards attack again.  In front of a score of TV cameras and dozens of cell phones recording, libtards prevent Jason Kessler from finishing a press conference.  After driving him away, other libtards cheered the assault and the violation of Kessler's civil rights.   At least in this case, one Robert K. Litzenberger of Charlottesville was charged with misdemeanor assault and battery for spitting on Kessler.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 15, 2017)

Rustic said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Ted Frazier said:
> ...



I know, ristic, and your airbags do dot deploy when you hit a deer at 65 MPH. Congratulations!!! You now have as much credibility as Trump!!!!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat. 


If you look at the video at 4 seconds, you would see him plow into the crowd, but more importantly, you would see that his rear window is intact.  At about 7 sec. you see a guy go up to the back of the car with a bat and bash a hole in the rear window.  The video is only 11 sec. so it won't take much time to watch. 

Sorry, but the dude attacked with the car FIRST, then he was attacked by the crowd.


----------



## Rustic (Aug 15, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



You do realize up here in western South Dakota hitting a deer on a regular basis is a very common thing. I have never had an airbag go off from hitting a deer you stupid motherfucker.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 15, 2017)

Rustic said:


> You do realize up here in western South Dakota hitting a deer on a regular basis is a very common thing. I have never had an airbag go off from hitting a deer you stupid motherfucker.



I live in deer country and I've managed to go my whole life without hitting a deer.  But, I've known other people who have hit deer, and their air bags were triggered.  Maybe you should hit a tree and see if that triggers your air bag.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 15, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize up here in western South Dakota hitting a deer on a regular basis is a very common thing. I have never had an airbag go off from hitting a deer you stupid motherfucker.
> ...




I hit one at 70 MPH in a full sized Ford Van. Did nearly 7000 dollars damage. Neither of the two airbags deployed.


----------



## Rustic (Aug 15, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize up here in western South Dakota hitting a deer on a regular basis is a very common thing. I have never had an airbag go off from hitting a deer you stupid motherfucker.
> ...


I drive at night alot, over 60 miles one way from town. Hitting deer is a reality i have ran over several over the last few years all at highway speeds mostly with my truck. Never once has any airbag deployed, deer are not a solid enough object to trigger an airbag.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

Well, from all the videos I've seen the guy was only doing about 25 to 35 mph (used to cycle a lot, so I'm pretty good at speed estimation).  Dunno if that would have been enough of an impact for the airbags, because not only was it a slower speed, but the impact may have been lessened a bit because the car he hit moved forward enough to hit the van in front of it and leave a dent.


----------



## Rustic (Aug 15, 2017)

Rustic said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


----------



## TheDude (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> If you look at the video at 4 seconds, you would see him plow into the crowd, but more importantly, you would see that his rear window is intact.  At about 7 sec. you see a guy go up to the back of the car with a bat and bash a hole in the rear window.  The video is only 11 sec. so it won't take much time to watch.
> ...



Ah, now I see it, thank you.  Still down't mean he wasn't attacked beforehand, but at the moment, I don't see evidence of it.


----------



## MindWars (Aug 15, 2017)




----------



## Rustic (Aug 15, 2017)

MindWars said:


> View attachment 143727


Black lives matter are every bit as Cowardly as Nazis, after all they're both socialist fuckup's


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

TheDude said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> ...



Well, if he had been attacked beforehand, there is certainly no evidence of it on the car.  They didn't attack the car until AFTER he had plowed into the crowd.  And, like I said, if you look at the 7 sec. point, you see the guy with the baseball bat go after the rear window, as well as all the other people gathering around and hitting the car.  

Nope, sorry................this was intentional, and the dude in the car wasn't being hassled until after he'd ran the people over.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 15, 2017)

*Charlottesville Driver May have Been Panicked into Losing Control of His Car*

I'm late to the discussion on this whole deal but from what I have watched so far, I think the case could easily be made that the driver of this car was panicked and was not intentionally trying to murder pedestrians. 

The strongest indicator for me is that many of those injured (if not most) were injured after he threw it into reverse and they we bashing his car with bats and such. 

If he was on a killing spree and trying to use his car as a weapon, why would he back away in the same straight line that he took coming to the point of impact? 

A person hell bent on using their car as a weapon would not do that. He managed to reverse his way out without swerving to hit any of those on either side of the street. 

This tells me he was far more interested in putting some distance between himself and those with the clubs and such than he was after a body count.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

One of the things that is kinda apparent from the videos is that he never expected to end up running into the back end of those 2 vehicles.  I can understand that, because all he could see was the people in front of him, he wouldn't have been able to see the vehicles until it was too late. 

Why did he back away in a straight line?  He knew he couldn't go forward, and he was trying to get out of there as quickly as possible.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> If you look at the video at 4 seconds, you would see him plow into the crowd, but more importantly, you would see that his rear window is intact.  At about 7 sec. you see a guy go up to the back of the car with a bat and bash a hole in the rear window.  The video is only 11 sec. so it won't take much time to watch.
> ...


 Well, he could of had dropped something on the floor of his car while driving. And went down to pick it up, but did not realized that there were a group of protesters blocking the street. But when he had raised up from picking up whatever he had dropped on the floor of his car. That he saw a group of people swinging bats at his window. And nervously, he hurried up and put the car in reverse, thinking that he was being a victim of a car-jacking..They should only give him 8 months for unintentionally wreckless driving.





Hillary Clinton Told FBI She Could Not Remember State Department Briefings After Brain Injury - Breitbart


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 15, 2017)

Again, the first vehicle he hit was a parked black pickup (I though it was a Dodge Ram, but it may be the toyota in the video above)


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> ...



That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  You're really reaching for those excuses, ain't ya?


----------



## Picaro (Aug 15, 2017)

Rustic said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 143727
> ...



Democrats will never demand that their leadership denounce violence and hate crimes by BLM or any of their other racist subsidiaries , they're too dependent on racism for votes, promoting racism is their primary platform, and 'progressives' won't either; they nominated the lunatic racist Cynthia McKinney as their Presidential candidate, after all.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


 The darnedest things always happens while you are bent over, not aware of nothing, while reaching for something...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 15, 2017)

iceberg said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...




Don't see any anti Nazi protesters in riot gear and with weapons in this view. Car is obviosly speeding forward with intent to harm people.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 15, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Well, he could of had dropped something on the floor of his car while driving. And went down to pick it up, but did not realized that there were a group of protesters blocking the street. But when he had raised up from picking up whatever he had dropped on the floor of his car. That he saw a group of people swinging bats at his window. And nervously, he hurried up and put the car in reverse, thinking that he was being a victim of a car-jacking..They should only give him 8 months for unintentionally wreckless driving.



Friend of yours?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 15, 2017)

I have been watching a series on Netflix about string theory, which says that if it is true, then there must be 11 other invisible dimensions, and possible alternative universes. This thread seems to have drifted over from one of those universes, with the RW figuring out how this guy who was photographed carrying a shield, and chanting white supremacist slogans, whose teacher says was fascinated with Hitler, managed to accidently run his car into anti-white supremacy protesters. I leave you here, secure in the knowledge that, while in this universe, up is down, and airbags don't deploy at 65 MPH crashes with deer, I will return home to where rational thinking prevails, and my airbag deployed at a 20 MPH argument with a yearling in Redwood National Park.


----------



## MindWars (Aug 15, 2017)

MindWars said:


> View attachment 143727



for the record this MEME was created before ANTIFA came out into the open , this is why we don't see ANTIFA on there.  It's a few years old.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 15, 2017)

trump deletes another tweet






Your president preaches violence, as do his fellow white supremacists


----------



## Paul Essien (Aug 15, 2017)

*I didn’t expect to have to compliment the KKK for having the good sense to wear hoods. *

Even the makers of the Tiki Torches that they use has made it clear they do not approve.






Trump CREATED them.

They are his children.

There’s a reason someone initially declines to condemn white supremacist groups then waits a full 48 hours to do so and Trump statement was a direct reflection of the fact that his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is an alt-right white supremacist sympathizer. 

Yeah sure Trump called white supremacists ‘repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.’ 

Big words don

But notice he ain't talked about punishing them ?

Why ?

Because Trump’s entire administration is filled with well-placed promoters of white supremacy, Bannon is just the tip of the iceberg.

See when it comes to black people (unarmed black people) protesting

We get the real deal.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> If you look at the video at 4 seconds, you would see him plow into the crowd, but more importantly, you would see that his rear window is intact.  At about 7 sec. you see a guy go up to the back of the car with a bat and bash a hole in the rear window.  The video is only 11 sec. so it won't take much time to watch.
> ...



You can also see him toss it into reverse and plow through _more_ people, with victims from the first thrust already on the ground. 

No doubt that was an "accident" in the Apologist Universe too.  He thought "R" stood for "Repent".  Or perhaps "Repair victims".  Yeah that's it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, lots of cars stopped. But one floored the gas, and ran into the crowd. The same one that had already posted his hate on the internet. Pretty damned obvious that was not accidental.
> ...


Great, when the next white power rally occurs, then I have the right to pick off any of the participants that stray outside the permit lines, right? Go ahead and support these nazi bastards all you want, as they are returning home, many are finding they no longer have jobs. Time for making them outcasts, period.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 15, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Great, when the next white power rally occurs, then I have the right to pick off any of the participants that stray outside the permit lines, right? ....


If you say so.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

TheDude said:


> Well, in fairness, any KKK or white supremacists may have started it. That said, you can argue the left started it, by forcing their FUCKING free-lance methods down our throats.



uh HUH.  ----- So you're saying right-wing terrorists have so little self-control they'll ram cars into people as a result of "free-lance methods", whatever that is.  And yet you dance around trying to find excuses for them.




TheDude said:


> Besides, you know, some of our founding fathers owned slaves, womanized and stuff. They weren't progressive, at least not to today's high standard (cough!). Chelsea Manning, Spike Lee and George Soros are some nice alternatives for new world order. Hillary too, maybe Bernie.



Here's a guy who's not only desperate to change the subject, he actually tries to bring in SIX other subjects from the founding fthers to frickin' Spike Lee.

Pogo's Law writ large.


----------



## Si modo (Aug 15, 2017)

How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?

It's a moronic statement.


----------



## MindWars (Aug 15, 2017)

Si modo said:


> How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?
> 
> It's a moronic statement.




They suffer from mental illness man i'm telling you , these fks are beyond retarded if they can even believe that.

The public schools have created idiots, sadly some of these idiots even have PHD's,  whats worse you can have six PHD's but one can never get a degree in " Common Sense" nor " LOGIC" > ......

The lack the D2D gene which is why liberalism is a mental illness.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Who you saying sorry to?  From my angle hang him high.  You on board with that?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

Si modo said:


> How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?
> 
> It's a moronic statement.



No one believes that.

But he did create orange supremacists.  Population: one


----------



## Si modo (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?
> ...


Meh...a guy posted it a post or few above mine.  Poster seemed sincere in the belief.  Others have said the same.

It's ridiculous...glad to see you think the same.

No doubt Trump has an ego...it's funny as hell sometimes, too.  

His tweets are great entertainment sometimes.  I am totally OK with that.  Change is hard sometimes.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

iceberg said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Yyyyyeah that's the ticket.  It was all an "accident".
> ...



That's the prosecuting attorney's job, and presumably has already been investigated locally on the impounded car.  But it's clear from the photos of the front of the car, after impact, that no air bags deployed.

Airbags have been a standard requirement since the 1990s, well within the vintage of this Dodge.  The only two reasons they wouldn't deploy would be that they're inoperative, or they're deliberately turned off.  Of all the various systems on a car the most reliable function has to be the air bag.  Clearly this car was not old and derelict.  The only other reason they wouldn't deploy is that they were deliberately disabled before that by the operator.

Disabling the car's air bags points to a pre-planned intentional collision. He knew what he was going to do and what would happen with the airbag upon impact, and he didn't want that getting in the way.  If, again, I were the prosecuting attorney, I'd be all over this.


----------



## Dalia (Aug 15, 2017)

Si modo said:


> How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?
> 
> It's a moronic statement.


But we know for sure that ISIS was create thanks to Obama


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

MindWars said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 143727
> ...



Interesting image. Know who those brownshirt thugs were organized to intimidate?

The Socialists.

Always useful for grinding that "Hitler was a socialist" myth back into the dirt.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?
> ...



No, we know no such thing.  Actually it was created by a power vacuum triggered by an ill-advised invasion of Iraq that somebody did, I can't remember who.

But --- the Dixie Chicks, right?


----------



## Si modo (Aug 15, 2017)

Just curious....anyone seen any women in the pics of the white inferiorists?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Just curious....anyone seen any women in the pics of the white inferiorists?



In this recent event, or in general?

We see the latter here and there.  There was even a whole women's division of the Klan.




I haven't seen or scanned pics of the Charlottesville people other than the car incident, and a few of the Tiki  torches the night before.  But I'd expect we'd find about as many women in the population as we would in the population of mass shooters.

Y'all just don't know how to exercise rampant testosterone poisoning.


----------



## TheDude (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > How the fuck does someone believe Trump created white supremacists?
> ...



Actually, there would be two if my dad were alive.  He was a blonde with thin hair as well.  Sometimes he went orange, because he was vain and an entertainer.  He did a comb over as well.  He was very gifted, semi-pro Yankee ball until injury, equal to a golden glove boxer (1920s), and he'd put a hurt on those who thought to challenge the skinny guy with large mitts and ego. Great violinist, respectable conductor, composer, arranger, and class entertainer.  Greatest generation guy, my mother was half his age when they married.  He was also a drunk. The stories are remarkable.  Skips a generation, I can't even handle much more than a drink before a headache.  Alcohol sucks. 

He identified himself as a Democrat.  Today he'd be conservative.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

TheDude said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > TheDude said:
> ...



Works for me.  Either that or a firing squad.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Just curious....anyone seen any women in the pics of the white inferiorists?



Actually, yeah.  I was watching VICE news last night and their entire half hour was devoted to coverage of the weekend's events.  When they showed the tiki torch march, there were quite a few women in the march, carrying torches.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> If you look at the video at 4 seconds, you would see him plow into the crowd, but more importantly, you would see that his rear window is intact.  At about 7 sec. you see a guy go up to the back of the car with a bat and bash a hole in the rear window.  The video is only 11 sec. so it won't take much time to watch.
> ...


He was also hit with a bat (or some other object that looks like a bat) BEFORE he hit the crowd if you watch the video I posted. Your claim is based on the silly premise that he could only have been attacked once. Having seen a few other reports of him being attacked, I suspect he was attacked before the video I posted even starts. Clearly that crowd was *filled *with violent liberal criminals. This guy must have wrongly assumed it was a peaceful protest and figured he could just drive through it instead of, for example, cleansing the area with a tactical nuke first.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> ...



You're right, his care WAS hit with a bat.  AFTER he'd plowed into the crowd and crashed into the car ahead of him.  See the video I posted at 7 sec.  That is the point where he was attacked with the bat, which was AFTER he'd already ran people over.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Are you intelligent enough to understand that someone can be attacked TWICE in one day at slightly different times? Just like this guy was as shown in the video I posted?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



The car was not attacked until AFTER he had plowed into the crowd.  Try to spin it all you want, but there is video evidence that says otherwise.  Matter of fact, from 0 to 7 seconds of the video I posted, the car is going forward into the crowd UNHARMED.  At 7 sec. the car crashed into the car ahead of it, and that is the point where the crowd started to attack.  I know that if I saw some idiot plow into a crowd of people, I would do everything in my power to stop the car or get an ID on it so the person could be caught.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


This video shows at least one person took a swing at the car before the rear window was broken by the other guy with a bat. See post #31.





> Try to spin it all you want, but there is video evidence that says otherwise.  Matter of fact, from 0 to 7 seconds of the video I posted, the car is going forward into the crowd UNHARMED.  At 7 sec. the car crashed into the car ahead of it, and that is the point where the crowd started to attack.  I know that if I saw some idiot plow into a crowd of people, I would do everything in my power to stop the car or get an ID on it so the person could be caught.  Wouldn't you?


Striking a car with a bat is the *last *thing I would do to get a person's ID. Only an idiot would use that method.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

Sorry Bgrouse, but you are never going to convince me that he was attacked before he slammed into the crowd.  Video evidence from several other sources and several other angles say otherwise.  But, stay in your own little bubble if that's where you are most comfortable.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry Bgrouse, but you are never going to convince me that he was attacked before he slammed into the crowd.  Video evidence from several other sources and several other angles say otherwise.  But, stay in your own little bubble if that's where you are most comfortable.


The angle of your video doesn't show what happened behind his car prior to the collision. That's why I posted the video that shows what happened from the other angle and from slightly before. If you stick your head up your ass like you are obviously doing, you won't see his car getting attacked either, dumbass. Why? Not the correct angle.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Bgrouse, but you are never going to convince me that he was attacked before he slammed into the crowd.  Video evidence from several other sources and several other angles say otherwise.  But, stay in your own little bubble if that's where you are most comfortable.
> ...



The angle of the video I posted shows him going down the road, crashing into the crowd and then a person hits his car with a baseball bat.  But, like I said, keep on with the fantasy if that makes you comfortable.  Nothing more to respond to, because you choose to remain ignorant. 

You can lead a dummy to knowledge, but you can't make them think.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



The video you posted doesn't show much of anything until his car hits the back of the truck.  The video bgrouse is talking about, from post #31, shows the car from behind before that impact.  You clearly see someone on the left side of the car take a swing at it with a bat.

Now, I don't buy the argument that that swing caused the driver to accelerate into the crowd in fear of his life; he doesn't appear to have suddenly sped up, and before the bat swing he already seemed to be heading for a collision.  However, bgrouse is correct that in the video he posted, and perhaps more clearly in the video at the link in the OP, someone appears to have tried to hit the car before impact.


----------



## namvet (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> 
> 
> If you look at the video at 4 seconds, you would see him plow into the crowd, but more importantly, you would see that his rear window is intact.  At about 7 sec. you see a guy go up to the back of the car with a bat and bash a hole in the rear window.  The video is only 11 sec. so it won't take much time to watch.
> ...



great crowd control. just not enough bodies


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17938095 





bgrouse said:


> Are you intelligent enough to understand that someone can be attacked TWICE in one day at slightly different times? Just like this guy was as shown in the video I posted?



An ignorant lowlife Nazi travels from Ohio to Virgina dressed up like a Nazi, to march and protest alongside other lowlife Nazi flag waving scum, with long rifles and side arms, in a peaceful college town where diversity and higher education are cherished, and your befriended Nazi doesn't expect to get his dysfunctional brains beat in. 

Stay home Nazi. The public space is not your realm. Hide coward.

No sympathy from me.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Here you go dumbass.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17938095
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So I guess your "peaceful college town" filled with peaceful liberals who cherish "diversity and higher education" are so violent they would beat someone's brains in for holding an unpopular belief.

That's the truth about many liberals: they are violent pieces of shit.


----------



## namvet (Aug 15, 2017)

dad tells son don't ever darken my doorway again.

source

need more dad's like this


----------



## bodecea (Aug 15, 2017)

namvet said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> ...


^  An Alt-Right trumpanzee......one of USMB's current finest.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry y'all, but there are videos that show this dude running into the crowd, and then AFTER he'd ran people over, that was when someone hit his rear window with a baseball bat.
> ...



You must have a 55-gallon drum of the self-delusion flavor of Kool-Aid.

Essplain to the class, if he was innocently driving through a "peaceful protest" --- after driving out from the far side of Ohio, standing with a Nazi group chanting racist shit and none of that had anything to do with coming in for the purpose of vehicular assault ------------------------------ then why did he have his airbags disabled?

Hm?


----------



## Yarddog (Aug 15, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...




And were you surrounded by a mob screaming at you? beating on your car?  please give all the details how you kept your cool in that situation. Also, please explain why peaceful anti fascist protestors would even be beating on a car driving slow. Doesn't that seem at all odd to you? 
Most likely everything is just as originally reported with this driver but the actions of the crowd did not help the situation. So many times you see protestors blocking freeways and intimidating motorists, all it takes is one person behind the wheel to be mentally unstable and they are just asking for something terrible to happen.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17939182 





bgrouse said:


> So I guess your "peaceful college town" filled with peaceful liberals who cherish "diversity and higher education" are so violent they would beat someone's brains in for holding an unpopular belief.



An 'unpopular belief'? There is no violence if the Nazis don't show up. I don't condone any kind of violence. The point is Nazis did their share of beating brains in. You make excuses for a murderous Nazi coward who pleasures himself by marching around with other likeminded goons that would annihilate entire races and religions if they had enough numbers. That is if their beliefs became popular.


----------



## jillian (Aug 15, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



stop it white trash. he was a violent, disgusting white supremacist piece of garbage who intentionally killed someone and injured many others.

quiet.... and stop using trash sources.


----------



## jillian (Aug 15, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



it's so cute watching atl-right neonazi garbage defend the pond scum white supremacist loser.


----------



## BlackFlag (Aug 15, 2017)

jillian said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


That guy could have flown a plane into the new One World Trade Center and murdered all of its thousands of occupants... and they would defend it.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 15, 2017)

There have been a lot of accusations about one side or another in the protests being the instigators of violence.  Other than the driver of the car, is there any evidence of who started any of the violence that occurred between the two groups, or is it all just assumption?


----------



## jillian (Aug 15, 2017)

BlackFlag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...



they'd defend anything if they thought it bothered normal people.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Aug 15, 2017)

Why do you think the charges were reduced to second degree murder?


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 15, 2017)

If this is true than the media knows it too. Where is the reporting on this possibility?


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 15, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Lots of videos to look at. The crowd didn't attack him. He drove into it running over people. Hell yes they were beating on the car.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


How should I know? And why do you think they were disabled? Furthermore, what does disabling airbags have to do with this? Do airbags on that model come out of the front bumper to dampen the blow for pedestrians?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Do you drive a car?

There's only one reason a car's airbags would not deploy upon a head-on crash like that, and that is that they were deliberately disabled _before _the crash.  It's clear from the front shot of the car, after the collision, that no air bags deployed.

That tells us he disabled them beforehand, and _that_ in turn tells us his collision was premeditated.  And THAT in turn mops the floor with the ridiculously desperate premise of this thread hoping against hope to find an excuse for this terrorist asshole.

And you'll notice that the OP who started it ran away.  Which is coincidentally, probably your best option at this point.  Unless of course you'd like to grow a pair and admit you were engaging in the same apologism.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17939182
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's like saying there would have been no jews killed in Germany if they all moved to Madagascar!





> I don't condone any kind of violence. The point is Nazis did their share of beating brains in.


The point is that has nothing to do with this discussion. The liberals were the ones being violent here. Yes, your peace loving, ultra tolerant, college-educated liberals.





> You make excuses for a murderous Nazi coward who pleasures himself by marching around with other likeminded goons that would annihilate entire races and religions if they had enough numbers. That is if their beliefs became popular.


Instead of discussing hypothetical situations involving hypothetical Nazis and hypothetical numbers, why don't we stick to the topic and discuss your ACTUALLY violent liberals?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Or the crash sensor didn't activate the airbags. Or the steering wheel assembly didn't have an airbag.





> It's clear from the front shot of the car, after the collision, that no air bags deployed.
> 
> That tells us he disabled them beforehand, and _that_ in turn tells us his collision was premeditated.  And THAT in turn mops the floor with the ridiculously desperate premise of this thread hoping against hope to find an excuse for this terrorist asshole.
> 
> And you'll notice that the OP who started it ran away.


So he KNEW he would be in a crash, a situation in which a person can actually benefit from airbags, and disabled them because of that? It's like selling your parachute because you know you'll be jumping out of a plane. Makes perfect sense!


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Not sure how the airbag matters. You can be assured the car will be examined, and if the airbag did or didn't go off, and why, will be well known.  Again, what does it have to do with what happened?


----------



## Yarddog (Aug 15, 2017)

jillian said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Im not defending him, I was simply commenting on the crowd. were they attacking the car before he ran into the crowd or after? I'm actually not really sure.  But you know, we don't need to attack each other for asking questions that might relate to the incident.  At least be honest enough to admit both crowds had violent elements in them. The Alt - Left group brought a flame thrower,  so what was that for? roasting marshmellows?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Ask the guy who brought it up. I have no idea.





> You can be assured the car will be examined, and if the airbag did or didn't go off, and why, will be well known.  Again, what does it have to do with what happened?


How the fuck should I know? I'm not the one who brought it up.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



BULL. FUCKING  SHIT.

**ALL** cars made since 1998 have airbags by law.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 15, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...



Look at the video. There are several different ones. The people didn't care about him until he drove into the crowd.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 15, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Once again, sixth time now and second on this page ----- if the airbag is disabled, that's a conscious act by the driver.  If he disabled the airbag before tearing up that street it means he KNEW he was going to ram a car -- which he had already been casing from a distance.  

He knew exactly where he was going and what would happen when he hit that car, and didn't want an air bag in his way when he threw it into reverse to get away.

THAT destroys the ludicrous argument that "uh, this was all an accident --- yeah that's the ticket".  You don't disable your air bags for an "accident".  You do it so you can get away without a bulbous mass of sex doll in your face.  That slows you down.

Same reason cars in a demolition derby don't have air bags.

Again, if I were the prosecuting attorney and he tried to take the "accident" approach, I'd destroy him with this.


----------



## jillian (Aug 15, 2017)

Yarddog said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...



he intentionally drove a car into a group of protesters.

there is zero evidence or even assertion that he "lost control" of the vehicle. so, again, if you aren't defending the lowlife piece of garbage, I'm not sure why you're making up things that you think exonerate him when those "things" don't exist and didn't happen.


----------



## jillian (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



the question, of course, is why is the o/p asserting this fallacy when it isn't even being put forth by the rabid racists.

if the driver of the car were a muslim I'm pretty sure that no one would call it anything other than terrorism.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> [...]
> 
> There's only one reason a car's airbags would not deploy upon a head-on crash like that, and that is that they were deliberately disabled _before _the crash.  It's clear from the front shot of the car, after the collision, that no air bags deployed.
> 
> ...


Why would he disable the airbags?

And the fact that he did not remove or otherwise alter his license plates raises serious question about premeditation.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

Pogo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Right! It's unthinkable that someone would need to, at some point a car's life, replace the steering wheel assembly and would decide to save some money by buying a used assembly with a deployed bag from a crashed car! Nope, never happens!

2004-2009 LEXUS RX300 RX350 FACTORY STEERING WHEEL DEPLOYED AIR BAG BLACK  | eBay

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to try and save money! Makes *MUCH *more sense to sabotage your own working airbag, reducing the value of your car, because you KNOW you're about to NEED IT!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 15, 2017)

*Friends of Chattanooga man arrested in Virginia claim he was fighting white supremacy*

A friend of the Chattanooga man who was arrested in Charlottesville, Va., amid white supremacist rallies and counterprotests spoke on his behalf Sunday to let the public know why he was there.

Beth Foster, co-director for Mercy Junction Justice and Peace Center in Chattanooga, said Troy Dunigan wanted "to let everyone know he was in Charlottesville as part of an antifa action. He is an anarchist. He was here to confront white supremacy and antifa's practice is to use force if necessary in doing that."

Foster said Dunigan is not officially part of the Mercy Junction Justice and Peace Center but "he is definitely a friend and ally of us."

Virginia State Police released his name late Saturday night and said he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, but did not provide details. 

Many people took to social media Saturday night and throughout Sunday to clarify that Dunigan was not involved with the white supremacist rally.

"Let the record show that the 'Chattanooga man' arrested in Charlottesville was part of the COUNTER PROTEST, and is NOT a white supremacist," posted Missy Foley, a woman who identified herself as Dunigan's cousin.

"I'm not entirely sure what he did," Foster wrote in a text message. " ... Usually these kinds of things involve the person being attacked by a white supremacist and then defending themselves."

What started as a white supremacy gathering to protest the town removing a Confederate statue quickly turned violent as the supremacists and counter-protestors clashed in the Virginia town. 

A car then plowed into a crowd of people peacefully protesting the rally.

One person was killed and dozens were injured during the violent day. 

Friends of Chattanooga man arrested in Virginia claim he was fighting white supremacy


----------



## MindWars (Aug 15, 2017)

*Matt Talhelm*‏Verified account @MattTalhelm 10h10 hours ago
#BREAKING: #Cville car suspect, #UniteTheRight rally organizer, & alt-right leaders face $3M lawsuit from 2 ppl injured in car attack


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 15, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


You retard. How could he have been hit with a bat if his window was up?  Why did he take off like a bat out of hell afterwards?


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 15, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.
> ...


If he goes to prison he might not make it out alive.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 15, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Best case scenario for him--------His farts drop two octaves.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


I think he means someone hit his *car *with a bat, causing him to run for his life.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


And then backup and run for his life some more after he took another persons life.  Why are all of these inbreds so scary and timid?


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


Sorry but I watched the video from the start and the cave monkey accelerated way before the car was attacked.  His acceleration is what caused the guy to take a swing.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> If this is true than the media knows it too. Where is the reporting on this possibility?


There is no reporting because its clear he accelerated and caused the guy to swing at his car not the other way around.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


You ignorant monkey. Thats after he accelerates to hit people.


----------



## OldLady (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


Thanks.  The OP's video was in slow mo, making it appear that the guy was proceeding at a crawl to get through the group when his car got hit with the bat.  I was wondering why they would hit his car to begin with--unless he was wearing his hood, how would they know whose side he was on-- but the fact that he was plowing through them like a driver from New Jersey would answer that question.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Yeah I was thinking about that very question. Why would someone just take a swing at his car unless they knew who he was?  Since the car windows were tinted they really could only see he was white. The other question that occurred to me is why would a known Nazi be peacefully following a crowd of protesters?  It didnt make sense until I watched the entire thing. This is pretty much pre planned.  They should get him for 1rst degree but I guess they dont want him to walk.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.
> ...



And if he did, Ferguson would look like a gentlemanly disagreement. I think he's toast. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Even if she shouldn't have been in the street, it is incumbent on the driver to do everything possible to avoid hitting a pedestrian.  My wife faced an attempted suicide when a guy stepped out in front of her car and covered his eyes. Thankfully, she was alert enough and in control of her car, to avoid hitting him. If she had, it would have been an uphill battle to prove she couldn't avoid him. I think this guy is toast. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Si modo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



It comes down to this. Even if you have the right of way, a pedestrian arguing with a moving car is going to lose. Still, it is the driver's responsibility to do everything possible to avoid hitting a pedestrian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Nia88 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...



A deployed airbag does not block your view. It deflates immediately. First hand experience. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Nia88 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



That would be similar to randomly firing a machine gun into a crowd because one guy pulled a knife on you. You could get sympathy for brandishing a gun, but not for trying to kill as many as possible. Using your car as a deadly weapon is hard to defend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Fang said:


> Anyone that brought a bat and swung it, threw a punch, kicked someone, etc should be in jail, not just the kid driving the car. People on both sides were looking for a fight, they found and this is the result. WTF would you expect?



Political Correctness, however, demands that we only condemn the group out of favor. That was Trump's biggest sin in the eyes of the haters. He was not supposed to condemn violence in general, only that committed by the "wrong" people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel threatened yes.
> ...


If one is surrounded by a hostile crowd and your ability to move out of it is blocked by these people, you have the right to plaow through them toprotect your life.

That is a legal fact in most states.

These people do not have the right to stand in the streets and prevent you from moving.

That is the equivalent of unlawful detainment.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It has to proven that he deliberately disabled the airbags. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

The bottom line remains, though, that violent counter protesting has become mainstream in America. This will not stop, but will only accelerate. More people will die. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Nia88 said:
> ...



  That has to be the stupidest analogy I've ever heard.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

I'm sorry, but I'm a right winger that at this time can see little defense of what the guy did. As a driver, when you see a crowd of people in the street in front of you, especially when you know violent demonstrators are in the area, stop. That's it, stop and back up or turn around. You have no justification for approaching the crowd at any speed. You're driving a car, you have the responsibility to avoid hitting people. At the very least, this kid is not mature enough to have a license to drive. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> I have been watching a series on Netflix about string theory, which says that if it is true, then there must be 11 other invisible dimensions, and possible alternative universes. This thread seems to have drifted over from one of those universes, with the RW figuring out how this guy who was photographed carrying a shield, and chanting white supremacist slogans, whose teacher says was fascinated with Hitler, managed to accidently run his car into anti-white supremacy protesters. I leave you here, secure in the knowledge that, while in this universe, up is down, and airbags don't deploy at 65 MPH crashes with deer, I will return home to where rational thinking prevails, and my airbag deployed at a 20 MPH argument with a yearling in Redwood National Park.



I've had an airbag deploy from getting hit on the side of my car and not deploying from hitting a deer head on at normal speeds. Unless it's proven that de deliberately disabled them, it's not much to argue over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Paul Essien said:


> *I didn’t expect to have to compliment the KKK for having the good sense to wear hoods. *
> 
> Even the makers of the Tiki Torches that they use has made it clear they do not approve.
> 
> ...



He was right, however, to condemn violence in general. This won't stop and more people will die, because the groups that tangled are two sides of the same violent coin, they just have different things to complain about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse, post: 17939182
> ...



The liberals were the ones being violent?  So the white nationalists weren't being violent, then?


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Of course, but he had ample opportunity to avoid the situation in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



I'm sure you've heard stupider, or you haven't been on this board for long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> Of course, but he had ample opportunity to avoid the situation in the first place.


Yes, and that argument can be used for anyone that uses lethal force in self defense, 'He could have not gone to Charlottesville!'


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, but he had ample opportunity to avoid the situation in the first place.
> ...



Not as ridiculous as that, because he had every right to assume he could join a legal protest without fear of attack from violent leftists. Like I said, however, when you see a group of people in the street in front of you, stop. How much simpler does it have to be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



  It's a terrible analogy.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Still a stupid thing to do. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



WHO "joins a legal protest" by ramming his car directly into it??

And WHO has a right to expect he can run people over --- in two directions --- "without fear of attack" in retaliation?

And WHAT THE FUCK does "leftist" have to do with anything when you're _being _run over with that car?

Might could be that you need to think your posts through rather than "sending from your iPhone using Tapatalk" during TV commercials.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I have been watching a series on Netflix about string theory, which says that if it is true, then there must be 11 other invisible dimensions, and possible alternative universes. This thread seems to have drifted over from one of those universes, with the RW figuring out how this guy who was photographed carrying a shield, and chanting white supremacist slogans, whose teacher says was fascinated with Hitler, managed to accidently run his car into anti-white supremacy protesters. I leave you here, secure in the knowledge that, while in this universe, up is down, and airbags don't deploy at 65 MPH crashes with deer, I will return home to where rational thinking prevails, and my airbag deployed at a 20 MPH argument with a yearling in Redwood National Park.
> ...



I'm sure that's already been looked into.  I'm just saying it should be, because it's significant.

That is --- IF the kid is dense enough to try to use the ridiculous premise of this thread as a defense, which is a big IF.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Actually that would be a driver from Connecticut.  A New Jersey driver would just be lost with no sense of direction whatsoever.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



There is no state or municipality where you can legally "plaow" through people and/or crush them and then use that as an excuse for their being hostile.  Let alone "blocking" them (as if a human can "block" a Dodge Challenger that is in the process of running them over in two directions).  

*NOR* is there a state or municipality where you can just take off after smashing into another vehicle and killing a pedestrian.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.  I didn't even look this up.


----------



## OldLady (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


NOT SO, oh Great One.  Connecticut drivers are far more technically savvy than to mess up their paint job by plowing into a crowd.  NJ drivers are second only to Mass for driving like maniacal assholes; particularly NJ drivers in Porsches.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



I've already explained like six times why he would disable the air bags and why it matters if he did.

The fact that he didn't remove or cover his license plates --- or wear a disguise, or decline to be photographed earlier chanting racist memes with a Vanguard shield, or not have a Nosebook page festooned with Nazi shit or have a history going back to high school of what's been called "infatuation with Nazis" ---  means that he obviously didn't think of everything and obviously isn't the sharpest knife in the proverbial drawer.

Disabling the air bags takes a few seconds and can easily have been thought of just prior to the attack, independent of all of the above.  The air bag switch and indicator is right in front of the driver; the license plate is not.


Sit on perch casing the street, assess what one sees.... a straight street with people at the end one defines as "the enemy"....
Muse that "if I just gun it from here to there, I can take me out some Liburruls"... then I'll slam it into reverse and get away"....

Further muse that "if I run into that car my air bag will be all up in my face and smother me, that will make it hard to see, better kill that"
Disable air bag
Hit gas

The rest is bloody history.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> The point is that has nothing to do with this discussion. The liberals were the ones being violent here. Yes, your peace loving, ultra tolerant, college-educated liberals.



Link to James Fields' "college education" is where?

We know all about his Nazi infatuation gong back to high school, so that rules out "Liberal" but that's high school.

We also know about his violent past, threatening his disabled mother with a foot-long knife and her 911 calls...

Got new info then?




bgrouse said:


> Instead of discussing hypothetical situations involving hypothetical Nazis and hypothetical numbers, why don't we stick to the topic and discuss your ACTUALLY violent liberals?



That's what this topic is about.  Read the title -- "Charlottesville Driver May Have Nazi Apologtsts Dreaming Up Bizarre And Pathetic Excuses to Get Him Off the Hook".

Indeed that's exactly why you're here.
Isn't it.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...





Well I'm just thinking of Connecticut drivers and their infatuation with the rear end of the car in front of them.  That's more predictable than anything that has ever happened anywhere on a New Jersey road.  

--- not the least of which is actually figuring out where you're going.........


----------



## OldLady (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You're not wrong there; Connecticut drivers give you about three inches of space and that's it--no quarter whatsoever.  I will never forget one Good Friday evening, trying to get the hell to Maine, bumper to bumper, three lanes solid, and going a steady 82 miles an hour with no more than a foot's margin of error between us.  I was absolutely terrified.  No one could blink, sneeze or hit the brakes during that one.  Fortunately, no one did.

But back to the thread.  I am not amused by this plowing people down with vehicles thing.  Danged ISIS starting a trend.  I am very, very, glad, though that everyone kept their guns in their pockets.  Wonder when that will start....


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Yeah, been there, driven that.  How bad is it when you cross a state line and think "whew, I'm in Massachusetts (or New York), so I can relax now".


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> But back to the thread. I am not amused by this plowing people down with vehicles thing. Danged ISIS starting a trend.



Actually DAESH may get press lately because they sell papers but they certainly didn't start it.  Remember the Luby's attack 26 years ago?  Although that was gun faggotry, not terrorism....

But as far as who's starting, re-starting or inciting it --- HERE's an interesting find....

>> *Months before a man allegedly turned his vehicle into a weapon and plowed through a group of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, an article that made the rounds in conservative media encouraged readers to do something similar.*

Originally published by The Daily Caller and later syndicated or aggregated by several other websites, including Fox Nation, an offshoot of Fox News' website, it carried an unsubtle headline: "Here's A Reel Of Cars Plowing Through Protesters Trying To Block The Road." Embedded in the article was a minute-and-a-half long video showing one vehicle after another driving through demonstrations. The footage was set to a cover of Ludacris' "Move Bitch."

The article was published in January, but it drew renewed attention on Tuesday following this weekend's deadly incident in Charlottesville. As the outrage grew on Twitter, Fox News took action, deleting the version Fox Nation had published. 

.... "Here's a compilation of liberal protesters getting pushed out of the way by cars and trucks. Study the technique; it may prove useful in the next four years," Raust wrote. "None of these clips are new, but that doesn't mean they're not still fresh."

The Daily Caller's editor-in-chief declined to comment.

Fox was far from the only outlet to pick up Raust's post. Smaller conservative sites like Right Wing News and Conservative Post also published the video, and with glee. 

....  When thousands of demonstrators gathered Washington, D.C. in March to protest the Dakota Access pipeline, Daily Caller editor Katie Frates said on Twitter, "I wonder how many #NativeNationsRise #NoDAPL protesters I could run over before I got arrested #getouttamyway"

Glenn Reynolds, a conservative columnist and the proprietor of the blog Instapundit, was briefly suspended by Twitter last year for his own tweet encouraging drivers to run over protesters in North Carolina.<< --- Fox and DC Delete Posts Encouraging People to Drive Through Protests​http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/med...eo-car-crashing-liberal-protesters/index.html
The plot sickens.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Perhaps you missed my condemnation of his actions, or perhaps you're blind to anything that counters your established world view, or perhaps you're just not mature enough to carry on a conversation with anything more intelligent than a mirror?

You could, but I hold little hope, actually think about the context of what I said before opining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes. every time I feel a bump on the left rear of my car, I end up running over people and killing as many as I can.



Wow...so you routinely drive through violent areas with people carrying bats and clubs?
You didn't watch the video did you?
If you did - you would notice 3 things...
1) Prior to the mob surrounding his car...he was driving normally.
2) He swerved *away* from the person who clubbed his car.
3) Immediately after his car was hit, right before the video ends...you can clearly see the mob surrounding his car.

  All of this at the very least allows a reasonable person to investigate the claim.
The video certainly supports the claim he was being attacked by multiple people immediately before accelerating.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



How many people think a deployed airbag will block a driver's vision? From personal experience being t-boned by another car, I can tell you that they completely deflate before you're even aware they deployed. 

It remains to be proven that he deliberately disabled them, for any reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> NOT SO, oh Great One.  Connecticut drivers are far more technically savvy than to mess up their paint job by plowing into a crowd.  NJ drivers are second only to Mass for driving like maniacal assholes; particularly NJ drivers in Porsches.



I think people from the great state of Maryland can never be left out of such a discussion; the worst drivers in the country.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NOT SO, oh Great One.  Connecticut drivers are far more technically savvy than to mess up their paint job by plowing into a crowd.  NJ drivers are second only to Mass for driving like maniacal assholes; particularly NJ drivers in Porsches.
> ...



They certainly are not the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 16, 2017)

iamwhatiseem said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. every time I feel a bump on the left rear of my car, I end up running over people and killing as many as I can.
> ...



iF THAT WASN'T SO SAD, IT WOULD BE FUNNY
1) Yes, he was driving normally as anyone can when they drive into a crowd of people.  They didn't come off the sidewalks at him. They were already standing there long before he ran into them. It's not like he was driving highway speeds and he didn't have time to stop well  before he was anywhere near them. he had more than enough opportunity to stop, or even turn off on another road.
2) When his car was struck, he had already hit several people.
3) Those surrounding the car were just luck he missed them as he sped through the crowd.
4) You're nuts. Why are you trying to defend someone who intentionally drove into a crowd?


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> The bottom line remains, though, that violent counter protesting has become mainstream in America. This will not stop, but will only accelerate. More people will die.



Protest violence is only mainstream for the left.  The only reason the alt-right came ready for a fight is because they knew they'd be attacked, and they were.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 16, 2017)

Maybe the white supremacists expected to be attacked because nobody likes racists.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



No, I am clearly not defending anyone.
What I am defending is SEEKING THE TRUTH.
And the video, along with others, are compelling.
He may have very well intentionally done this, however the videos DO support the claim that he was being attacked by multiple people with weapons right before accelerating.
  It IS possible that he panicked, if so...he is not a murderer. Manslaughter? probably....but a murderer? We need more evidence.
  We need to know what happened right before he did this.
*We still live in a country, hopefully, where one's guilt is measured by evidence and not emotion.*


----------



## OldLady (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NOT SO, oh Great One.  Connecticut drivers are far more technically savvy than to mess up their paint job by plowing into a crowd.  NJ drivers are second only to Mass for driving like maniacal assholes; particularly NJ drivers in Porsches.
> ...


I've never had the pleasure.  I remember Rustic repeating about twenty times in a thread that he would rather die than vacation in Maryland.
Sounds like a great place.  LOL


----------



## MikeK (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> I've already explained like six times why he would disable the air bags and why it matters if he did.


Why not explain it again -- or point me to a message number.  

I'm not asking for a calculus formula.  A simple sentence should do.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

OldLady said:


> I've never had the pleasure.  I remember Rustic repeating about twenty times in a thread that he would rather die than vacation in Maryland.
> Sounds like a great place.  LOL


Maryland has some beautiful scenery and wonderful people, but driving around the Beltway is definitely automotive combat


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I've already explained like six times why he would disable the air bags and why it matters if he did.
> ...



If an airbag goes off, it doesn't fold back up in the steering wheel, it stays where it is, deflated and in the way.  If you are planning on doing something where you may experience a crash and feel that you may need to get away afterwards, you would disable the airbag so that they won't impede your vision or your ability to operate the car. 

And yeah, it's a calculated risk.  Before the 80's, there were no airbags.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 16, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> If an airbag goes off, it doesn't fold back up in the steering wheel, it stays where it is, deflated and in the way.  If you are planning on doing something where you may experience a crash and feel that you may need to get away afterwards, you would disable the airbag so that they won't impede your vision or your ability to operate the car.
> 
> And yeah, it's a calculated risk.  Before the 80's, there were no airbags.


Assuming the airbags were disabled the question as to _when_ they were disabled arises -- and why.  This is an extremely speculative question with no evidence value.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Oh bullshit.  You've apparently never seen a car accident.  At least not since 1998 when they became _mandatory_.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> And if he did, Ferguson would look like a gentlemanly disagreement. I think he's toast.


I don't know about Ferguson, but it would invoke recollection of the O.J. Simpson debacle.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If an airbag goes off, it doesn't fold back up in the steering wheel, it stays where it is, deflated and in the way.  If you are planning on doing something where you may experience a crash and feel that you may need to get away afterwards, you would disable the airbag so that they won't impede your vision or your ability to operate the car.
> ...



That's really the bottom line here. It's an extremely flimsy thing to argue over. I would argue that wearing no disguise and leaving his license plate on the car indicates that we're not exactly dealing with the most sophisticated of intellects here. Thus, assuming he deliberately disabled the airbag so he could run into parked cars is specious at best. I've had an airbag deploy. It hangs there, but certainly does not block your vision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > And if he did, Ferguson would look like a gentlemanly disagreement. I think he's toast.
> ...



Political Correctness demands this guy's head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I've already explained like six times why he would disable the air bags and why it matters if he did.
> ...



You're being intentionally obtuse.  *The very post you just quoted* lays it all out in third-grade reading level detail --- and then you _edited it out of the post _and ask "duh, where is it?"

I don't tolerate playing stupid.  You're about one inch away from Ignore.

I can't believe you're sitting on this board trying to find excuses for a Nazi terrorist.  You've sunk a long way.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If an airbag goes off, it doesn't fold back up in the steering wheel, it stays where it is, deflated and in the way.  If you are planning on doing something where you may experience a crash and feel that you may need to get away afterwards, you would disable the airbag so that they won't impede your vision or your ability to operate the car.
> ...



Probably did it just before he left for the rally.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 16, 2017)

Sounds like it's somewhat of an ordeal to disable your airbags.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

The disabling of airbags is nothing but speculation at this point, isn't it?


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> The disabling of airbags is nothing but speculation at this point, isn't it?



That is the correct motorcycle. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Please present evidence he actually did it before speculating as to when he might have. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Dude, I've been in a car when they deployed. What, do you actually believe the cartoons that show a big pillow that squishes the driver back into the seat so he can't get out of the car? The truth is, they inflate and deflate before you're aware of anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

iamwhatiseem said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



I disagree.  I think the videos support the claim that the car was attacked by one person with a weapon before impact.  I have not seen any clear evidence that that first person with what appeared to be a bat actually hit the car, nor that the car accelerated after that first attack with the bat.  The car was very close to hitting the crowd and the truck that it rear-ended at the time that the first person took a swing at it with the bat.  At that point it appears as though the impact was already intentional, and the person who swung the bat may well have been reacting to that imminent impact (or may have just been a violent ass).

I agree that the driver's guilt should be determined by the evidence.  We obviously do not have nearly all of the evidence, but the available videos paint a different picture for me than the do for you.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



You can see the air bag starting to deflate in this video, even with the super slo-mo.


This one gives a better indication of how quickly the driver is able to see after airbag deployment.


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yes, it is ludicrous to believe a deployed airbag will block your vision. Now, the prep in question is not likely to be very bright, so maybe he thought it would help, but to insist he did it has no basis in truth, yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> I disagree.  I think the videos support the claim that the car was attacked by one person with a weapon before impact.  I have not seen any clear evidence that that first person with what appeared to be a bat actually hit the car, nor that the car accelerated after that first attack with the bat.  The car was very close to hitting the crowd and the truck that it rear-ended at the time that the first person took a swing at it with the bat.  At that point it appears as though the impact was already intentional, and the person who swung the bat may well have been reacting to that imminent impact (or may have just been a violent ass).
> 
> I agree that the driver's guilt should be determined by the evidence.  We obviously do not have nearly all of the evidence, but the available videos paint a different picture for me than the do for you.



1) A person appears to hit the car with a club...
2) The driver hits his brake and swerves away from the hit, you can see his brake lights.
3) In the last half-second before the video ends, the driver still going slow, you see a mob with weapons surround his car...clearly...no debate...before he accelerated.

4) Without investigation and carefully comparing placement of people who might be in both videos, you cannot know for sure how much time is between the end of this video and the beginning of the other.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 16, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> [...]
> 
> Yeah, it doesn't make sense to try and save money! Makes *MUCH *more sense to sabotage your own working airbag, reducing the value of your car, because you KNOW you're about to NEED IT!


About to need it for what?  To make a quick getaway after a deliberate crash -- while leaving one's license plates intact and in place to immediately identify oneself?  

Honestly, does that really make sense to you?  

If I were this defendant I would dismiss the _airbag_ issue by saying I disabled them on the day I bought the car for the same reason I never use seat-belts: They make me feel trapped and I'm afraid of them.  So give me a summons.  

There is a stage in a criminal trial called, _Discovery,_ which is when the defense can demand the prosecutor to present his/her evidence for preparatory examination.  If I were a lawyer defending in this trial I would ask that the disabled airbag _theory_ be dismissed as having no evidence value.  And there is a very good chance it would be, because it is purely speculative.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> The disabling of airbags is nothing but speculation at this point, isn't it?



For us here, yes.  It should have been done by now by local police and should be done by the prosecuting attorney_ in the event_ --- which is unlikely since it's absurd --- that the defense would try to use the "accident" scenario that this ridiculous Nazi-apologist thread tried to do in starting this thread.

Nobody asserted that the driver DID disable the airbags, except a poster a few minutes ago trying to inject a strawman.  We're in no position to know.  I'm just saying it needs to be looked into.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



--- which is exactly why first you determine *IF* they were disabled, and if so *WHEN*.  

THEN if you have an indication, you present that on the witness stand in search of a reason for WHY the defendant disabled them (and when).

--- and all that is ********IF******* the defendant first takes the course of the absurd pretention of this thread and tries to claim "panic".  Which is a very remote possibility.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> --- which is exactly why first you determine *IF* they were disabled, and if so *WHEN*.
> 
> THEN if you have an indication, you present that on the witness stand in search of a reason for WHY the defendant disabled them (and when).
> 
> --- and all that is ********IF******* the defendant first takes the course of the absurd pretention of this thread and tries to claim "panic".  Which is a very remote possibility.


Any prosecutor who would present something this flimsy as "evidence" is looking for an acquittal.  

The license plate factor is tangible evidence -- the kind of thing that sways juries.  The airbag issue is theoretical speculation.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> [...]
> 
> Nobody asserted that the driver DID disable the airbags, except a poster a few minutes ago trying to inject a strawman.  We're in no position to know.  I'm just saying it needs to be looked into.


Why?  It would have no evidence value.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

hadit, post: 17943475 





hadit said:


> He was right, however, to condemn violence in general. This won't stop and more people will die, because the groups that tangled are two sides of the same violent coin, they just have different things to complain about.



Who is much more morally supportable by a conscientious multicultural healthy freedom loving society; One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?

Can you choose a side?


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 16, 2017)

bottom line? Nobody knows dick about what really happened down there!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

skookerasbil, post: 17947860 





skookerasbil said:


> bottom line? Nobody knows dick about what really happened down there!!



Who is much more morally supportable by a conscientious multicultural healthy freedom loving society; One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?

Can you choose a side?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Because it goes directly to *intent*, that's why.  And *intent *is the entire topic here.

And once again this is another rehash of points already made.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 16, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> bottom line? Nobody knows dick about what really happened down there!!



Too bad there's multiple angles of video and scores of eyewitnesses named "Nobody".  Huh.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17923043





JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.



He is not a random white guy. He is a Nazi.

Who is much more morally supportable by a conscientious multicultural healthy freedom loving society; One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?

Can you choose a side?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> He is not a random white guy. He is a Nazi.



There is no evidence this guy is a Nazi.

You morons are using the term Nazi like Senator McCarthy used Communist.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Who is much more morally supportable by a conscientious multicultural healthy freedom loving society; One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?



That is called a 'false dichotomy', dude 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Can you choose a side?



Sure I can, but not as defined by ideologues like yourself.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Before impact but not before acceleration. The video I posted clearly shows the guy accelerate which attracts the attention of the guy that took a swing at the car.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > He is not a random white guy. He is a Nazi.
> ...


There are multiple witnesses he is a Nazi. Are you really that ignorant of the facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Si modo, post: 17923237 





Si modo said:


> However, the counter protesters were assembling in an area not cordoned off - cars were present.



Who is much more morally supportable by a conscientious multicultural healthy freedom loving society; One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?

Can you choose a side?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17948129 





JimBowie1958 said:


> Sure I can, but not as defined by ideologues like yourself.



So you can't choose a side. If you could you would.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Si modo, post: 17923237
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that question important when discussing groups of people who did not act peacefully?

Of course the vast majority of people will find white supremacists or neo-Nazis to be morally repugnant.  That doesn't absolve the counter-protesters of any culpability if any of them attacked the other group outside the bounds of self-defense.  A group having morally repugnant views is not a license to attack them physically.

And that last statement in no way is meant to lessen the horrific act of the car driver that ran into the crowd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 17948206 





Montrovant said:


> Is that question important when discussing groups of people who did not act peacefully?



Yes it is.  Do you want to know why? First you need to choose a side.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 16, 2017)

This makes me laugh!


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



He was surrounded by a mob of antifa and blm thugs trying to shut down a public thoroughfare, shouting "whose streets?  Our Streets!," and who were attacking his car with bats and clubs.  Self defense #freejasonalexfields


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17948206
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The side which is against BLM and Antifa terrorists who have been attacking Republicans and Trump supporters since before the Republican National Convention and who came to attack people legally exercising their right to peaceably assemble.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Go sniff some glue cave monkey. He was following the crowd and accelerated into it then he was attacked.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Liar we have the Antifa and BLM terrorists on tape hitting his car before he hit anyone:


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Call Sign Chaos, post: 17948311
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are the liar and we have the video evidence proving that your pro-Antifa fake news narrative is bullshit:


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


No silly monkey. I saw that video. Now look at the real one.  He takes off for the crowd and attracts the attention of the guy that took a swing at his car.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17948325 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> The side which is against BLM and Antifa terrorists who have been attacking Republicans and Trump supporters since before the Republican National Convention and who came to attack people legally exercising their right to peaceably assemble.



Are you stupid. 

Asked you about "peaceful" people on both sides. "One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?"

Choose one side or the other. Or are you too stupid to understand a simple question?



NotfooledbyW said:


> skookerasbil, post: 17947860 Who is much more morally supportable by a conscientious multicultural healthy freedom loving society; One who actively but peacefully opposes and protests fascist racist Nazi rallies? Or one who actively but peacefully promotes public displays of Nazi regalia and ideology as the only proper ideology for all of society?
> 
> Can you choose a side?



Which is it?


----------



## hadit (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> hadit, post: 17943475
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't have to support any side to state that violence is wrong. Pretending that one is more noble than the other when both celebrate violence is futile. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Liar he didn't hit anyone until his car was attacked, self defense.


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 16, 2017)

Lakhota said:


> Was he also under attack when he was abusing and threatening his wheelchair-bound mother?  One of his teachers said he was obsessed with Nazi Germany.
> 
> *Mom Of Charlottesville Suspect Repeatedly Called 911 On Her Son For Threats*
> 
> *Charlottesville Terrorist James Alex Fields, Mom Repeatedly Called 911 Over Violent Behavior*



I thought liberals were supposed to be in the corner of the mentally ill?  What the hell happened?

"James Alex Fields Jr. also confided that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger and had been prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, Derek Weimer said in an interview with The Associated Press."
Crash suspect’s ex-teacher says he idolized Hitler, Nazism


*ON MENTAL ILLNESS: People with Schizophrenia Lack Impulse Control, and How to Deal with This*
"Medical scientists believe that the brain structure is abnormal for persons with a major mental illness such as schizophrenia. Some persons with schizophrenia, perhaps a third, have enlarged ventricles, or empty spaces within the brain, which translates into less overall ability to function, reason, and experience the environment. Other brains of persons with schizophrenia are closer to normal, with structural problems that are more subtle, and more localized to within only some areas. Because of this theory, it makes sense to believe that a person with schizophrenia will still have problems even while medicated. A lack of control of impulses is frequently one of those problems. . ."

<snip>

"This discussion invites the issue of competence. The idea that we have behavior beyond our conscious control implies incompetence, and this brings legal issues. Persons with mental illness should be taken on an individual basis. Some should be taken as responsible for our actions, while others are too severely ill to be considered responsible. You can't say that, across the board, persons with mental illness are either competent or incompetent. This is sort of a gray area."
ON MENTAL ILLNESS: People with Schizophrenia Lack Impulse Control, and How to Deal with This. Category: Columns from The Berkeley Daily Planet

Schizophrenia and Dangerous Behaviour - Living With Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia - In-Depth Report - NY Times Health


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


That's a very well done play by play in this video. No matter what the Libs would wish to be true. There's more to this story than "he just decided to kill people."


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Call Sign Chaos, post: 17948325
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, one side (alt-right) was peaceably protesting with a permit, the other (antifa and BLM) was illegally rioting without a permit, blocking public streets, and attacking peaceful protesters, their ideology is irrelevant in this scenario communism is just as bad as national socialism and is in fact responsible for more deaths and the Communists share equal guilt with the Nazis for WW2.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



We have it all on tape, they can deny all they want and the video evidence will seem him exonerated, at worse it's manslaughter not murder 2.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


Im confident that the murder charge will be scaled back. It's going to be very tricky to prove intent, and malice aforethought.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


I didnt say he hit anyone you inbred. Learn how to read. I said he accelerated before anyone hit his car which made them attack.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Not really. He was tailing the crowd for sometime.  If its not murder 1 its definitely murder 2


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



The problem is he has already been tries by the Antifa backing fake news narrative that was written before the incident even occurred, when the right fights back against the BLM and Antifa terrorist scum the leftist media blames the victim for defending themselves.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



He was driving on an open public street being intentionally blocked by a violent antifa and BLM mob of rioters who attacked his car with bats!  Self defense.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


If you can't save yourself going out the short way, go out the long way. Whatever it takes to survive a bloodthirsty liberal mob.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


I see no evidence of him trying to hit anyone prior to the part where he was attacked. All I see is an attempt to get through the alley.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



He was driving on an open public street being intentionally blocked by a violent antifa and BLM mob of rioters who attacked his car with bats! Self defense.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Were they? We're talking about the events that took place on this road where the driver hit the pedestrian, correct? What white nationalists do you see being violent and aggressive?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 16, 2017)

Pogo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that has nothing to do with this discussion. The liberals were the ones being violent here. Yes, your peace loving, ultra tolerant, college-educated liberals.
> ...


What I post is based on the evidence.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


How is idling through a crowd tailing anyone? I don't think the footage begins early enough to draw that conclusion.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


Yep, he was attacked from behind, while the violent liberals blocked the way out in front of his car. Then they mobbed him from all directions in an obvious attempt on his life. He was literally surrounded with no way out except through the dumb liberals. I can't think of even the most liberal states where you are not allowed to protect yourself when surrounded by violent retards trying to murder you.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


The video speaks for itself. i cant explain it better than the video. Why was he following the crowd?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Sign Chaos, post: 17948480 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> Lol, one side (alt-right) was peaceably protesting



In your mind, the alt-right threw no punches, brandished no clubs, and assaulted no one. Put aside the ones on both sides that engaged in violence, which side are you on. 

The woman who was killed was not fighting or rioting. Are you on her side or not.

Romney gets it.

"No, not the same," Romney wrote. "One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes."

Why can't you choose a side? Are you ashamed of the side you have chosen?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

From the video... it does appear that the blows to his vehicle preceded his acceleration.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


You keep forgetting the video shows he was attacked *after* he accelerated towards the crowd. It was murder.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> From the video... it does appear that the blows to his vehicle preceded his acceleration.


Your sense of timing must be off or you have deluded yourself. We'll see what happens in court. No use arguing with people who cant see whats right in front of them.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Sign Chaos, post: 17948480
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not. I'm on the side of truth, and justice without regard to the beliefs held by either the victims or tha accused. I believe in Truth. Justice. And the American way. There's a reason truth comes before justice. There's also a reason justice should be blind.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Something being in front of you doesn't mean you are out to follow it. He may have been trying to mosey on through. It is a road after all. Doing a u turn wasn't necessarily possible. Trying to drive backward through a chaotic throng isn't necessarily the safest idea either. Someone could get hurt.


----------



## Godboy (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > From the video... it does appear that the blows to his vehicle preceded his acceleration.
> ...


Check your eyesight Cave Monkey. The video clearly shows no acceleration until after his car got hit. You can't lie when there is a video that clearly shows the opposite of your idiotic claim.


----------



## deanrd (Aug 16, 2017)

bodecea said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


I did it.

Twice.  

Said I was sorry both times.

Once I was arrested.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Sign Chaos, post: 17948480
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"The woman who was killed was not fighting or rioting." your quote...
Are saying that you can identify the woman in any of the video footage? It would go miles to support your claim. Till this very moment I haven't seen nor heard anyone willing to show her present in a single video, photograph, or even eyewitness testimony, specifically relating to her death. So if you've got such info please share.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I'm sorry, NotfooledbyW seemed to be talking about the entire protest/counter-protest affair and not just the incident with the car hitting the crowd.  My response was based on that.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17948206
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you not read or not understand the rest of my post which you quoted a portion of?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Also attacked after. That doesn't undo the strikes to his vehicle prior to him driving into the crowd.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


He should have gotten attacked afterwards.  Of course it doesnt undo the one swing because he accelerated towards the crowd.  I never said it did. Youre a dumb monkey arent you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 17948714 





Montrovant said:


> Did you not read or not understand the rest of my post which you quoted a portion of?



Sure I did, but asked you to choose on of two options first.

Why can't you do that?


----------



## Lilah (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



It can happen and has happened.
*Car runs over motorcycle in bizarre road rage incident caught on video ...*
fox13now.com


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



So you can see the people he hit attacking him before he is driving into them?  What about the car he rammed into, was that doing something to him as well?

Arguing that the driver was attempting to flee is shaky, but there is some evidence to support the possibility.  I don't know that there is any evidence to support a claim of self defense.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Now now... Don't make me put you on the list for rest of this thread. Mind your manners...
Now . Where were we? Oh yes! The first strike... His car was already in a slow roll forward, which is to be wxpected from a person slowly working his way through a crowd. Then his car is struck, and he then accelerates. Which would make sense if he felt he was in danger. It's important to rember that the view that the driver had; is not the view that that camera shows. From his perspective it probably looked like he was in fact surrounded.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17948714
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Clearly you did not, since I said that the vast majority of people will find white supremacy and neo-Naziism morally repugnant.  Disagreeing with their views does not give the counter-protesters a right to attack them, however, assuming some of them did so.

Neo-Nazis may be jackasses, but they have just as much right to assemble as anyone else.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



I appeared to me that the driver was already moving at a reckless speed, considering the closeness of the crowd, when he was struck from behind.  It already appeared as though he was going to be hitting someone before the hit on the rear of the car happened, IMO.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator, post: 17948639 





Vastator said:


> I'm on the side of truth, and justice without regard to the beliefs held by either the victims or tha accused



I deliberately did not ask you about anyone that is 'accused' of violence or a 'victim' of such violence.

Choose a side among the peaceful participants in the event from the two sides. 

Why run from such a simple choice that any decent human being would be willing to make.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Vastator, post: 17948639
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Between the two... I'd have the lot of them shot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 17948810 





Montrovant said:


> Clearly you did not, since I said that the vast majority of people will find white supremacy and neo-Naziism morally repugnant.



I was asking you. Not about what the vast majority thinks. I know the vast majority would strongly oppose these subhuman Nazis. Still wondering what your problem is with directly answering a very straightforward question.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Nope. Try again. He accelerates then he is attacked.  You must be blind or stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator, post: 17948886 





Vastator said:


> Between the two... I'd have the lot of them shot.



Which side. So you are by nature a violent person. Is that what you are saying.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17948810
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again you crop my post and avoid what I've said.  I pretty clearly said that neo-Nazis are jackasses.  So, they are morally repugnant, and jackasses, and you are still wondering how I feel on the subject.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Vastator, post: 17948886
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both sides. And if it finalizes in restoring peace and order... Then yes. Yes I am.


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 16, 2017)

Someone needs to delete this fucking fake news bullshit of a thread.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

SYTFE said:


> Someone needs to delete this fucking fake news bullshit of a thread.


I cant figure out if they are really that stupid or they are trolling. One look at the video shows the car accelerate, someone take a swing at it, and him crashing into the crowd of people. You have to be a mental degenerate to see anything else.


----------



## SYTFE (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> SYTFE said:
> 
> 
> > Someone needs to delete this fucking fake news bullshit of a thread.
> ...



Or a truly sick individual, like the OP.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Again you crop my post and avoid what I've said. I pretty clearly said that neo-Nazis are jackasses. So, they are morally repugnant, and jackasses, and you are still wondering how I feel on the subject.



Why can't you directly answer the question I originally posed to you? 

It's simple for me. Those who peacefully counter-protest Nazi rallies are morally superior to the Nazis and are model citizens that should be admired. Do you agree? I am squarely on the peaceful anti-Nazi protestor's side. Are you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator, post: 17948948 l





Vastator said:


> Both sides. And if it finalizes in restoring peace and order... Then yes. Yes I am.



All right, you are un-American. Glad we could clear that up. Duly noted.


----------



## Borillar (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Just last Thursday I accidentally dressed up with a Vanguard shield, wrote a lot of bigot rant on Nosebook and then rammed a line of parked cars before tearing back up the hill in reverse.
> ...


If it doesn't shift, you must acquit?


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Vastator, post: 17948948 l
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm red white and blue. And if you are too; I fought, and bled for folks like you. Your opinion is duly noted. Glad I could clear that up.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps.....but department of memes and 4chan don't seem like the most reliable sources (even if you consider major news networks to be unreliable), and the extremely short video clips are pretty unconvincing either way.
> ...


The video shows someone hitting his car with a FLAG AS HE DROVE PAST


----------



## ClosedCaption (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they were actually just panicked into losing control of their Navy
> ...



ROFL


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Im confident that the murder charge will be scaled back. It's going to be very tricky to prove intent, and malice aforethought.


Or even worse, they go ahead with the Murder 2 charge, because the DA's office is full of ideological morons, and the jury clears the guy.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Grampa Murked U said:


> The video shows someone hitting his car with a FLAG AS HE DROVE PAST



Lol, of course he was driving past, but he then accelerated and swerved away from the direction the blow came from.

Now I dont know if this is or is not the case, but there may be a case for manslaughter instead of Murder 2.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Im confident that the murder charge will be scaled back. It's going to be very tricky to prove intent, and malice aforethought.
> ...


If I were a prosecutor that would be my worst fear. That they over charge the guy due to political pressure, and he walks... People would be out for blood.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Again you crop my post and avoid what I've said. I pretty clearly said that neo-Nazis are jackasses. So, they are morally repugnant, and jackasses, and you are still wondering how I feel on the subject.
> ...



So you don't consider calling neo-Nazis morally repugnant jackasses to be a direct answer?  

I can't speak to the moral character of the counter-protesters other than to say that I agree with them when it comes to white supremacy and neo-Nazis.  It doesn't mean they are good people; a pedophile or mass-murderer might counter-protest against neo-Nazis.  On this one issue, however, I agree that I consider the morality of protesting against neo-Naziism superior to support of neo-Naziism.

None of which changes the fact that the white nationalists, supremacists, and neo-Nazis have the same right of assembly as any other citizen of this country.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> None of which changes the fact that the white nationalists, supremacists, and neo-Nazis have the same right of assembly as any other citizen of this country.


And they were fringe elements; most people were there to defend our history, our culture and the good name of a heroic man named Robert E. Lee.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> So you can see the people he hit attacking him before he is driving into them?  What about the car he rammed into, was that doing something to him as well?


Yes, it brought him to a very sudden stop, lol.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > The video shows someone hitting his car with a FLAG AS HE DROVE PAST
> ...



I still do not see him swerve away.  Maybe he accelerates some, it's very hard to say.  I still think he appeared to have been heading into the crowd at too high a speed when the car was first hit.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> I can't speak to the moral character of the counter-protesters


Really? Do you even watch the news?

Here's who they are


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



Between the video (which, IMO, so far speaks against the guy) and potential witness accounts, a murder 2 charge might be reasonable.  It depends on the totality of the evidence, of course.  In my mind a murder charge seems to have at least a decent chance of being sustained, based on the evidence I've seen so far.  The "hitting the gas in an attempt to flee" defense doesn't look like a strong argument at this point.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


How about now?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak to the moral character of the counter-protesters
> ...



Were any of those people at the Charlottesville protests?  Does that video speak to every member of Antifa?  Were only Antifa members at the Charlottesville protests?

I'm confident there were some ass-holes among the counter-protesters, just as not all of the original protesters were neo-Nazis.  I don't know much about the makeup of the counter-protesters.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Im confident that the murder charge will be scaled back. It's going to be very tricky to prove intent, and malice aforethought.
> ...


Not much is going to be able to clear this guy except an all white jury.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 16, 2017)

Gonna be interesting to hear what comes out of his trial.  Dude is already having a hard time because the public defender's office, of the first group of lawyers they could select from, had a conflict of interest because they knew some of the people who were hurt.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> View attachment 144123
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> ...



I think you misunderstand why I don't think it is a strong argument.  I think the evidence points to him having decided to run into the crowd before anyone hit the car.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Gonna be interesting to hear what comes out of his trial.  Dude is already having a hard time because the public defender's office, of the first group of lawyers they could select from, had a conflict of interest because they knew some of the people who were hurt.


The Nazis will get him a first rate attorney. He is now a hero (heru?) to them


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Gonna be interesting to hear what comes out of his trial.  Dude is already having a hard time because the public defender's office, of the first group of lawyers they could select from, had a conflict of interest because they knew some of the people who were hurt.
> ...


That's so much bullshit you don't even honestly believe it.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


You dont think his homies are going to hook him up with an attorney?  How about that website that collects money for people?  pretty sure someone is setting up a go fund me account for this inbred.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 144123
> ...


People see what they want to see. i am slowly coming to grips with this.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Skinheads are the fringe of the fringe. The. bulk of whoms members reside in prison. The lefts ridiculous portrayal of some pouring out of support for these morons would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


I said Nazis not Skinheads. You do realize that all skinheads are not racists right?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17949555 





JimBowie1958 said:


> And they were fringe elements; most people were there to defend our history, our culture and the good name of a heroic man named Robert E. Lee.



Robert E Lee would have been hung as a traitor had General Grant not wanted him pardoned. 

Your hero is a traitor.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 144123
> ...


If the evidence bears that out... then fuck em'. But that's not quit how it looks in the video to me. Personally I think everyone is really jumping the gun on this one. There's a whole lot of shit wrapped up in this boondoggle. And the video is only one small part of it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 17949534 





Montrovant said:


> On this one issue, however, I agree that I consider the morality of protesting against neo-Naziism superior to support of neo-Naziism.



Wow, it took so long but you got there. Now let's talk about the sliver of anti-Nazi protestors that have engaged in violence. You do admit that both sides in Charlottesville had participants that engaged in violence. So do you believe the violent actiions of a few discredit the moral superiority of the peaceful anti-Nazi protesters over the Nazis.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> I still do not see him swerve away.  Maybe he accelerates some, it's very hard to say.  I still think he appeared to have been heading into the crowd at too high a speed when the car was first hit.


This video shows the incident broken down to slow motion and some illustrative pics.


There is little attention paid to the driver as he approaches and he is going slowly, then his car is struck at 00:47, and the car veers right at 00:56.

Another interesting pair of pictures are at 2:07 and 2:36 in the video, the first is a closer shot  of flagboy hitting the car and still there is no panic in the crowd. The PRECEDING pic is at 2:36 and shows the situation before flagboy hits the car, and notice that the DRIVER HAD HIS BRAKE LIGHTS ON.

From that point he accelerates in a short distance to a speed that caused two parked cars to slam forward into the crowd.

It seems pretty strong to me that the driver panicked, spooked by flagboy.

Still he is at least guilty of manslaughter and failing to control his vehicle.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> JimBowie1958, post: 17949555
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, he is a hero and a legally declared American veteran.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


??? No. Not particularly versed in the finer points of eithers viewpoints. They're all trash to me.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



There was no panic.  The n*gger lovers were asking for it.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

MikeK said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've unintentionally stepped on the gas pedal too hard before, myself. I let off before I ran over a bunch of people and killed at least one, but that's just me.
> ...



By serving time he is serving God. God will protect him now.  He's a martyr to the noble cause.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I still do not see him swerve away.  Maybe he accelerates some, it's very hard to say.  I still think he appeared to have been heading into the crowd at too high a speed when the car was first hit.
> ...



Don't take this as me being completely confident, but here's my take.

First, I still don't know if the car was actually struck by the guy with a flag (although it's nice to have a good picture to see that it WAS a flag, I thought it was a bat from the first video I saw).  Certainly he tried to hit the car, but it was moving forward and you just can't tell if the flag actually hit.  Later on in the video you linked, it shows a scuff mark on the bumper and indicates that was caused by the flag, but it looks to me as though the scuff was already there and the flag would not have hit that spot.

Next, the pictures of the guy with the flag and the car's brake lights.  I had already seen the car's brake lights on momentarily in another video.  That was a bit up the road from where the flag guy tried to hit him, and I don't see how that makes the case that the driver was fleeing.  The driver at least tapped the brakes a ways back, then did NOT brake again after.  So he was at least coasting, if not accelerating, before ever getting to flag guy.

When the guy with the flag tried to or did hit the car, you absolutely can see concern, and perhaps the beginnings of panic, in some of the people.  A number of faces look worried, and a woman in green pants and white t-shit in the path of the car looks to be trying to run out of the way.  I'm not saying that explains the flag guy trying to hit the car; he might just have been an ass hole.

I do see a small swerve to the right in the video.  However, it is such a short turn and immediately corrected, I don't know that it can be seen as evidence of panic.  Was the driver in control enough that he could recover from a panicked swerve a fraction of a second after he began it, yet not in control enough to stop the car?  Despite the label in some of the pictures that claim the brake lights came on after flag guy hit the car, I think it is pretty clear that what is circled is actually a glare off the bumper.  You can see it in the picture at 2:27.  The positioning of the light spot is not where the brake light should be.  So, what we seem to see is a driver make a minor course correction without any attempt made to stop.  If this were truly a panic reaction, I would expect a much wilder movement of the car.

Finally, take a look at the flag guy picture again at 2:27.  There looks to be no more than a car length between the front of the car and the crowd.  Even if the car doesn't accelerate from that point, even if the driver slammed on the brakes right there, it looks like there would have been a good chance he would hit some of the crowd.  These pictures actually make me feel more strongly that this was an intentional act, as they seem to show the car moving along at a speed, based on videos of the event, which would have caused a collision with protesters even if the driver tried to stop from the moment he was hit by the flag.

At this point I feel fairly confident it was an intentional act, but I try to remain open to new evidence changing my opinion.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17949534
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it took you a long time to accept it.  

You seem to be looking for specific answers to general questions.  Nothing anyone does changes my opinion that opposing neo-Nazi ideology is morally superior to supporting neo-Nazi ideology.  I do not, however, accept the idea that a person who opposes neo-Nazi ideology is automatically morally superior as a person to someone who supports neo-Nazi ideology.  There are so many aspects to morality, someone could oppose neo-Nazis and still be a complete monster.

Peaceful anti-Nazi protesters will remain morally superior to peaceful neo-Nazi supporters regardless of the actions of other violent protesters, with regards to this issue.

Rather than trying to get somewhere with leading questions, perhaps assuming you know where my opinions lie, why don't you just get to your point?


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



   Better tell god to go ahead and order a bushing for his ass. He's gonna need it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> First, I still don't know if the car was actually struck by the guy with a flag (although it's nice to have a good picture to see that it WAS a flag, I thought it was a bat from the first video I saw).  Certainly he tried to hit the car, but it was moving forward and you just can't tell if the flag actually hit.  Later on in the video you linked, it shows a scuff mark on the bumper and indicates that was caused by the flag, but it looks to me as though the scuff was already there and the flag would not have hit that spot.
> 
> Next, the pictures of the guy with the flag and the car's brake lights.  I had already seen the car's brake lights on momentarily in another video.  That was a bit up the road from where the flag guy tried to hit him, and I don't see how that makes the case that the driver was fleeing.  The driver at least tapped the brakes a ways back, then did NOT brake again after.  So he was at least coasting, if not accelerating, before ever getting to flag guy.



This is the photo of the brake light PRIOR to flagboy hitting the car.






I have no idea why the guy hit the brakes if his intent was to run over the people in front of him anyway. But he did gfet hit shortly after this phot and he accelerated into the rest of the crowd.

This is after flagboy hit the car.



Montrovant said:


> I do see a small swerve to the right in the video.  However, it is such a short turn and immediately corrected, I don't know that it can be seen as evidence of panic.  Was the driver in control enough that he could recover from a panicked swerve a fraction of a second after he began it, yet not in control enough to stop the car?  Despite the label in some of the pictures that claim the brake lights came on after flag guy hit the car, I think it is pretty clear that what is circled is actually a glare off the bumper.  You can see it in the picture at 2:27.  The positioning of the light spot is not where the brake light should be.  So, what we seem to see is a driver make a minor course correction without any attempt made to stop.  If this were truly a panic reaction, I would expect a much wilder movement of the car.



I dont see how you think these are not the brake lights, unless I am misunderstanding you.

The swerve to the right is short, and it seems to suggest sudden acceleration. A Charger does tend to have powerful engines.



Montrovant said:


> Finally, take a look at the flag guy picture again at 2:27.  There looks to be no more than a car length between the front of the car and the crowd.  Even if the car doesn't accelerate from that point, even if the driver slammed on the brakes right there, it looks like there would have been a good chance he would hit some of the crowd.  These pictures actually make me feel more strongly that this was an intentional act, as *they seem to show the car moving along at a speed,* based on videos of the event, which would have caused a collision with protesters even if the driver tried to stop from the moment he was hit by the flag.



You seriously think that these puffballs could have gotten out of the way of the car if the driver had been going at 'high speeds'?







Montrovant said:


> At this point I feel fairly confident it was an intentional act, but I try to remain open to new evidence changing my opinion.



I totally disagree.

I guess we will have to see what a jury thinks?


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


God will protect him from the animal n*ggers and faggots that populate American prisons.  He killed a useless n*gger lover earning God's eternal blessing in the process/


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> God will protect him from the animal n*ggers and faggots that populate American prisons.  He killed a useless n*gger lover earning God's eternal blessing in the process/


Dont you have some pig shit to go clean up off your kitchen floor or sumpin?

Welcome to my ignore list, slackjawed ape.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...



Yes, that's the most popular part of the bible where he says to kill the *******.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


God not only commanded the Jews to, he helped. That was before the Jews killed His Son.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I still do not see him swerve away.  Maybe he accelerates some, it's very hard to say.  I still think he appeared to have been heading into the crowd at too high a speed when the car was first hit.
> ...


You lie.  He just couldn't kill more because that fat bitch stopped the car dead!


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


God is Black. He cant be serving God. Dont you wonder why god made the sun give you cancer easily?


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


88. I get it. HH for homeless honky.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...


The Jews were Black too. There is a reason God turned Moses hand white instead of Black to impress upon the Hebrews God was real.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Sorry, but God is white, like Adam and Eve.  Only when men who should have known better fucked animals did we get the other races.  That's why non-whites act like animals.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...


Thats a picture of a *xxxx xxxxx* and their agreed upon depiction of god. It even says in the Bible that god had hair like wool and skin like burnt brass. Sorry *xxxx xxxxx*

 Asclepias * Last warning to stop using racial slurs. I have edited, and asked you to stop over and over this evening.*


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


God made Jesus white.  Same thing, to show others that now he actually matter unlike most others.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Having never seen God they had no way of knowing but we know that Jesus was made white and being the Son of God God must also be white.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...


How did a white Jesus hide in a country where everyone was Black?  If he was white why didnt God send him to europe?  Your cave monkey babbling is illogical.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...


Well you know what lambs wool looks like and burnt brass is basically a little darker than Denzel Washington.  Thats how god is described in the bible. Sorry cave monkey.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Some stupid Jews thought they looked like God?  Gee, what a shock.  They also thought bacon was bad for you.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

job 30:30

My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.


Only dark brown people skin turns black (hyper pigmentation) during starvation. You sound like another recessive idiot.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


When did Jesus ever hide?  Why would he need to?  He was always going to die.  It was the only way to save the souls of other white people.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...


Youre a particularly illiterate cave monkey.  You didnt know Jesus was sent to Egypt as a child to hide?

Flight into Egypt - Wikipedia


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > First, I still don't know if the car was actually struck by the guy with a flag (although it's nice to have a good picture to see that it WAS a flag, I thought it was a bat from the first video I saw).  Certainly he tried to hit the car, but it was moving forward and you just can't tell if the flag actually hit.  Later on in the video you linked, it shows a scuff mark on the bumper and indicates that was caused by the flag, but it looks to me as though the scuff was already there and the flag would not have hit that spot.
> ...





JimBowie1958 said:


> I have no idea why the guy hit the brakes if his intent was to run over the people in front of him anyway. But he did gfet hit shortly after this phot and he accelerated into the rest of the crowd.



Here's another video of the event, pretty much the same as the one with all of the labels but minus those labels and without the slow motion.  At the very beginning, you can see the brake lights on and hear what sounds like the car hitting some sort of bump or possibly a short skid.  After that, he drives a goodly distance before hitting the crowd.  He certainly didn't brake right before he hit or anything like that.  It's pretty much impossible to tell why he braked at that time, but it in no way prevented him from intentionally running into the crowd.




JimBowie1958 said:


> I dont see how you think these are not the brake lights, unless I am misunderstanding you.



You can watch in the video I just linked (and similar videos that have been linked before) and see that the brake lights do not come on after the car is hit by the flag.  To clarify what I was specifically talking about, I mean this picture:



That is not the brake light.



JimBowie1958 said:


> You seriously think that these puffballs could have gotten out of the way of the car if the driver had been going at 'high speeds'?



I did not say he was traveling at "high speeds."  I said he was moving fast enough that, even if he had braked immediately when the flag hit the car, he still likely would have run into some people.  Here's another video which has pretty good audio.  I believe I hear the flag hitting the back of the car.  It takes a second or less after that for the car to hit the crowd.  Maybe if the driver hit the brakes the moment the flag impacts the back of the car, with no reaction delay whatsoever, he could have avoided hitting anyone.  Maybe.


The driver was not slowing for the crowd in front of him or the truck he eventually hits.  There was no large swerve, nor extreme acceleration, nor sudden braking as one might expect from a panic reaction.  He already looked to be accelerating a bit from the time he braked to the time his car was hit by a flag, which would mean he was speeding up toward a crowd of people in the road before any fear for his life caused by his car being struck in the rear bumper.


----------



## eightyeight (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Hide from what?  He was always under God's protection even when dying on the cross.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...


Never mind. Youre a really stupid cave chimp. Go to the store and get some RID so you can get your hair lice under control. Obviously the lice is impairing your logical functions.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

The above in your  video corresponds to the pic below, see the electric box to the right with the protective posts in both pics?

The mystery is why the tail lights are not clear in the above video and why are there no people fleeing the car in the video that we can clearly see in the pic.






This pic that is AFTER the above pic is here where the flagboy hits the car










See the tan sign on the left side with the brown fan looking emblem? It is closer in this photo to the car than in the first pic above, and that is how I know that this pic is after the first pic.

Also the area in which he hit the people had brick pavement, not asphalt, like the pics and video both show. It seems there was a second brick area behind where he began his acceleration.





Listening to the acceleration and the sound of people being hit is immediately after flagboy does his Antifa thing.  And all that brick pavement was traversed in the drivers charge with his car, but you cant even see it in the video, it is so far down the block.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 16, 2017)

I looked up a bit on Virginia law.  

Second degree murder includes felony homicide.  Felony homicide is when someone is committing a non-murder felony and kills a person unintentionally.  VA Homocide Laws | Murder & Manslaughter Charges

There are two traffic laws in Virginia that count as felonies which might apply to this incident.  The first is reckless driving, which is normally a misdemeanor, but can be a felony if the driver doesn't have a valid license and causes a death.  I don't know if the driver in this case had a valid license.  Virginia Code Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles  § 46.2-868 | FindLaw

The second traffic felony that might apply is for leaving the scene of an accident in which injury or death occur, or property is damaged.  That is a requirement unless injury forces the driver to leave, and even then, the driver is required to make their name and license number known as soon as reasonably possible.  Failure to do so is a class 5 felony if injury or death occur.  Virginia Code Title 46.2. Motor Vehicles  § 46.2-894 | FindLaw

Based on this, charging the driver with second degree murder seems likely to succeed in court, even if intent cannot be established.  Assuming no intent, that the driver left the scene of an accident is pretty irrefutable, and as all the reports I have seen indicate that the police went and arrested the driver, rather than the driver making himself known to the police or victims, he almost certainly is guilty of the class 5 felony for leaving the scene of an accident.  That, in turn, makes him guilty of felony homicide, which makes him guilty of second degree murder, based on my reading.

I am not a lawyer nor criminal law expert, and I am not saying the man does not deserve his day in court.  I'm just pointing out that, even if there is enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the driver's intent to run into the crowd, he may still be found guilty of second degree murder.

Here's a link to the Title 18.2 code of Virginia as of 2016, which covers Crimes and Offenses Generally.  Murder is dealt with in Chapter 4, Crimes Against the Person.
2016 Code of Virginia :: Title 18.2 - Crimes and Offenses Generally


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> View attachment 144161
> 
> The above in your  video corresponds to the pic below, see the electric box to the right with the protective posts in both pics?
> 
> ...


Not working.  i already watched the video. Cave chimp accelerated and everyone looks and flag boy attacks. (Didnt they say flag boy was Black at first?)  The narrative keeps changing I guess. LOL!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> I looked up a bit on Virginia law.
> 
> Second degree murder includes felony homicide.  Felony homicide is when someone is committing a non-murder felony and kills a person unintentionally.  VA Homocide Laws | Murder & Manslaughter Charges
> 
> ...


But will they prosecute it that way or try to make this a White Supremacist intentionally killing protesters case?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I don't see any obvious violence from the driver before the car is hit. The liberals are grasping at straws and making irrational arguments.

The videos are what we have so far. Until more evidence is released, you'll just have to admit that the bad people here are the liberal protesters.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 16, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


You must have lice in your eyes if you dont see him speeding up _*before*_ the guy hits his car with the flag.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 16, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



He was driving on an open public street being intentionally and illegally blocked by a violent antifa and BLM mob the video does speak for itself and will see him exonerated.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Keep hoping. I'm sure he is comforted with your expert legal decision on the matter as he ponders how many years he will do in the pokey being someones woman.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Sign Chaos, post: 17948480
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The alt-right was defending itself, fuck your pre-written fake news narrative, you people tried this same shit at Berkley, attack peaceful protesters with mace, bricks, and bats then cry victim when the right fights back. 

 I am on the side which is against the BLM and Antifa terrorists who have been attacking Republicans and Trump supporters since before the Republican National Convention and who came to attack people legally exercising their right to peaceably assemble.



> The woman who was killed was not fighting or rioting. Are you on her side or not.



She was part of a violent mob illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare chanting "whose street? Our street!" and who attacked his car with bats and clubs.



> Romney gets it.
> 
> "No, not the same," Romney wrote. "One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes."
> 
> Why can't you choose a side? Are you ashamed of the side you have chosen?



Romney is a cuckservative member of the establishment elite, fuck him, antifa aren't against racism and bigotry they are communist terrorists intent on "tearing it down by any means necessary," and BLM is a racist terrorist organization based on the proven lie of hands up don't shoot, they are on tape calling for dead police, calling for the torching and looting of white neighborhoods, and calling for whites to get to the back of the line so go screw we have it all on tape.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



He was driving on an open public and was attacked we have it all on tape.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



The video speaks for itself.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


I agree. Thats why he will be doing some prison time.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 17, 2017)

Looks like those puzzys called off the march on google. There are a lot of Mexicans down there just waiting to crack some white heads.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



They were illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare without a permit and then they hit his car with a bat.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


It was flag dummy.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Looks like those puzzys called off the march on google. There are a lot of Mexicans down there just waiting to crack some white heads.



Oh look overt racism and calls for violence, this is why Fields is a hero.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



They carry their flags on clubs you stupid fuck, it is a long standing tactic of Antifa and why NYC and the like require flags be carried on cardboard sticks.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Vastator, post: 17948948 l
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are the one who supports the violent Antifa and BLM terrorists who attacked peaceful protesters legally exercising their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 17, 2017)

eightyeight said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > eightyeight said:
> ...



Jewish people didn't think they looked like God.  However, God DID make the Jewish people His Chosen People.

And...............as far as bacon?  Yeah, bacon can be really bad for you if it isn't properly prepared.  Ever hear of something called trichinosis?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Asclepias said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Even if he did it might have been because he saw an opening in the crowd. This would follow the idea that he was initially just trying to get through the crowd.

Fact is there's no collision until after he is attacked so there's no way you're going to prove that killing people was his intent based on this evidence.


----------



## OldLady (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


He should have taken a different side street.  That one was full of people leaving the protest on foot.  Why did he choose that one?


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Don't make it sound as if it was just an accident. He chose that street because he knew it to be the best place to drive into a crowd and kill people.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17951308 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> You are the one who supports the violent Antifa and BLM terrorists who attacked peaceful protesters legally exercising their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.



Liar I don't support violence at all.

The Nazis were not peaceful.


----------



## OldLady (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


Where did I make it sound as if it was just an accident?  You're snarling at the wrong person.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


I might buy it if he wasn't at a KKK rally. Not buying it but it's your only defense


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Lol no they were illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare chanting "whose streets?  Our streets," when they started attacking his car fuck you and your pre-written fake news big lie blame the victim narrative.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



He was driving on an open and public thoroughfare which was being illegally blocked by antifa and BLM terrorists chanting "whose streets? Our streets," and was attacked by a club baring communist thug, self defense, the video will exonerate him.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Liar I don't support violence at all.



Really?  Show me where you have said a thing about the violence being engaged in by Antifa and BLM terrorists against Republicans and Trump supporters since before the Republican National Conventions.



> The Nazis were not peaceful.



Self defense is justified they reacted to the violence inistigated by the commies, I don't care what their ideology they had the right to peaceably assemble.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Liar I don't support violence at all.
> 
> The Nazis were not peaceful.


Neither was Antifa.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> He should have taken a different side street.  That one was full of people leaving the protest on foot.  Why did he choose that one?



Why didnt someone ask him?


----------



## OldLady (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


Have you never been to a festival or county fair or big concert or sports event and seen the crowd filling the streets as they left?  It's not called illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare; it's called leaving. If they were chanting "whose streets?" it was in response to the neo-Nazi's chants to the contrary all day and the night before.  Please don't misunderstand me--I want to know what really happened, too, but I am basing what I saw on the video's I've seen put up by posters here and none of them show what you're describing.  Don't be angry.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Have you never been to a festival or county fair or big concert or sports event and seen the crowd filling the streets as they left?  It's not called illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare; it's called leaving. If they were chanting "whose streets?" it was in response to the neo-Nazi's chants to the contrary all day and the night before.  Please don't misunderstand me--I want to know what really happened, too, but I am basing what I saw on the video's I've seen put up by posters here and none of them show what you're describing.  Don't be angry.



I dont think that this incident fall into the typical 'protesters blocking the streets get run over' scenarios we all know and love.

This guy went hysterical because he is a pussy and thought he was getting surrounded.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Have you never been to a festival or county fair or big concert or sports event and seen the crowd filling the streets as they left?  It's not called illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare; it's called leaving. If they were chanting "whose streets?" it was in response to the neo-Nazi's chants to the contrary all day and the night before.  Please don't misunderstand me--I want to know what really happened, too, but I am basing what I saw on the video's I've seen put up by posters here and none of them show what you're describing.  Don't be angry.
> ...



What a pussy...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > This guy went hysterical because he is a pussy and thought he was getting surrounded.
> ...


There is a wide range of options between losing control of your car because you are afraid vrs getting the shit beat out of you because you let the bastards stop you and pull you out of your car.

The moron should have realized he would have to go around if his destination was not that particular block, no matter what the law says.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Those streets are closed down, these were open thoroughfares being illegally blocked by a violent mob, which is a known and well documented tactic of Antifa and the BLM.  The Nazis again had a legal permit to march and protest, regardless of their ideology they have the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble which was fought for by the ACLU on their behalf.

Here is video from rebel medias Faith Goldy's live strean right before and during the incident that the MSM won't show you, and you can see it is a mob chanting "whose streets?  Our Streets!":


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Here is video from rebel medias Faith Goldy's live strean right before and during the incident that the MSM won't show you, and you can see it is a mob chanting "whose streets?  Our Streets!":



Hmm, that video is very useful because it shows no hesitation by the driver or attempt to regain his bearings once he came to a stop. He immediately backs out without regard to the lives that might have come in behind him to lend assistance.

That video shows the actions of a premeditated act.

The driver should be drawn and quartered.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

I have watched this video over and over and I dont see any hesitation at the end of the charge he made behind the wheel.


Less than three seconds cook off from 00:12 to 00:15.

This was premeditated.

This man deserves the death penalty.

Justice would demand he be driven over with a car till dead, but that is not painful enough, IMO.


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That is true. When you're driving a car, it is your responsibility to avoid hitting pedestrians if at all possible, whether they are legally in the street or not. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



There is no doubt that the counter protesters were in the wrong to even be there. It was a legal protest that they violently crashed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OldLady (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Not having a permit doesn't carry the penalty of being run over by a car until dead.


----------



## OldLady (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Call Sign Chaos would go beserk in Maine.  Any pedestrian is allowed to enter the crosswalk and ALL traffic is to immediately stop to allow them to walk through.  It can take a LONG LONG time to get through the center of town in the summer when all the turistas are here.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


That describes every Black area in NYS.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 17, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> That describes every Black area in NYS.


Africans are like that everywhere. No sense.

Among the civilized, they are jaywalking.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 1795138 





bgrouse said:


> Fact is there's no collision until after he is attacked so there's no way you're going to prove that killing people was his intent based on this evidence.



What you see hardly anyone else is seeing. But your entire defense of a Nazi murderer falls apart by the high rate of speed the Nazi's Dodge Charger sped toward a large number of pedestrians.

Intent is in the high rate of speed enroute to a large crowd of pedestrians. There was no threat to him or his car other than his own when he pressed the pedal to the metal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17952911 





JimBowie1958 said:


> Neither was Antifa



You said the Nazis were peaceful. I never said Antifa was peaceful.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


Ohh but it can. Stupidity can be lethal.


----------



## OldLady (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Oh, stop with the display of YOUR stupidity.  You know exactly what I meant.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I know exactly what you said. And the fact of the matter, is that the Victim conciously, and knowingly put herself into a situation, and position; where she could suffer bodily injury, up to, and including death.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



That would not be a penalty, it would be a possible consequence.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Tomato; tomato, such a subtle distinction. I wonder what the deceased has to say on the matter...?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



I would guess that every poster on this board has put themselves in a situation where they could suffer bodily injury or death before.  So what?  That doesn't mean that a crowd standing in a road deserves to be punished by being run over.  That is what a penalty is, a form of punishment.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



The distinction isn't actually subtle.  A penalty is a form of punishment.  

The deceased can't say anything, obviously.  I wonder what your point is, other than to seemingly imply blame on the victim?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I looked up a bit on Virginia law.
> ...



I don't know if it actually matters.  Could the prosecution attempt to show intent, but use the felony homicide as a fallback position?  I don't know enough about the law or the process involved in a murder trial to say.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

And OLs post was trying to straddle the line between punative consequence; and calculated risk. I bridged the gap. Now you can have it both ways. A lefties favorite.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Sorry, not meant to sound as snarling, but the idea that the incident was caused because he just happened to take the wrong street doesn't match the facts.


----------



## koshergrl (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> JimBowie1958, post: 17952911
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't say that.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



That the crowd was in the street illegally does not absolve the driver of the need to drive safely and avoid a collision with the pedestrians if possible.  He did not do that, did not appear to even attempt to avoid a collision; instead, the driver looks to have intentionally run into the crowd.  If that is the case, it is murder, regardless of the crowd being in the street illegally.  Even if it was not intentional, as I've pointed out in another post, it may still constitute second degree murder.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Would you be so kind as to present these facts to which you refer? It would go a long way toward helping us understand.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


But if his intention was to hit people... Why careen into another car first?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> And OLs post was trying to straddle the line between punative consequence; and calculated risk. I bridged the gap. Now you can have it both ways. A lefties favorite.



How was it straddling that line?  She seemed to be pointing out that the protesters being in the road illegally didn't give the driver license to run into them.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



First?  The driver didn't hit another car until after running into the crowd.  What "careen into another car" are you talking about?


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



A Nazi  with a permit is still a Nazi.


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2017)

BlackFlag said:


> The Holicaust was just because one morning Hitler was startled when a Jew asked him for directions



It's possible. We should at least wait to hear the facts.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



The mob was engaged in felonious activity and was attacking his car as well, it was self defense or at the worst manslaughter, not murder 2 but thanks to the fake news narrative it will be next to impossible for him to get a fair trial by jury, if I were him I would opt for a bench trial by judge.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Their ideology is irrelevant, the 1st amendment does say the right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed,  except for those we disagree with politically.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



It doesn't say you can run over them with a car either.


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



No, it does not. The counter protesters should be charged for assault, disorderly conduct, jaywalking, and whatever else they can come up with and the driver with at least manslaughter. He heard no business driving down that street when it was clearly blocked by people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

OldLady said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Of course not, but they should face charges for their violent actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi


You don't have the right to deny them Constitutional rights.

Antifa, on the other hand needs to be denied the "right" to assemble.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Are you speaking in general, or of specific protesters?  I wonder which violent actions you mean, if any in particular.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi
> ...



Wait, don't deny constitutional rights to Nazis, but deny them to Antifa?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> JimBowie1958, post: 17952911
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The majority of both groups were peaceful.

I never said that the fucking Nazis were peaceful, dude.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



The person in the vehicle has the inalienable rights of self defense, defense of property, and freedom of movement he was being surrounded by and attacked by a violent mob.  Had he not taken the action that he did he very well could have ended up like the truck driver in the LA riots, violent black nationalist and Antifa mobs are dangerous.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



He has the right to self defense as well, not to mention the right to freedom of movement and defense of property.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



They were illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare, he has the right to freedom of movement which they impeded on all sides and are thus guilty of kidnapping which warrants the right to lethal self defense.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




So the next time I'm in a traffic jam, and my freedom of movement is blocked, I can just kill all the drivers in the cars around me?


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



If someone is intentionally blocking your car and bashing it with a bat you have the right to defend your life, your property, and your liberty by any means necessary.

In fact technically they would be guilty of kidnapping under Virginia law:

*§ 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment.*

A. *Any person who, by force, intimidation* or deception, *and without legal justification or excuse, seizes,* takes, transports, detains or secretes another person *with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of "abduction."*

§ 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Not so. He was not prevented from taking a different route around the crowd. He had to drive up to them. The bottom line is, you don't have the right to use your car as a deadly weapon even if someone is illegally blocking the road. He had no more right to do that than he did to walk up to the crowd and start shooting because "they were in his way".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



If you see an obviously dangerous crowd blocking the street and deliberately drive up to it, you will get little sympathy. If you are stuck in a traffic jam and someone starts bashing your car, sure, you can defend yourself because you could not avoid it. If you, OTOH, see a bunch of raving leftists with weapons in their hands and you drive up to them, you're an idiot. It simply doesn't matter that the crowd was there illegally. They should be charged with every law they broke by doing that, but this driver also broke the law, and should be charged accordingly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



Did he not have the option of seeing that the street was blocked by deranged people and taking a different route?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Irrelevant he had a legal right to traverse that open and public thoroughfare.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



So it's mob rule then?


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I'm talking about property damage, assault, and any of the other things extreme leftist groups are known for doing when they get mad. The assembly they were protesting was legal, they were not. The guy that hit the car, for example. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Excellent point! That bitch was trying to abduct him. She had it coming!


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The bottom line is he had every right to traverse that open and public thoroughfare and by denying him that right, then surrounding, and attacking his car they are guilty of abduction and assault:

*§ 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment.*

A. *Any person who, by force, intimidation* or deception, *and without legal justification or excuse, seizes,* takes, transports, detains or secretes another person *with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of "abduction."*

§ 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



He also had the legal responsibility to avoid hitting pedestrians, no matter if they were legally in the road or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> The person in the vehicle has the inalienable rights of self defense, defense of property, and freedom of movement he was being surrounded by and attacked by a violent mob.  Had he not taken the action that he did he very well could have ended up like the truck driver in the LA riots, violent black nationalist and Antifa mobs are dangerous.



He got one whack with a flag stick, dude.

The mob all over his car were the bodies of his victims.


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



No, it's common sense. You don't have the right, for example, to shoot people gathered in the street illegally, even if they are blocking your intended path. This crowd should be charged, but so should he.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



They were not pedestrians they were a violent mob intentionally blocking a public and open thoroughfare chanting "whose streets?  Our streets!" And he didn't strike anyone until they started attacking his car from behind and blocking his escape from the front.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



One person hit the back of his car with a flag before he rammed into a crowd in the street.  The person with the flag was not where the car hit the crowd.  How is hitting a crowd of people who have done nothing to you self defense, exactly?

Besides, as I've pointed out in previous posts, it looks as though the driver was going to be hitting the crowd before the flag-swinger hit the car, anyway.


----------



## ricechickie (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Do you really believe that?


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



You do have the right to use lethal force if they are attacking you and impeding your escape they are guilty of both assault and abduction, he acted in self defense of his life, liberty, and property.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> No, it's common sense. You don't have the right, for example, to shoot people gathered in the street illegally, even if they are blocking your intended path. This crowd should be charged, but so should he.



Unless they are mimes.

It is always justifiable homicide if the target is a mime.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

ricechickie said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I have it on fucking video bud.


----------



## ricechickie (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> ricechickie said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



I saw the video, too.  At regular speed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> You do have the right to use lethal force if they are attacking you and impeding your escape they are guilty of both assault and abduction, he acted in self defense of his life, liberty, and property.


Lethal force is not justified simply because someone you hit with said car is bleeding all over it.


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



That's not going to help him much in court when it's made clear he didn't have to approach the crowd in the first place. He knew what he was doing. If I'm a Mets fan and I see a crowd of Yankee fans blocking the street after a big win, I can call the cops and have them dispersed, but I don't have the right to approach them in a threatening manner, which this guy did.  Sorry, the counter protesters were wrong and stupid for being there, but he was wrong and stupid for driving up to them, bottom line. He killed a person, and will face charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



He didn't have to approach them. Anyone with a functioning IQ knows you don't drive up to a mob. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vastator (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


How? That was the fastest most direct way out. Even the cops who arrested him stated that they thought he panicked.


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



And he could have easily avoided the whole thing. If he was stuck in traffic, or parked somewhere minding his own business, that's a different proposition. He drove up to them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> One person hit the back of his car with a flag before he rammed into a crowd in the street.



It was a flag fastened to a club which is a known tactic of Antifa and the BLM and why in places like NYC flags can only be fastened to cardboard sticks or otherwise lightweight material.



> The person with the flag was not where the car hit the crowd.  How is hitting a crowd of people who have done nothing to you self defense, exactly?



He was in the back of the line of the mob, no one was struck by the car until after he came around the back and bashed his rear end with said club.




> Besides, as I've pointed out in previous posts, it looks as though the driver was going to be hitting the crowd before the flag-swinger hit the car, anyway.



Not in the video the fake news isn't showing you because it doesn't fit their "resistance" narrative.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 17, 2017)

hadit said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



And what law does driving on a public and open thoroughfare violate?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> ricechickie said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Um, the "blocking his escape" did not happen after his car was struck by a flag.  

The car was going fast enough when it was struck by the flag there is almost no chance he could have stopped before hitting the crowd.  If he was already going to be hitting the crowd, trying to say it was only because of his fear for his life after his car was struck by a flag doesn't hold water.

Chanting in the street does not make a "violent mob."  Nor does it grant anyone license to hit those people with their car.


----------



## ricechickie (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > One person hit the back of his car with a flag before he rammed into a crowd in the street.
> ...



Yeah, nothing has altered that video!


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > One person hit the back of his car with a flag before he rammed into a crowd in the street.
> ...



I've seen that video plenty of times.  It does not change what I've said at all.  It shows things in slow motion, making it hard to tell how fast the car is travelling, and it mistakenly highlights a glare on the back of the car as if it is a brake light.  

That video also doesn't show that anyone but the flag-wielder threatens the car in any way before it runs into the crowd.  

With the many videos that are available on the incident, a bunch of which have been posted in this thread, I don't know why you think reposting that particular video is somehow enlightening.  That video, as well as stills from that video, have been discussed already.

Perhaps you should go look at some of the videos that show the same view, only without the slow motion and captions, so you can see what it was like in real time.  JimBowie also provided some pretty high quality still shots which grant helpful perspective on the distances involved and the actions and reactions of the crowd as the car was about to hit them.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> He was in the back of the line of the mob, no one was struck by the car until after he came around the back and bashed his rear end with said club.



1. Back of the line?  Who was lining up, and for what?  
2. Just because the guy struck the car with the flag before the car hit the crowd does not mean the car wasn't going to hit the crowd.  If the guy with the flag had not struck the car, it almost certainly was still going to hit the crowd.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



Have fun trying to argue that the group of people in the street were kidnapping the man in the car by standing there.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



What was the fastest, most direct way out?  Through the crowd and the vehicles in front of the car?

I'll say it again: At the time the guy on the sidewalk hits the back of the car with the flag, the car is already close enough to the crowd and travelling at a high enough rate of speed that a collision appears inevitable.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 17, 2017)

Not that I'm particularly leaning toward the whole "he's innocent" narrative, but are ya'll going to charge the white mustang and red mini-van with manslaughter because they were driving on a street obviously blocked by a crowd as well?  Why were /they/ there? To kill protestors? To cause a conflict with them?  Unlikely, they were just driving through.  It is entirely possible that this guy was doing the same. 

Don't pussy foot around reason because it just makes your story sound weak.

And again for the stupid ones who cannot read, I've got no dog in this fight and don't give two shits if the guy is guilty or innocent here - I'm just waiting for the facts and the truth to come out.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> Not that I'm particularly leaning toward the whole "he's innocent" narrative, but are ya'll going to charge the white mustang and red mini-van with manslaughter because they were driving on a street obviously blocked by a crowd as well?  Why were /they/ there? To kill protestors? To cause a conflict with them?  Unlikely, they were just driving through.  It is entirely possible that this guy was doing the same.
> 
> Don't pussy foot around reason because it just makes your story sound weak.
> 
> And again for the stupid ones who cannot read, I've got no dog in this fight and don't give two shits if the guy is guilty or innocent here - I'm just waiting for the facts and the truth to come out.



Did either of them ram anybody?
Did either of them then back up and run over some more?

Hey, that was easy.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...




Link?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17954688





JimBowie1958 said:


> I never said that the fucking Nazis were peaceful, dude.



You chimed in on my response to CSC:

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17951308 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> You are the one who supports the violent Antifa and BLM terrorists who attacked peaceful protesters legally exercising their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.



Sorry, CSC said it, you appeared to agree with him.  Don't know what your point was.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 17, 2017)

Pogo said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I'm particularly leaning toward the whole "he's innocent" narrative, but are ya'll going to charge the white mustang and red mini-van with manslaughter because they were driving on a street obviously blocked by a crowd as well?  Why were /they/ there? To kill protestors? To cause a conflict with them?  Unlikely, they were just driving through.  It is entirely possible that this guy was doing the same.
> ...



Did someone scare the shit out of them?

As far as him backing up and running over more, no matter what you want to say about the preceding events, he was in immediate danger when the crowd started breaking his windows - regardless of him having just hit the other vehicles for whatever reason.  Those vigilantes were about to off him so he fled, can't blame him on that specific part frankly.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


After being hit from behind and a person killed right behind them, against their own car, with no indication what would happen in the next moment? 

Gee Wally, what could possibly be "scary" about that?  Gosh Jeepers I have no idea.  




EverCurious said:


> As far as him backing up and running over more, no matter what you want to say about the preceding events, he was in immediate danger when the crowd started breaking his windows - regardless of him having just hit the other vehicles for whatever reason.  Those vigilantes were about to off him so he fled, can't blame him on that specific part frankly.



Isn't that informative.

Diga me muchacha, is it legal in Alaska to hit another car, kill a pedestrian and then get the hell out of Dodge?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 1795468 





JimBowie1958 said:


> I never said that the fucking Nazis were peaceful, dude.





Call Sign Chaos said:


> Self defense is justified they reacted to the violence inistigated by the commies, I don't care what their ideology they had the right to peaceably assemble.



You rated the above post "agree" so you must agree with CSC that Nazis came to Charlottesville to peaceably assemble. 

You can't have it both ways when you agree with that RWNJ CSC.

Do you agree or not agree with CSC that Nazis   Gathered in Charlottesville to peacefully demonstrate?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

EverCurious, post: 17956585, 





EverCurious said:


> Those vigilantes were about to off him so he fled, can't blame him on that specific part frankly.




I sure as hell can blame him fully for being where he was for what he had just done to innocent people.

From all of he video I watched he most likely could not see the stopped Mustang as there were so many people he deliberately mowed down that blocked his view. He likely figured he could drive over people and get away but didn't count rear ending a Mustang and pushing it into a van.

What about the crowd acting in self defense . The NAZI asshole just ran over a crowd of people and was still in control of his car. No telling what a rabid Nazi Hitler youth would do with a still running vehical already used for slaughtering people.

He could have been armed as well and started shooting.

And you call the United uninjured victims in that crowd vigilantes.

You should think a little harder about what we've all seen.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 17, 2017)

Pogo said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Actually it's legal to defend yourself and your property (including your car) through any means necessary in Alaska. IF there were a mob situation like this, and they started attacking his vehicle, he would have the legal right to "flee the scene of an accident" for fear of his own safety.  I don't know what the laws are down there, but I suspect regardless of if he intentionally ran into the crowd or if it was an accident, no jury is going to be able to argue that he wasn't in fear for his life when he backed out.

You are coming at this under the presumption that the guy was intentionally attacking the group. I am not because I've yet to see anything that fully convinces me it was 100% intentional. I suspect it was, but that doesn't mean that it was. 

As for the other vehicles in the roadway, your bullshit isn't flying.  Did those other vehicles drive down that roadway with the intention of killing the protestors or not?  Should they have gone another way when they saw the road was blocked?  I say no, they just got stuck in the crowd, and if that is the case for /them/ then it is certainly possible it was the case for him as well.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 1795138
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see any major increase in speed. Nothing that arises to flooring it on a car like that. You're making shit up and "seeing" what isn't there. Even if you did see him speed up, it could easily have been because he saw an opening in the crowd, as suggested by the slightly jerky movement of his prior to the collision. He certainly could have gone a lot faster if he wanted to kill people.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> EverCurious, post: 17956585,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you really think the mob that attacked him after he hit the car would have "gently" detained him for the cops after they smashed in his windows?  You're a damned liar...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)




----------



## ph3iron (Aug 17, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


just a misunderstood white boy, like the sandy hook boy.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



There's a video in post 706 (posted before but handy).  It's shot from far behind the two stopped cars, which are too far away to even be visible.  *It shows the Dodge careening down the street way too fast with dozens of people trying to jump out of imminent danger*.

All of that is before the collision that is its destination.  _The intent is already there in the approach_.

The same way the ominous video of the second hijacked 9/11 plane shot before its impact on the second WTC building, shows ITS intent.

Then it shows the same car post-collision, heavily damaged, shooting back up the street in reverse to get away.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to defend that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> I don't see any major increase in speed.



The punk killer Nazi is over two blocks from impacting the crowd, no one is on him, trapping him, because his car is traveling my way to fast. He passes an intersection where he could have turned on his way to slaughter. Had he wanted to avoid contact with the crowd he would have at least slowed down to see if the right turn was clear. 

He maintained ram speed the entire two or three blocks.

We must conclude that you are a few screws loose where your eyeballs are connected to your brain.



NotfooledbyW said:


>


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any major increase in speed.
> ...



Ya gotta wonder what kind of self-delusion pills some of these Nazipologists are ingesting.  Even in the still frame of the video (without clicking on it) you can already see people running for their lives and everybody noticing the car.  THAT ALONE even without watching in motion, tells you what's going on.

Holy fuggin' SHIT.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

EverCurious, post: 17956894 





EverCurious said:


> So you really think the mob that attacked him after he hit the car would have "gently" detained him for the cops after they smashed in his windows? You're a damned liar...



I said nothing about him being gently detained. That makes you the liar.

Like I said, no one on the scene could know what this mass murdering Nazi was going to do next. He still had control of his weapon. The uninjured had a right to try to subdue him and protect more innocent people from being attacked. 

You only seem concerned about the rampaging killer Nazi's right to a safe and legal proceeding following the assault. 

Why is that? He could still murder in real time. People were fearing for their own lives and needing to tend to the wounded and dead. Would you be concerned about that or just reserve all your compassion for Nazis types needing to be placed safely into police custody?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> EverCurious, post: 17956894
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Matter of fact the next thing he did after ramming the Mustang and killing Heather Heyer -- was to put the car in reverse and run over MORE people.  That's clearly visible in other videos already posted from the right side of the street.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any major increase in speed.
> ...


Without having this news story in hindsight, why would he have necessarily wanted to avoid all contact with the crowd? Liberals here in America consider themselves peaceful, education individuals and if the driver held them in half as high a regard, he would have assumed he could easily drive through the crowd without having them get in his way or try to murder him. That's where your theory falls apart.





> He maintained ram speed the entire two or three blocks.


"Ram speed!"

You're funny!

Do you know how fast he was going and what his speed was throughout this event? Why don't you go ahead and tell us since you seem to know so much that our uneducated observations of the video are worthless?

Be sure to include conclusive evidence regarding how you determined his speed in MPH throughout this event.





> We must conclude that you are a few screws loose where your eyeballs are connected to your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Pogo said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious, post: 17956894
> ...


Those "people" were trying to murder him. What would you do if someone swings a bat at you? Sit there and accept your fate?

You liberals are hilarious!


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Peaceful or not, why would the driver assume he could drive through a crowd already jam packed in the street?

If he assumed (or even worried) they were violent, why was he driving into a huge crowd of protesters?  If he assumed they were peaceful, why would a single hit from a flag on the car's bumper as he is passing cause fear for his life?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



I'm still not sure if he was backing up before his car was attacked or not.  It was probably pretty clear that the crowd was going after him, though.  Of course, they were attacking him because he just plowed into a crowd of people, so it's hard to muster any sympathy.

I posted earlier that under Virginia law, a person is required to remain at the scene of an accident or, if that is not possible, get in touch with either the police or the victims as soon as reasonably possible.  I don't think the driver did so, which is a felony.  When someone dies during the commission of a felony in Virginia, it is second degree murder.  See post #588 if you are interested.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17958190 





bgrouse said:


> Without having this news story in hindsight, why would he have necessarily wanted to avoid all contact with the crowd?



Are you an idiot?  He was not trying to avoid the crowd. His intent was to run over them. He's a freakin Nazi. Stop making excuses up for him.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



I would think that maybe just maybe it might have sooooooomething to do with my having just driven a Dodge Clallenger straight into two blocks full of people, self-delusional ASSHOLE.

Yours,
Captain Obvious


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 17, 2017)

EverCurious said:


> So you really think the mob that attacked him after he hit the car would have "gently" detained him for the cops after they smashed in his windows?  You're a damned liar...



Libtards aren't just damned liars, they're subhuman monsters.  Anyway, that boy who drove the car is being charged with leaving the scene.  Really, what kind of ahole is the Prosecutor charging someone for leaving a scene of a mob attacking his car with clubs?

And, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  The media would have a lynch this boy dragged to a tree and hung, without a trial or even much attention to the evidence.  How have libtards ruled out an accident?  Libtards have their own bigotry to tell them what happened.  (We know the car was attacked at least once before the collision, so panic may be what happened. Also, if he wanted hurt people, why didn't he drive up on the side walk, instead of the vastly inferior choice of hitting a car in the road.)


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

^^ These ^^ are the same pond scum that sat on this board and tried to defend Jeremy Christian for slashing people's throats on a Portland train when they tried to get him to calm down.

Remember that?

Heather Heyer is the latest victim of this Nazipologist asshole element but sadly she's not the first.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17958208 





bgrouse said:


> Those "people" were trying to murder him. What would you do if someone swings a bat at you? Sit there and accept your fate?



Those people were intent in defending themselves from more carnage. He still had full control of his weapon. There were injured people on the ground. Why can't these people defend themselves with what they had. Numbers. 

Self defense allows you to kill the attacker if you can. 

Are you saying that he wasn't an attacker and that those who were damn near run over or hit should have realized that right way and offered him assistance in getting away? Or Over more people. 

Why can't the crowd defend themselves in your warped mind?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 17, 2017)




----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Libtards aren't just damned liars, they're subhuman monsters. Anyway, that boy who drove the car is being charged with leaving the scene. Really, what kind of ahole is the Prosecutor charging someone for leaving a scene of a mob attacking his car with clubs?



A prosecutor who knows that a crowd of people under attack are allowed to defend themselves. Your Nazi never lost control of his weapon and continued to be a threat to human life. Your sympathy for a murderous Nazi is duly noted.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

Steve_McGarrett said:


>



If you watch the videos that show the crash, the brake lights are only on something like a block before the impact.

You can go ahead and think that tapping the brakes a block away from the crowd your car drives into will lead to an acquittal if you want, of course.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

Steve_McGarrett said:


>



You might want to go back to the Schizophrenic Nazi defense of your little lubby tubby Hitler Junior.

This snapshot proves the drivers intent to kill because the car kept going at least two car lengths through people before rear ending a vehicle causing damage at least the result of a speed of 15 mph.

No one is attacking your Nazi's car in this shot.

He was riding the brake not stopping or slowing at all.

Or the Schizophrenic defense: perhaps his good Nazi personality took over for a second or two but then his bad Nazi voice tells him to kill them liberals and inferior race pedestrians.

Why chant blood and soil if you aren't going to put some inferior blood on the soil. That bad Nazi.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


He assumed they weren't less civilized than the average deer. The ones in my part of the world get out of the way when you approach in a car on the road. The people do, too.





> If he assumed (or even worried) they were violent, why was he driving into a huge crowd of protesters?  If he assumed they were peaceful, why would a single hit from a flag on the car's bumper as he is passing cause fear for his life?


Why would an act of violence shatter someone's presumption of nonviolence? Gee, I wonder...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

Nazi sympathizers can't explain why pedestrians being attacked by a Nazi cannot defend themselves from further attack.

What were they supposed to do? Take up a quick collection to send this Nazi to a driving school?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17958833 





bgrouse said:


> The ones in my part of the world get out of the way when you approach in a car on the road. The people do, too



Guess all those mangled  deer laying on the side of the road just died of old age.

Guess in your mind there are a lot of stupid people in Barcelona since, unlike in your world,  they just could not get out of the way.

Hillary was right. The basket is full.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Obviously it wasn't his plan to tap the brakes and hope somebody snapped a pic just then.  

McRacist's own pic buries him with all the stunned onlookers and people running for cover.  That running for cover is the direct product of terrorism.  Terrorism which has already begun and is in progress. 

No doubt he tapped the brakes (without slowing down) as an automatic reflex that we all have, that he had to fight off in order to commit his act.  You see people in front of you, the natural reaction is to brake.

Either that, or he figured too many bodies on the front end would cushion Heather Heyer.


----------



## hadit (Aug 17, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



None. What's your point? He's not in trouble for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17958190
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're still spewing the same baseless accusations, ignoring all of the evidence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954 





Steve_McGarrett said:


>



I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Pogo said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


He was attacked prior to the collision. Try to pay attention.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17958208
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They should have thought about that before they attacked him. From the very beginning, they'd have been much better off staying out of this guy's way.





> There were injured people on the ground. Why can't these people defend themselves with what they had. Numbers.
> 
> Self defense allows you to kill the attacker if you can.


From the video, it looks like he was trying to get away. Protesters threw the first stone, so to speak. You usually can't be "defending yourself" if you start the confrontation.





> Are you saying that he wasn't an attacker and that those who were damn near run over or hit should have realized that right way and offered him assistance in getting away? Or Over more people.
> 
> Why can't the crowd defend themselves in your warped mind?


Or just get out of his way. Like they could have done from the beginning. Why can't you see the most obvious solution to the problem? Are you a liberal?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


They were attacking him before that, too.





> I posted earlier that under Virginia law, a person is required to remain at the scene of an accident or, if that is not possible, get in touch with either the police or the victims as soon as reasonably possible.  I don't think the driver did so, which is a felony.  When someone dies during the commission of a felony in Virginia, it is second degree murder.  See post #588 if you are interested.


I was under the impression that he got arrested. Before that, it was impossible to get in touch with them, as he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him. Can't alert the police if you're dead due to a hundred baseball bat blows to the head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17959202 





bgrouse said:


> You're still spewing the same baseless accusations, ignoring all of the evidence.



A young woman is dead. Over a dozen injured.  Your Nazi has been arrested. And you cannot explain why pedestrians under attack by a driver in a powerful car do not have the right to defend themselves?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17958833
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said _average _deer.





> Guess in your mind there are a lot of stupid people in Barcelona since, unlike in your world,  they just could not get out of the way.
> 
> Hillary was right. The basket is full.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nazi sympathizers can't explain why pedestrians being attacked by a Nazi cannot defend themselves from further attack.
> 
> What were they supposed to do? Take up a quick collection to send this Nazi to a driving school?





NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17959202
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are you asking? Why the woman can't defend herself or why the crowd can't? The crowd can't do it because the instigator of an attack generally does not have the "right" to "defend" himself. The woman can't do it because she's dead. Clear enough for you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> .......he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him.



You got it assbackward. Pedestrians were attacked and one was murdered by this driver. Why does the crowd not have the right to protect themselves and others from obvious vehicular homicide. How does the crowd know his intent once he started using his car to injure and kill people.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954
> ...


It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > .......he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him.
> ...


He was attacked before the collision, dumbass. See post #738.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



No, why would a single person hitting the bumper of your car with a flag cause you to immediately, with practically no reaction time, fear for your life and hit the gas in a panic.  That's the narrative that has been going on in this thread.  

The more important question is, why had the driver not hit his brakes, nor even slowed down seemingly, by the time his car was hit by the flag?  From the videos and pictures of the event, when the flag hit the car, the crowd was maybe 15 feet in front of it?  You can see that in the picture in Steve McGarrett's post just a couple after the post of yours I am quoting.  It's also been posted before in the thread.

Do you really think a deer gets out of the way of a car because it is civilized?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Oh, was he arrested immediately after he left the scene?  I haven't read that.  Do you happen to have a link to a report that his arrest occurred right after he left the scene of the crash?  Or are you saying that for some reason he could not have driven to a police station, called the police, etc.?


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17958208
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are a liar. The video proves beyond any doubt that he was attacked before the collision. People with weapons were running after him BEFORE the collision. One of the terrorists hit his car with a wooden staff BEFORE the collision!

He hit the brakes BEFORE the collision! In the video the brake lights were on BEFORE the collision! That FACT obviously indicates that he was trying to avoid hitting anything.

Then more terrorists were attacking BEFORE he threw it in reverse and got the hell out of there.

You're a fucking liar.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



What video evidence has been ignored?  I've been watching various videos of the incident and they all seem to point to the driver intentionally hitting the crowd.  Even the picture in McGarrett's post indicates the driver was going to hit the crowd regardless of his car being struck by a flag; look at how close the car is to the crowd in that picture, then go watch a video of the incident to see about how fast it was moving.  It seems unlikely that the driver could have stopped, if he even attempted to (the brake lights don't come on at any time just before the car is hit by the flag), so blaming the flag wielder for the crash is pretty ridiculous.  The car was getting ready to hit the crowd even if there had been no guy with a flag.

There have been numerous videos of the incident linked in the thread.  I have linked a few myself, and pointed out the evidence that the car was already going to hit the crowd before being hit by a flag.  You can complain about "liberal idiots" (and why must this be based on political ideology?) ignoring video evidence, but there is certainly video evidence to indicate the crash was an attack rather than some sort of panic reaction.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


I agree. When you're attacked by a viscous mob, your natural instincts to survive kicks in. If the taillights are lit, You must aquit!


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


It's an indication of the crowd's demeanor. He was also being surrounded by the crowd. Then, someone attacks.

Sounds pretty scary to me.





> The more important question is, why had the driver not hit his brakes, nor even slowed down seemingly, by the time his car was hit by the flag?


I thought he was moving quite slowly and showing restrain while being surrounded by those animals.





> From the videos and pictures of the event, when the flag hit the car, the crowd was maybe 15 feet in front of it?  You can see that in the picture in Steve McGarrett's post just a couple after the post of yours I am quoting.  It's also been posted before in the thread.
> 
> Do you really think a deer gets out of the way of a car because it is civilized?


Or maybe they're somewhat intelligent. Unlike liberals.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17959298 





bgrouse said:


> The crowd can't do it the instigator of an attack generally does not have the "right" to "defend" himself.



Guess you cannot understand the concept of the use of deadly force in a confrontation.

Only one person controlled a weapon that was used to apply deadly force. Sensing fear is no excuse for applying deadly force. The Nazi is  the only instigator here. His weapon went forward for least two blocks toward the crowd with no threat to his vehicle or person visable appearing in any of the videos during that period of time. 

He ended up backing up and got away from the crowd. That option was available prior to running into and over people. He chose not to escape. He killed first.

No excuse. The Nazi is the instigator and a killer.

You are such a fool that you actually believe people instigated an attack by throwing their flesh and bones in front of a hard steel fast moving 2 Ton vehicle.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


I saw it. I don't see anything indicating a lack of time to stop.





> It seems unlikely that the driver could have stopped, if he even attempted to (the brake lights don't come on at any time just before the car is hit by the flag), so blaming the flag wielder for the crash is pretty ridiculous.  The car was getting ready to hit the crowd even if there had been no guy with a flag.


Or he thought the crowd would get out of the way, as you see some of them that are in front of the car doing. That's where the evidence points.

But when the crowd in the rear/sides attacked, all bets were off.





> There have been numerous videos of the incident linked in the thread.  I have linked a few myself, and pointed out the evidence that the car was already going to hit the crowd before being hit by a flag.


I don't see that as a given at all. Can you prove this? How far away was he just before being struck? How far away were the protesters? How fast was he moving? At that speed, how much time did that car need to come to a complete stop? You're the one bringing up these unlikely stories instead of accepting the evidence that does exist: who attacked first.





> You can complain about "liberal idiots" (and why must this be based on political ideology?) ignoring video evidence, but there is certainly video evidence to indicate the crash was an attack rather than some sort of panic reaction.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> I thought he was moving quite slowly and showing restrain while being surrounded by those animals.



You are not thinking. He backed out of there. Did you not see that? He was never surrounded in any view. He smashed into bodies and a car and he still backed out and got away unharmed. 

If you think he showed restraint - he backed out before running over people. 

This is not even close. 

If you fear a crowd you drive away from a crowd not two or three car lengths into that. 

Storm Trooper's version of events can't change what is seen on video.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Breaking Update!

The driver was a Hillary supporter.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Here's how it works: the person who brings up the charge is the one who has to prove it. Liberals brought up murder for hitting the woman, we showed concrete evidence he was attacked _first_ and was justified in defending himself.

If you want to bring up a new charge, you are the one who needs to at least bring in some preliminary evidence supporting your position. Here's an example:

Victim recounts Charlottesville car attack that killed 1, injured 19
1:42 pm August 12: time of incident.

Police Arrest 20-Year-Old Man on Suspicion of Murder After Car Plows Into Demonstrators in Virginia, Killing 1 and Injuring 19

That article was posted at 6:05 PM on the same day, meaning the suspect was likely arrested inside no more than a few hours of the incident. Other reports indicate he was arrested "shortly" after the event.

In any case, felony murder, which is what you appear to be implying, has to do with someone trying to commit a felony and having a death occur during the event. The woman was already dead by the time the crash was over (the crash being what caused her injuries), and the time when Fields escaped, so it wouldn't apply. What COULD apply is the protester(s) who attacked fields. If they committed a felony which led to the woman's death, they could be held accountable for it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 17, 2017)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Jesus Christ!!!! 

I hope Trump tweets this one. David Duke says.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17959298
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reasonable fear for one's life is enough, dumbass.
Virginia's Self Defense Laws: What You Need To Know

"The reasonable appearance that the use of force was justified is assessed from the subjective viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted."

You don't have to wait for the crowd to beat your brains in before you can act. It's too late by then.


> The Nazi is  the only instigator here. His weapon went forward for least two blocks toward the crowd with no threat to his vehicle or person visable appearing in any of the videos during that period of time.


He has the right to travel on the road. Exercising your right to drive on a road does not equal being an instigator. Attacking someone for no reason is NOT a right. Quit being a moron.





> He ended up backing up and got away from the crowd. That option was available prior to running into and over people. He chose not to escape. He killed first.


Backing out of the alley is very difficult in a situation like that. How fucking dumb are you?





> No excuse. The Nazi is the instigator and a killer.
> 
> You are such a fool that you actually believe people instigated an attack by throwing their flesh and bones in front of a hard steel fast moving 2 Ton vehicle.


He tried to get out going forward, which is much easier than going backward, if you've ever driven before. Did you pass the driving test?

Obviously, the force he applied to get out by going forward was insufficient, so it was definitely not more force than was reasonable given the circumstances. Then the only way left to get out was by going backwards, and judging by the damage to his car, he barely made it out alive. He used pretty much the minimum amount of force needed to get himself out of there in one piece. In fact, it could be argued that he tried to escape from the guy who struck him from behind (by going forward) first, until that proved to be impossible.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 17, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> A prosecutor who knows that a crowd of people under attack are allowed to defend themselves.



Nice try to defend an ahole prosecutor.  The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car, rather than charging up to it and getting hit when the boy put the car in reverse and fled.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 17, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Nice try to defend an ahole prosecutor.  The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car, rather than charging up to it and getting hit when the boy put the car in reverse and fled.


Considering what he did, he had better get the fuck out of there.  He should have never made it to the comfort and protection of the police.  He should have been dragged out of his car Reginald Denny style and executed right then and there.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 17, 2017)

I'd like to give a big "Fuck you" to all the un-American pricks defending these white supremacists.  These are the assholes we fought in WWII and now you're trying to bring that garbage to our shores.

Defending Nazi sympathizers is not what a real American does.


----------



## BulletProof (Aug 17, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Defending Nazi sympathizers is not what a real American does.



Most whites are very much the opposite of Nazi sympathizers, but most blacks are very much thug sympathizers.    That's not what a real American does.  They haven't earned being called African-"American".


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 17, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Most whites are very much the opposite of Nazi sympathizers, but most blacks are very much thug sympathizers.    That's not what a real American does.  They haven't earned being called African-"American".


Real Americans don't broadstroke and entire group of people.  You don't have a clue as to what most blacks think, so why even make such a dumbass comment?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Most whites are very much the opposite of Nazi sympathizers, but most blacks are very much thug sympathizers.    That's not what a real American does.  They haven't earned being called African-"American".
> ...


Stop broadstroking "real Americans," you Nazi Sympathizer!


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 17, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Stop broadstroking "real Americans," you Nazi Sympathizer!


What is this?  Role-playing?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 17, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Stop broadstroking "real Americans," you Nazi Sympathizer!
> ...


Yeah, I'm playing the role of a butt-hurt liberal that's jumping at any chance to claim that someone is generalizing or broadstroking regarding a group of people.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Yeah, I'm playing the role of a butt-hurt liberal that's jumping at any chance to claim that someone is generalizing or broadstroking regarding a group of people.


Liberals don't butt-hurt or broadstroke.  I may be generalizing a bit, but that's what it is.

As far as white supremacists, you can't broadstroke that group.  Decent people do not become their members.  Nice people do not go down to those kind of rallys.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

BulletProof, post: 17959925 





BulletProof said:


> Nice try to defend an ahole prosecutor. The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car, rather than charging up to it and getting hit when the boy put the car in reverse and fled.



He killed and injured people going forward into a crowd that had nowhere to go. 

He could have avoided and escaped hitting the crowd without harm to himself by reversing anytime for a distance over two city blocks. 

The fact that he attacked moving forward proves your Nazi had intent to harm and kill in a hate crime. It proves you don't know what the videos have shown. It proves the Nazi did panic and this all was an accident caused by the victims.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

BulletProof, post: 17959925 





BulletProof said:


> The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car,



Barcelona? And this is your damned fool argument. You need not have a brain to be a Nazi sympathizer. You sure aren't stupid proof.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

BulletProof, post: 17959925 





BulletProof said:


> The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car, rather than charging up to it and getting hit when the boy put the car in reverse and fled.



You are so filled with hate you can't read the police report on the three car accident that was caused by your boy Nazis' car traveling at a high rate of speed into a crowd of pedestrians and anti-fascist protestors and two vehicles that had slowed or stopped to yield to pedestrians.

Twitter

The three vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was headed south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan traveling south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd of people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17958190 





bgrouse said:


> Do you know how fast he was going and what his speed was throughout this event? Why don't you go ahead and tell us since you seem to know so much that our uneducated observations of the video are worthless?



I know from the police report and the laws of physics that he was traveling at a 'high rate of speed' into a crowd of pedestrians and two other vehicles.

Here's the report:

The three vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was headed south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan traveling south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd of people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.

Your pro Nazi defense was never going anywhere. It can't. Your tubby lubby Nazi boy's only threat to his life was the impact with another vehicle or a pedestrian flying through the windshield after being hit by a 2Ton vehicle at a high rate of speed.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Once again, the driver was not defending himself against the guy with the flag.  He didn't ram his car into the guy with the flag.  He rammed his car into a crowd that had done nothing to him at all.  

I pointed out two possible felony offenses by the driver in this thread: leaving the scene of an accident in which a person is injured or killed, and reckless driving in which someone is injured or killed (although that would seem to require his license to be invalid).  Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert.  I honestly don't think any prosecution is going to rely on the felony homicide law, but it is a possibility.

As far as when the driver was arrested, according to what I read about leaving the scene of an accident, the only exception listed was for injury.  However, let's assume that the driver is legally allowed to leave the scene because he was in fear for his life from the crowd.  If he was arrested a few hours after the incident, that was plenty of time for him to go to the police or call them.  The leaving the scene of an accident statute says that a person needs to get in contact with the victims or the police as soon as is reasonably possible, or words to that effect.  If it took a few hours for the driver to be arrested, and that happened not because he went to the police, but because the police went and found him, that seems likely to fit as criminally leaving the scene.  

I linked to the relevant Virginia statutes when I first brought up the possibility that this could be a second degree murder case even without intent.  Various pictures and videos of the incident have been given in this thread, and I have linked to some myself.  I don't know what else you expect a person to present as "preliminary evidence."


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I don't need to prove anything, as I'm clearly giving my opinion.  I've also pointed out or provided evidence to support my opinion.  

Unlikely stories?  What does that even mean?  I have looked at the videos, I have looked at the pictures, and I have formed an opinion based on them.  In the clearest picture of the man with the flag hitting the bumper of the car, the crowd appears to be pretty close.  I estimated 15 feet away, but perhaps it was 10 feet, or 20 feet.  In the videos of the crash, the car appears to me to be moving fast enough that stopping in 15 or 20 feet would have been difficult, even if the driver had been applying the brakes at the moment the flag hit the bumper.

If the driver "thought the crowd would get out of the way" then he would be guilty of reckless driving, at the least.  I'm pretty sure "I though the pedestrians in the road would get out of my way" is not a valid defense for hitting someone with your car anywhere in the country.  Also, seeing some people notice a car coming to hit them and trying to run or jump out of the way is not the sort of evidence to exonerate the driver.  

When the crowd to the rear and sides attacked, the driver had already slammed into the crowd and cars in front of him.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse, post: 17959298
> ...



Wow.  Since he wasn't able to drive through the crowd in the street and the cars in front of him, he didn't apply more force than reasonable?  Running your car through a crowd of people who have not threatened you (and at that point, only the one guy with the flag had done anything to the car) is reasonable force?

And you have the gall to ask someone else if they have ever driven?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 17960937, member: 19302 





Montrovant said:


> Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert.




I'm pretty sure the Feds will find this was a hate crime.

This fear for his life defense is absurd. He had a way out prior to hitting people. In fact he got out after hitting the people.

There is no defense for this Nazi save the Schizophrenic defense some have tossed out.

Lots of right wing killers end up claiming mental disorders.

I think this one is getting hit with a hate crime since he came to Charlottesville to participate in a hate group rally. And he is the only one at the crime scene operating a lethal weapon and used it with deadly force.

No one mows down unarmed pedestrians and claims self defense.

He rear ended another vehicle with people between his car and that one.

Multiple counts of attempted murder in the prosecution of a hate crime.

I'm no legal expert as well, but it's clear this Nazi was motivated by hate and acted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17959741 





bgrouse said:


> Reasonable fear for one's life is enough, dumbass.



Your Nazi Hitler's Youth cannot prove he had *reasonable* fear. It's on camera. He wrecked his car much more than any in the crowd could do. Reasonable fear means he had no way to escape the crowd prior to running over them. 

After he hit the first pedestrian the crowd reaction to defend themselves would have a reasonable defense had they killed him while still operating the car.

His high rate of speed at the time of impact of the Mustang and human beings, ruins his self defense argument. 

Your argument is nuts.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17960937, member: 19302
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that it seems he drove into the crowd intentionally, and that the "fear for his life" defense is pretty thin, at best.

I don't look at this as some right vs left issue, however.  Nor do I think it helps to claim that "right wing killers end up claiming mental disorders," as though killers who lean left would not claim the same thing.

I've read that Sessions has brought up the idea of charging him with a hate crime, but that the feds are planning to investigate further before deciding which, if any, charges to level.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> You don't have to wait for the crowd to beat your brains in before you can act. It's too late by then.



There is no way anyone in the crowd had time to even think about beating this Nazi's brains in:

The video you need to see is at the end br of the story.

Victim hit by car during white power rally recounts saving fiancée’s life | New York Post

This view proves your Nazi was not under any threat to his life when he plowed into the slow moving Mustang.

I didn't realize it but the minivan and convertible  were being let through the crowd slowly when your Nazi rammed them.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17958190
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course he was going fast *at the time of the crash*. That's when he was trying to escape with his life. Read your own report, dumbass!


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Because he was trying to escape the fastest way he thought was possible. It may have possibly been combined with reflex action to get away from the threat that was right behind him by going forward.





> I pointed out two possible felony offenses by the driver in this thread: leaving the scene of an accident in which a person is injured or killed, and reckless driving in which someone is injured or killed (although that would seem to require his license to be invalid).  Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert.  I honestly don't think any prosecution is going to rely on the felony homicide law, but it is a possibility.
> 
> As far as when the driver was arrested, according to what I read about leaving the scene of an accident, the only exception listed was for injury.  However, let's assume that the driver is legally allowed to leave the scene because he was in fear for his life from the crowd.  If he was arrested a few hours after the incident, that was plenty of time for him to go to the police or call them.


That's IF that's when it happened. It's your charge. You prove it. You need to prove when he was arrested and what the time limit is on surrendering to the cops, to start.





> The leaving the scene of an accident statute says that a person needs to get in contact with the victims or the police as soon as is reasonably possible, or words to that effect.  If it took a few hours for the driver to be arrested, and that happened not because he went to the police, but because the police went and found him, that seems likely to fit as criminally leaving the scene.


That's lots of ifs. Since it's your charge that you brought up, it's up to you to prove it.





> I linked to the relevant Virginia statutes when I first brought up the possibility that this could be a second degree murder case even without intent.  Various pictures and videos of the incident have been given in this thread, and I have linked to some myself.  I don't know what else you expect a person to present as "preliminary evidence."


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


It's crap you pulled out of your ass.





> Unlikely stories?  What does that even mean?


It means you're pulling shit out of your ass. Maybe if this happened, if that happened, etc...

My position is grounded in fact. We all saw who struck first. We all know the violent demeanor of the crowd.





> I have looked at the videos, I have looked at the pictures, and I have formed an opinion based on them.  In the clearest picture of the man with the flag hitting the bumper of the car, the crowd appears to be pretty close.  I estimated 15 feet away, but perhaps it was 10 feet, or 20 feet.  In the videos of the crash, the car appears to me to be moving fast enough that stopping in 15 or 20 feet would have been difficult, even if the driver had been applying the brakes at the moment the flag hit the bumper.


And how did you come up with your estimate? The funniest part here is you don't even attempt to provide any data on the stopping capabilities of that car. Know what that tells me? That your position is highly unscientific.





> If the driver "thought the crowd would get out of the way" then he would be guilty of reckless driving, at the least.


And maybe he was speeding 5 minutes ago. He might have even smoked a joint 2 weeks before this incident. Who cares?





> I'm pretty sure "I though the pedestrians in the road would get out of my way" is not a valid defense for hitting someone with your car anywhere in the country.


Good thing he was attacked. That IS a valid defense.





> Also, seeing some people notice a car coming to hit them and trying to run or jump out of the way is not the sort of evidence to exonerate the driver.
> 
> When the crowd to the rear and sides attacked, the driver had already slammed into the crowd and cars in front of him.


I know when I see a crash, I and all the people around me mob the car and try to murder the driver!

How obtuse are you? Nobody does that shit unless they had violent mob intentions to begin with. The attack prior to the crash just solidifies this fact.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


It's not about revenge, but self-preservation. He was trying to protect his life, not necessarily kill the guy with the flag. If you want, you can charge the guy with the flag with her murder.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17959741
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So how many car crashes have you seen in your life, personally? How many resulted in all the other pedestrians trying to murder the driver? I've seen lots. NEVER seen that reaction. And jumping on a moving car with a bat is NOT the way to protect yourself. It's a way to get hurt. Only a dumbass would think the crowd was protecting themselves by jumping on the car.





> His high rate of speed at the time of impact of the Mustang and human beings, ruins his self defense argument.
> 
> Your argument is nuts.


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> It's not about revenge, but self-preservation. He was trying to protect his life, not necessarily kill the guy with the flag. If you want, you can charge the guy with the flag with her murder.



I'm reminded of a news story I read once: A man was found lying dead in a parking lot, from several gunshot wounds to the chest. Near his body, investigators found a bolt-action 22-caliber rifle, and six spent 22 casings. The police declared it an obvious suicide.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



You said that he was justified in defending himself.  That is entirely different than trying to escape.  You seem to change the story when some point contradicts your narrative.

As far as proving felony homicide, or felony leaving the scene, I don't need to prove anything.  I've said multiple times that I have brought this up as a possibility.  I've pointed out the evidence for why it may be possible.  It's odd that you don't feel the need to prove the driver was defending himself (or fleeing, or whatever other reason you are going to give for his actions), yet think I need to prove my supposition.

Would you care to prove the driver was defending himself while fleeing?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to wait for the crowd to beat your brains in before you can act. It's too late by then.
> ...


They're violent liberal animals. Who says they think? They just attack and try to murder.





> The video you need to see is at the end br of the story.
> 
> Victim hit by car during white power rally recounts saving fiancée’s life | New York Post
> 
> This view proves your Nazi was not under any threat to his life when he plowed into the slow moving Mustang.


Right! Being _attacked_ from behind with a pole isn't any threat at all! 





> I didn't realize it but the minivan and convertible  were being let through the crowd slowly when your Nazi rammed them.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 18, 2017)

dblack said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about revenge, but self-preservation. He was trying to protect his life, not necessarily kill the guy with the flag. If you want, you can charge the guy with the flag with her murder.
> ...



"The witness cannot appear in court today, as he appears to have shot himself in the back fifty-seven times, pausing only once to reload".


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


He was.





> That is entirely different than trying to escape.  You seem to change the story when some point contradicts your narrative.


If you're justified in defending yourself, then you're obviously also justified in trying to escape. Some states actually require an attempt to flee (as opposed to standing your ground) when it comes to self-defense. Not sure where the contradiction is.





> As far as proving felony homicide, or felony leaving the scene, I don't need to prove anything.  I've said multiple times that I have brought this up as a possibility.  I've pointed out the evidence for why it may be possible.  It's odd that you don't feel the need to prove the driver was defending himself (or fleeing, or whatever other reason you are going to give for his actions), yet think I need to prove my supposition.
> 
> Would you care to prove the driver was defending himself while fleeing?


It's pretty obvious and supported by video/picture evidence.

1. First violent action seen on video/picture: attack with polearm by violent protester.
2. Driver attempts to put distance between himself and attacked.
3. Crowd tries to murder him.
4. Driver determines that his initial plan to escape and protect himself was insufficiently forceful, so he tries to go the other way: the only option left to save himself.

This is all supported by the video/picture evidence. I don't take any bullshit, baseless guesses, like about what time he may have been arrested afterwards or what brand of marijuana he smoked 2 weeks before.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 18, 2017)

THIS JUST IN 

Good news Nazipologists!  It turns out that these guys




​--- were merely being good Samaritans, having seen a mosquito land on the special ed teacher, and were trying to save him from malaria!  

--- or alternately they were "defending themselves" against the special education they apparently need....


----------



## Pogo (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...








​


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I see.  So when you disagree with a conclusion, it must be made up?

You say your position is grounded in fact, yet you start with a fact and throw out a bunch of supposition.  Yet, when I make any supposition, you dismiss is as non-factual.  You made a claim the driver was acting in self-defense: that is supposition.  You made a claim that the driver may have been trying to take the fastest route out to flee: that is supposition.  Why is your supposition acceptable?

Of course my estimate of whether the driver could have stopped in time is not scientific.  When did I even hint that it was?  

You are the one who made the statement about expecting pedestrians to get out of the way of a car.  I'd be happy to see any evidence that any state in the country considers it reasonable for a driver to assume pedestrians are going to get out of the way of their car, rather than taking precautions to avoid hitting said pedestrians.  

You said that when the crowd in the rear and sides attacked, all bets were off.  I was merely pointing out that that crowd didn't attack until after the car had already hit both the people and the other cars, so it is unimportant to the discussion of why the original impact occurred.

Obtuse, huh?  So you can't see how a crowd might react violently against a driver they believe just intentionally rammed into their fellows?  Have you seen many such crashes before?

I suppose we may see whether being attacked by having a person hit the bumper of your moving car with a flag on a pole is a valid defense for driving into a crowd when the trial occurs.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I didn't say anything about revenge.  I questioned the sanity of describing a person driving their vehicle into a crowded street full of people who have done nothing to the driver "reasonable force."


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17968029 





bgrouse said:


> Of course he was going fast *at the time of the crash*. That's when he was trying to escape with his life. Read your own report, dumbass!



There is not one single shred of video that shows your Nazi boy was stopped and surrounded by a crowd that were trying to harm him prior to the attack, 

He was driving at a high rate of speed towards the crowd long before he reached the crowd. And he never stopped. He was never under any kind of threat from the crowd. 

The only danger to his life was the impact with another car that was entirely his own doing. 

Police are pretty certain your Nazi committed multiple crimes including murder. 

James Alex Fields Jr., 20, who already faced murder charges in the attack, was charged with three new counts of aggravated malicious wounding and two counts of malicious wounding, according to a Charlottesville police statement obtained by WCPO-TV. The new charges reflect the conditions of people struck by Fields’ car, who “suffered serious injuries and in some cases permanent physical disabilities,” police said.

Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Slapped With New Felony Charges | HuffPost

The cops can see the videos.  They are charging him with crimes. They cannot see what you think you see because it never happened. What's your motive in conjuring up this self-defense BS for a Nazi killer?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Certainly one can be justified in both defending themselves and trying to escape.  However, you are somehow making the same action encompass both things.  More, you have yet to explain how driving into the crowd was defending himself, as the crowd had done nothing to the driver or his car until after the collision.

1. I agree, that's the first violent action seen.  Polearm is an odd description, though.  
2. That is entirely supposition.  Not only that, it is supposition which, in my eyes, is unsupported by the evidence.  
3. I wonder why you skipped the part where the driver ran into multiple people and the back of another vehicle?  You make it sound as though the driver was trying to flee from the menacing figure wielding the polearm (was it a halberd? a glaive?), and the crowd then joined in before the driver could escape.  Where's the collision?
4. I find it easy to believe the driver feared for his life after he ran into the crowd and the vehicle in front of him.  However, while at least some of the people describing this have posited a panic reaction, you seem to be claiming the driver made a rational decision that he needed to drive through a crowd of dozens of people to escape the guy who hit his bumper with a flag.  He was "insufficiently forceful?"  If only he'd driven into the crowd faster, his plan to escape might have worked!

I'm sure that will go over well at the trial: "Your honor, my client was in fear for his life, so he decided to drive through the people on the street.  Unfortunately, he was insufficiently forceful."


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> My position is grounded in fact. We all saw who struck first. We all know the violent demeanor of the crowd.



The Nazi's car in motion was a threat to the crowd when one guy swatted at your Nazi's tailight. The impact with people was already set by the laws of physics.

Your Nazi struck first.

Look at three moving videos.

One from above. One from behind about two blocks away from the intersection where there was no crowd or people blocking the street. One viewing from in front on the drivers' side of your Nazi hitting people and then hitting the convertible and immediate getting into reverse and speeding away.

The Nazi never came to a stop until he hit people and the convertible hard.

There is no case for self defense or panic anywhere seen on tape. Nothing.

One guy with the flag hit the car passing by because the car was going to damn fast to be able to stop.

The video from the front shows people letting the minivan and convertible get through.

Your Nazi speeding at a crowd of people was the initiation of the attack.

If a car is speeding at you so fast that you have to leap to get out of its way you are under attack even if he dies not hit you.

You have no case for self defense. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

That car was speeding and never stopped until it rear ended the convertible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17968067 





bgrouse said:


> Because he was trying to escape the fastest way he thought was possible.



Escape what? The car was moving fast into the crowd when the guy he damn near ran over swiped at the car with his flag.

Look at the still shot and then watch the video: 



NotfooledbyW said:


>




Those people running for their lives are under attack. Your Nazi has initiated the attack seconds prior to passing this camera. 

This is at least one city block before one guy took a swipe at the speeding car as it passed with his flag.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


>




bgrouse, post: 17968067 





bgrouse said:


> Because he was trying to escape the fastest way he thought was possible. It may have possibly been combined with reflex action to get away from the threat that was right behind him by going forward.




Tap on the video and watch the first two seconds and tell me if you consider your Nazi's life to be in danger as his car passes this bystander's camera. 

Is he trying to escape at this point? What threat is right behind him?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17968029 





bgrouse said:


> Of course he was going fast *at the time of the crash*. That's when he was trying to escape with his life. Read your own report, dumbass!



This video starts about five seconds before the crash:



NotfooledbyW said:


>



The car passes the camera and within one second people are diving out of his way. 

Do you consider those pedestrians to be under attack by this driver. 

If you can't break this down second by second then you obviously cannot build a case of self defense for your Nazi. 

Watch a couple seconds and tell us what your answer is.

Do you consider those pedestrians to be under attack by this driver within one second of his car passing the camera?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Your conclusion that it's perfectly normal for a crowd to attack a driver who just suffered a car collision. That's made up.





> You say your position is grounded in fact, yet you start with a fact and throw out a bunch of supposition.  Yet, when I make any supposition, you dismiss is as non-factual.  You made a claim the driver was acting in self-defense: that is supposition.  You made a claim that the driver may have been trying to take the fastest route out to flee: that is supposition.  Why is your supposition acceptable?


So you're going to argue that it's unreasonable to say that driving forward is easier than driving backwards? There's no point in arguing with that. It's just too stupid. You're making no attempt to debate this honestly.





> Of course my estimate of whether the driver could have stopped in time is not scientific.  When did I even hint that it was?
> 
> You are the one who made the statement about expecting pedestrians to get out of the way of a car.  I'd be happy to see any evidence that any state in the country considers it reasonable for a driver to assume pedestrians are going to get out of the way of their car, rather than taking precautions to avoid hitting said pedestrians.


Is it reasonable to expect your car to stop if you let it run out of gas? Is there a law that says so?

You're being ridiculous once again.





> You said that when the crowd in the rear and sides attacked, all bets were off.  I was merely pointing out that that crowd didn't attack until after the car had already hit both the people and the other cars, so it is unimportant to the discussion of why the original impact occurred.


It's absolutely important since it establishes the initial cause of the crash. Everything else follows.





> Obtuse, huh?  So you can't see how a crowd might react violently against a driver they believe just intentionally rammed into their fellows?  Have you seen many such crashes before?


I can see how. If they're a bunch of violent liberal animals with existing violent intentions. Normal people would either ignore it, worry about themselves, call 911, or rush to help. That's the only thing I've ever seen following a crash.





> I suppose we may see whether being attacked by having a person hit the bumper of your moving car with a flag on a pole is a valid defense for driving into a crowd when the trial occurs.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Once again, self-defense is just that: self-defense. It's not about revenge or going after the person who landed the initial blow. It's about protecting yourself first and foremost. _Sometimes _the best way to do that is to kill the aggressor. Sometimes running away is better.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17968029
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your "report" doesn't say that. It only comments about his speed at the time of the crash. No point in responding to your ignorant ass if you can't even read and comprehend your own source.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17968029
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I consider those pedestrians to be reasonably intelligent and courteous enough to not stand in a place where cars are supposed to drive.





> If you can't break this down second by second then you obviously cannot build a case of self defense for your Nazi.
> 
> Watch a couple seconds and tell us what your answer is.
> 
> Do you consider those pedestrians to be under attack by this driver within one second of his car passing the camera?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


It puts distance between him and the initial attacker. Isn't that obvious?





> 1. I agree, that's the first violent action seen.  Polearm is an odd description, though.
> 2. That is entirely supposition.  Not only that, it is supposition which, in my eyes, is unsupported by the evidence.


So you feel that by driving _forward_, the driver _reduced_ the distance between him and the guy _behind _him?





> 3. I wonder why you skipped the part where the driver ran into multiple people and the back of another vehicle?  You make it sound as though the driver was trying to flee from the menacing figure wielding the polearm (was it a halberd? a glaive?), and the crowd then joined in before the driver could escape.  Where's the collision?


They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area). If someone's trying to kill you and your only hope is escaping out of a door, and some asshole blocks your path, WTF do you do?





> 4. I find it easy to believe the driver feared for his life after he ran into the crowd and the vehicle in front of him.  However, while at least some of the people describing this have posited a panic reaction, you seem to be claiming the driver made a rational decision that he needed to drive through a crowd of dozens of people to escape the guy who hit his bumper with a flag.  He was "insufficiently forceful?"  If only he'd driven into the crowd faster, his plan to escape might have worked!


Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.





> I'm sure that will go over well at the trial: "Your honor, my client was in fear for his life, so he decided to drive through the people on the street.  Unfortunately, he was insufficiently forceful."


Laugh all you want. The protesters caused this one. Since they're liberals, I suspect the driver is going to prison.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > My position is grounded in fact. We all saw who struck first. We all know the violent demeanor of the crowd.
> ...


That's why you shouldn't stand in the middle of a busy street. If I do that, all the other cars are a "threat" to me and I can attack them to protect myself? What if I stand on railroad tracks and a train comes along? It can't stop in time, so am I justified in attacking it?





> when one guy swatted at your Nazi's tailight. The impact with people was already set by the laws of physics.
> 
> Your Nazi struck first.
> 
> ...


...and still no hard evidence showing that he could not have stopped in time prior to the protester's attack.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17968067
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm always under attack when I stand in the path of a train or car. Who would have thought that I had the right to kill the driver/conductor to "defend" myself?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Not  at that point.


----------



## hadit (Aug 18, 2017)

When I see people in the street in front of me, I stop. It's really that simple. This guy did not. That's a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

§ 46.2-928. Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left


```
Pedestrians shall not use the roadways for travel, except when necessary to do so because of the absence of sidewalks which are reasonably suitable and passable for their use. If they walk on the hard surface, or the main travelled portion of the roadway, they shall keep to the extreme left side or edge thereof, or where the shoulders of the highway are of sufficient width to permit, they may walk on either shoulder thereof.
```

Looks like they were jaywalking so the driver assumed they would get out of his way, which all of them did until he was forced to speed up to save himself after being attacked.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



In the context of this incident, particularly in the context of the law, self-defense and running away are not the same thing.  Intentionally harming innocent people, as would be the case if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd in order to flee from the guy with the flag, is not self-defense.  Self-defense is about using reasonable force to defend oneself against an attacker, not against a bystander.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 18, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Maybe that's how the courts will see it. I suspect this guy is screwed. He should have known to keep far away from violent, rabid liberals. He was pretty much doomed as soon as he got too close to that crowd. His choice then was to go to prison (what I think will happen to him) or die. I don't know if there is a case law that excuses one's actions that result in the unintended death of a jaywalking lawbreaker that is merely associated with a violent, murderous mob that caused the whole thing to happen. Probably not.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...





bgrouse said:


> It puts distance between him and the initial attacker. Isn't that obvious?



As I have stated in a previous post, fleeing and self-defense are different things.  Fleeing is avoiding, self-defense is defending against.  From a legal standpoint, self-defense is to use a reasonable amount of force against an attacker to protect yourself.  Intentionally using force against an innocent bystander is not self-defense.



bgrouse said:


> So you feel that by driving _forward_, the driver _reduced_ the distance between him and the guy _behind _him?



No.  The supposition is that the driver attempted to put distance between himself and the guy with the flag.  The car was already putting distance between itself and the guy who hit it with the flag because it was moving forward the whole time.  The videos do not indicate to me that the driver adjusted to get away from the flag wielder.  There is little, if any, acceleration, nor change in direction; the car continues on pretty much as it already had been.



bgrouse said:


> They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area). If someone's trying to kill you and your only hope is escaping out of a door, and some asshole blocks your path, WTF do you do?



First, escaping out a door is a far cry from escaping while driving a car.  Second, even assuming that the guy with the flag can be said to have been "trying to kill" the driver, speeding into a dense crowd of people is still likely to get you in legal trouble.  Third, the driver had another avenue of escape; he could have stopped and backed out.  He wouldn't even have had to stop in range of the flag wielder; he could have stopped 10 feet forward, let's say, and then backed down the road.  Your suppositions all seem to include intentionally hitting a crowd of pedestrians, and you always seem to see that as perfectly acceptable.



bgrouse said:


> Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.



It would make for a far better legal defense than "driving into a crowd was a reasonable amount of force," I'm pretty certain!



bgrouse said:


> Laugh all you want. The protesters caused this one. Since they're liberals, I suspect the driver is going to prison.



Wonderful, blaming the victims.  At most you might say the guy with the flag caused this.  I find that ridiculous, but if you operate under the assumption getting hit in the bumper either caused a panic reaction or caused the driver to fear for his life, I can understand blaming him.  However, the people hit by the car most certainly did not cause the driver to hit them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17969028 





bgrouse said:


> Not at that point



By your admission then your Nazi was not under any threat as his car passed the person taking this video. 

He visibly initiates his attack a split second beyond this moment in time. 

There is no case for self defense for the driver. It is the pedestrians trying to get out of the way of a speeding car (traveling at unsafe speed for the conditions) that now have the right of self defense. It is obvious this driver has intent to harm people. That is why the cameras were on him. That is why his car is justifiably being attacked. 

If your Nazi tells the judge and jury that he was teaching jaywalkers a lesson / he'll probably get an extra twenty years for that openly expressed disregard for human life.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> § 46.2-928. Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



And again, I am confident that if a driver hits a pedestrian, even when that pedestrian is in the road illegally, trying a defense of, "Well, I assumed the person would get out of my way" will fail.  Just because someone else is doing something wrong, that doesn't mean the law no longer expects a driver to exercise caution and try to avoid hitting a pedestrian if possible.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...





bgrouse said:


> Your conclusion that it's perfectly normal for a crowd to attack a driver who just suffered a car collision. That's made up.



No, it is my conclusion that it's understandable for a crowd to attack a driver that they believe just intentionally injured and possibly murdered some of their fellows.



bgrouse said:


> So you're going to argue that it's unreasonable to say that driving forward is easier than driving backwards? There's no point in arguing with that. It's just too stupid. You're making no attempt to debate this honestly.



I am not arguing anything of the sort.  I am saying it is supposition that the driver was acting in self-defense, and it is supposition that the driver was attempting to flee.  Those are both accurate statements.  I am debating honestly, you are simply reading things into my posts that I am not saying.



bgrouse said:


> Is it reasonable to expect your car to stop if you let it run out of gas? Is there a law that says so?
> 
> You're being ridiculous once again.



It is reasonable to say that drivers must pay attention to pedestrians in the road and attempt to avoid them rather than simply moving forward and assuming the pedestrian will get out of the way.  The default action when seeing a pedestrian in the roadway is not to ignore them, assuming they will be out of the way by the time you reach them.



bgrouse said:


> It's absolutely important since it establishes the initial cause of the crash. Everything else follows.



How does a group of people attacking the car AFTER the crash establish the initial cause of the crash?  The only one to attack the car before the crash was the guy with the flag.  Did the initial crash occur because people were going to attack the car after it crashed?



bgrouse said:


> I can see how. If they're a bunch of violent liberal animals with existing violent intentions. Normal people would either ignore it, worry about themselves, call 911, or rush to help. That's the only thing I've ever seen following a crash.



Normal people would ignore a car running into a crowd of people right next to them?  And you say I'm not honestly debating? 

I didn't ask what you've seen following car crashes.  I asked if you have seen many car crashes in which a crowd believes that the car intentionally ran into the crowd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17969119 





bgrouse said:


> Maybe that's how the courts will see it. I suspect this guy is screwed. He should have known to keep far away from violent, rabid liberals.



This guy is not being screwed. He killed one and injured or disabled 19 others.

There were no violent people on this street and intersection until your Nazi attacked flesh and bones with his two ton steel weapon.

The minivan and convertible were slowly making their way through the crowd all peacefully prior to the hit and run by an avowed Nazi.

Glad you finally realize this Nazi is as you say screwed.

This is about as classic a hate crime as hate crimes get, the more I studied the videos and read the police reports and know he is being held without bail.


----------



## Issa (Aug 19, 2017)

So did the guys in Barcelona huh?
Terrorists come in all colors , and recently white terrorists are competing with Isis to who kills more.



JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17969010 





bgrouse said:


> They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area).



Idiot. There were two cars in the road blocking his path. Drivers that apparently knew how to get through a crowded street without hurting anyone. Until your Nazi rear ended them at a high rate of speed. A high rate of speed while encountering multiple pedestrians for over two blocks shows the driver's disregard for human life.

A normal safety minded driver on a side street such as that seeing a crowd of people two blocks ahead, not wanting to get stuck would stop and turn around and try to drive around it.

There is no normal driver who would speed toward the crowd scaring the shit out of them and expecting them all to get out of the way.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 19, 2017)

^ I doubt he saw the vehicles in front of him, there was a large crowd between his car and the other vehicles so that's not going to fly in court.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17923043,





JimBowie1958 said:


> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.



It might be????? A member of the superior race would not panic would he?  

Doesn't look like the Prosecutor is biting on your BS might be.

Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Slapped With New Felony Charges | HuffPost


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 19, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> I'd like to give a big "Fuck you" to all the un-American pricks defending these white supremacists.  These are the assholes we fought in WWII and now you're trying to bring that garbage to our shores.
> 
> Defending Nazi sympathizers is not what a real American does.


Neither is defending communists like Antifa, who are just as evil and nasty as any Nazis.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> JimBowie1958, post: 1795468
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of the people who assembled at Charlottesville to protest the removal of Lees statue were not Nazis, you stupid shit4brains.

Those were the peaceful people, not the Nazis who went there to fight with Antifa.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> JimBowie1958, post: 17923043,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After seeing a video that showed how quickly the driver reversed and pulled himself and his vehicle out, I have changed my mind and I think it was deliberate and thus murder.

Charlottesville Driver May have Been Panicked into Losing Control of His Car


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 19, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Neither is defending communists like Antifa, who are just as evil and nasty as any Nazis.


ANTIFA is against fascism and hatred, they have nothing to do with communism.  And no, they are not as evil as Nazis.  No one is as evil as Nazis.  The fact that you think they are morally equivalent, says a lot about your own moral compass, or lack thereof.

ANTIFA does not seek out violence.  That's just how they react when provoked by white supremacists, who are just like Nazis, who you seem to be defending, who we had fought in WWII.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

EverCurious, post: 17969298 





EverCurious said:


> ^ I doubt he saw the vehicles in front of him, there was a large crowd between his car and the other vehicles so that's not going to fly in court.



Not much this Nazi can say in court because the video evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against him. 

He clearly saw a large crowd of people in front of him.

His lawyers could try an argument that "he panicked" when the guy hit his car with the flag, but he could see from two blocks away, before anyone hit his car, that large crowd blocking the intersection. So the videos show that he deliberately traveled at a "dangerous to pedestrians" speed at least five seconds before the guy hit the speeding car with the flag.

That is no argument because of his unsafe speed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

JimBowie1958, post: 17969578 





JimBowie1958 said:


> After seeing a video that showed how quickly the driver reversed and pulled himself and his vehicle out, I have changed my mind and I think it was deliberate and thus murder.



Thank you. I respect your honesty.


----------



## hadit (Aug 19, 2017)

Charge the rioters with their crimes and the driver with his.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 19, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> ANTIFA does not seek out violence. That's just how they react when provoked by white supremacists, who are just like Nazis, who you seem to be defending, who we had fought in WWII.


Why do these communists hide their  faces?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > ANTIFA does not seek out violence. That's just how they react when provoked by white supremacists, who are just like Nazis, who you seem to be defending, who we had fought in WWII.
> ...



Apparently because they know they will be doing illegal things.  I don't know that Antifa should be characterized as communist, though.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Like I said, that might be how the courts see it. However, I don't think he had any other options.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > So you feel that by driving _forward_, the driver _reduced_ the distance between him and the guy _behind _him?
> ...


Listen, if that's how you want to argue it, then no, I didn't read his mind so I don't know precisely what was going on in there. You're right, he may very well have paid the attacker $20,000 to strike his car and later aid his defense in court. That's certainly possible and I don't have any evidence proving that is not what happened. I just don't think it's reasonable.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area). If someone's trying to kill you and your only hope is escaping out of a door, and some asshole blocks your path, WTF do you do?
> ...


I admit that the driver was not 100% cool, calm, and collected like James Bond and might have made a decision that, with 20/20 hindsight, was not the absolutely ideal and perfect way to handle the situation. But if that's your standard, then legally defending yourself is like winning the lottery.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.
> ...


It's not like they were jaywalking and intentionally blocking traffic or anything!



NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17969028
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, dumbass. Driving down a road is the same as "visible initiates his attack." I "visibly initiate my attack" every time I drive. You win the debate!





> There is no case for self defense for the driver. It is the pedestrians trying to get out of the way of a speeding car (traveling at unsafe speed for the conditions) that now have the right of self defense. It is obvious this driver has intent to harm people. That is why the cameras were on him. That is why his car is justifiably being attacked.
> 
> If your Nazi tells the judge and jury that he was teaching jaywalkers a lesson / he'll probably get an extra twenty years for that openly expressed disregard for human life.





Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > § 46.2-928. Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left
> ...


Except he never killed anyone _just _because they were in the street. Prior to the driver being attacked, they were doing precisely what you consider a failed defense. He only killed her after being struck and fearing for his life.



Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Can you show me some other American crashes this year that result in this kind of reaction? I just don't think it's reasonable to be so presumptuous, unless the liberals were already violent, irrational, and murderous.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > So you're going to argue that it's unreasonable to say that driving forward is easier than driving backwards? There's no point in arguing with that. It's just too stupid. You're making no attempt to debate this honestly.
> ...


Listen, I already addressed this. If mind-reading is your standard of self-defense, then nobody can ever use that defense. How do we know anyone who ever killed someone acted in self-defense? We can't read anybody's mind.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Is it reasonable to expect your car to stop if you let it run out of gas? Is there a law that says so?
> ...


He was obviously doing pretty well at that until he was attacked.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > It's absolutely important since it establishes the initial cause of the crash. Everything else follows.
> ...


You know what I'm saying. Don't be obtuse. The polearm bearer struck the car, causing the crash.If you shoot a driver in the spine and make him crash and kill an unrelated woman, is it your fault or the driver's fault the woman is dead?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I can see how. If they're a bunch of violent liberal animals with existing violent intentions. Normal people would either ignore it, worry about themselves, call 911, or rush to help. That's the only thing I've ever seen following a crash.
> ...


Every car crash I've seen involved 99%-100% of the other drivers driving past it.





> I didn't ask what you've seen following car crashes.  I asked if you have seen many car crashes in which a crowd believes that the car intentionally ran into the crowd.


There's no way they can know that this is why he did it, especially with all of the evidence pointing to another cause. That's why it's unreasonable: they think something is a fact that they can't possibly know or reasonably expect to know.



NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17969119
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's just ignore the polearm attack, dumbass! Why do I even respond to you?





> The minivan and convertible were slowly making their way through the crowd all peacefully prior to the hit and run by an avowed Nazi.
> 
> Glad you finally realize this Nazi is as you say screwed.
> 
> This is about as classic a hate crime as hate crimes get, the more I studied the videos and read the police reports and know he is being held without bail.





NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17969010
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So did this guy, until he was physically attacked. Keep ignoring that!





> Until your Nazi rear ended them at a high rate of speed. A high rate of speed while encountering multiple pedestrians for over two blocks shows the driver's disregard for human life.
> 
> A normal safety minded driver on a side street such as that seeing a crowd of people two blocks ahead, not wanting to get stuck would stop and turn around and try to drive around it.
> 
> There is no normal driver who would speed toward the crowd scaring the shit out of them and expecting them all to get out of the way.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17971645 





bgrouse said:


> ke I said, that might be how the courts see it. However, I don't think he had any other options.



He had the option to not drive too fast at people. 

He had the option to back all the way out before hitting anybody. 

Assuming he had stopped before plowing into the crowd which he didn't do, backing out on a clear path always was the better and safer option than driving forward into a crowd with no visibility. If he fears a mob reaction driving into the mob was the instinctively wrong thing to do.

He didn't fear the mob. All video indicates he intentionally wanted to kill anti-fascist protesters. 


Since you have tried so hard to blame the victims of vehicular assault, I must presume you that your solution when Nazis converge on your town is to stay indoors and hide and hope they go away.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17971645 





bgrouse said:


> Yes, dumbass. Driving down a road is the same as "visible initiates his attack." I "visibly initiate my attack" every time I drive. You win the debate!



Driving down a pedestrian laden side street at a speed unsafe for conditions is reckless driving as a mininum and vehicular homicide manslaughter if one or more is struck and killed. All sorts of violations in between.

If you drive fast toward pedestrians every time you drive you need your license revoked. You are a sicko. Your driver's license is not a police officer's badge to go around sentencing jay walkers to death or dismemberment when they are in your path.

Your Nazi started with reckless operation and endangering pedestrians with no imminent threat to his life at all as you admitted. Your Nazi escalated this confrontation to second degree murder. It may move up to a federal hate crime.

You defend your Nazi by explaining that you speed on side streets when pedestrians are present and in your path every time you drive.

Sane safe and responsible drivers slow down to walking speed thus disengaging from any intent or apoearance of an attack.

I wouldn't admit that if I were you. It shows what a cold heartless inhumane being that you are.

I feel bad for kids that live anywhere near you. I hope you don't kill one the next time you initiate your attack.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Listen, if that's how you want to argue it, then no, I didn't read his mind so I don't know precisely what was going on in there. You're right, he may very well have paid the attacker $20,000 to strike his car and later aid his defense in court. That's certainly possible and I don't have any evidence proving that is not what happened. I just don't think it's reasonable.



You love to use ridiculous extremes.  The point is that claiming he was fleeing, or drove into the crowd in self-defense, is supposition because there is little to no evidence, from the driver's actions, that either of those suppositions is true.  The only evidence I've seen that the driver was in fear for his life, or was trying to flee, is that a person struck the back bumper of the car with a flag on a pole.  The fact that the car was struck does not mean that the driver was in fear for his life.  It does not mean he was trying to flee from the man with the flag.  Considering there is only about 1 second between the time the flag hits the car and the time the car hits the crowd (and yes, I've posted a video with evidence of this), the driver may not have even had time to realize what had happened, or to react to it in any way.  

Why would you think the only reasonable possibilities are that the driver knew that he was being attacked by someone and reacted to it almost instantly, or some completely hyperbolic scenario involving paying the attacker to hit the car?  Do you not see it as a reasonable possibility that the driver either didn't realize he was attacked in the second between that attack and the collision, or that a second may not have been enough time for the driver to make a decision about how to react?



bgrouse said:


> I admit that the driver was not 100% cool, calm, and collected like James Bond and might have made a decision that, with 20/20 hindsight, was not the absolutely ideal and perfect way to handle the situation. But if that's your standard, then legally defending yourself is like winning the lottery.



Again with the hyperbole.  I don't expect the driver to be James Bond, or handle things perfectly.  That is in no way my standard.  Not intentionally driving into a crowd of people is an extremely LOW standard to have.  It's just about the minimum one should expect from a driver.



bgrouse said:


> It's not like they were jaywalking and intentionally blocking traffic or anything!



Jaywalking does not provide a license to hit someone.  If the people had jumped in front of the car, absolutely it would be their fault if they were hit.  However, in the situation which actually obtained, the crowd was in the street long before the car arrived, and the driver had more than sufficient time to see the crowd and realize that driving down the road was not a viable option.



bgrouse said:


> Except he never killed anyone _just _because they were in the street. Prior to the driver being attacked, they were doing precisely what you consider a failed defense. He only killed her after being struck and fearing for his life.



I find it unreasonable to think the driver feared for his life.  Beyond the lack of evidence of a panic reaction (lack of sudden acceleration, no big swerve indicating a panicked jerk of the wheel, no slamming on the brakes), and the extremely small amount of time for any sort of reaction between the car being struck and the car colliding with the crowd, there is also the question of whether a person hitting the bumper of your car with a flag on a short pole, while the car is moving past that person, can be reasonably said to cause a driver to fear for their life.



bgrouse said:


> Can you show me some other American crashes this year that result in this kind of reaction? I just don't think it's reasonable to be so presumptuous, unless the liberals were already violent, irrational, and murderous.



There aren't that many crashes in which a driver plows into a crowd to base things on, and probably fewer in which the crowd would assume it was intentional.  However, attacks by people driving vehicles into crowds seems to have become more common recently, which could easily have contributed to the perception by the crowd in Charlottesville that it was intentional.



bgrouse said:


> Listen, I already addressed this. If mind-reading is your standard of self-defense, then nobody can ever use that defense. How do we know anyone who ever killed someone acted in self-defense? We can't read anybody's mind.



Mind reading has nothing to do with it.  I'm saying the self-defense argument is extremely poor, because the driver did not defend himself against the single attacker.  Running away is not the same as defending oneself.  As to fleeing, that at least makes some little sense as an argument, but I do not see any evidence to indicate that is what happened, and even if it did, plowing into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much indefensible regardless of whether the man was trying to flee.



bgrouse said:


> He was obviously doing pretty well at that until he was attacked.



He was doing well at what, getting people to run and jump away from his car as he came driving at them?  That is not something to bolster a defense.



bgrouse said:


> You know what I'm saying. Don't be obtuse. The polearm bearer struck the car, causing the crash.If you shoot a driver in the spine and make him crash and kill an unrelated woman, is it your fault or the driver's fault the woman is dead?



I specifically was responding to your statement about the crowd attacking from the back and sides.  That certainly doesn't sound like it means just the guy with the flag.



bgrouse said:


> Every car crash I've seen involved 99%-100% of the other drivers driving past it.



And once again, I didn't ask about any crash you've seen, rather I asked about crashes specifically related to the one under discussion; crashes in which a vehicle drives into a crowd, particularly if the crowd has reason to believe it was intentional.



bgrouse said:


> There's no way they can know that this is why he did it, especially with all of the evidence pointing to another cause. That's why it's unreasonable: they think something is a fact that they can't possibly know or reasonably expect to know.



So the crowd can't possibly or reasonably know if the driver's actions were intentional, and I need to prove that the driver's actions were intentional, but you can continue to claim he was fleeing and he was acting in self-defense without proving it?  How does that work?

Besides, my point was not about what the members of the crowd could know, it was about their perception of events.  If the crowd had reason to believe that the car had intentionally hit members of their protest, some of whom may have been friends or family, a violent reaction does not seem especially out of the ordinary.  It may have been unwarranted, but that doesn't make it hard to understand.  To create an analogy, let's say that a man shot a person in the protest.  Could you understand the reaction if other protesters then attacked the man with the gun?  It could be that the man with the gun was actually attempting to protect himself from someone (to go with your self-defense theme) and the crowd does not realize it.  That doesn't mean a violent reaction is incomprehensible.

Let me try to pare this discussion down a bit.  So far as I can tell, pretty much the entirety of your evidence for the idea that the driver was trying to flee or acting in self-defense is that the car was hit by a person with a flag on a pole.  Do you think that if someone does that, hits a moving car with a pole, that the driver of the car is legally free to make any sort of action at that point?  Drive over pedestrians, swerve into other vehicles, drive through the yard of a home, jump onto a sidewalk, whatever?  Is all responsibility for safe driving absolved the moment your vehicle is struck?  

More, does a driver need to know what hit the vehicle?  Does any impact on a person's vehicle grant them the right to flee in whatever manner they deem appropriate?  For example, perhaps some kids are playing baseball and accidentally hit a moving car with the ball.  Does that impact give the driver of the car carte blanche to do whatever he or she deems necessary to get away from the place the car was struck?

I'm trying to get a handle on what you think constitutes an attack that can reasonably be considered a threat to a person's life, and what you consider the limits of the actions a person can take to defend themselves or attempt to escape such an attack.  You have repeatedly indicated that you consider a person hitting the rear bumper of a moving car with a flag on a pole to be a reasonable threat to a person's life, and that driving through a street crowded with pedestrians is an acceptable reaction to that.  It leaves me wondering if you think there is anything a driver should not be able to do in such a situation.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Listen, if that's how you want to argue it, then no, I didn't read his mind so I don't know precisely what was going on in there. You're right, he may very well have paid the attacker $20,000 to strike his car and later aid his defense in court. That's certainly possible and I don't have any evidence proving that is not what happened. I just don't think it's reasonable.
> ...


There's just too much evidence pointing to self-defense/escaping and none pointing to some nefarious plan to kill people. Yes, it's possible he didn't fear for his life. It's also possible a person being shot at doesn't fear for his life.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I admit that the driver was not 100% cool, calm, and collected like James Bond and might have made a decision that, with 20/20 hindsight, was not the absolutely ideal and perfect way to handle the situation. But if that's your standard, then legally defending yourself is like winning the lottery.
> ...


He was attacked from behind and you expect him to make a split-second decision to back out of an alley, moving _towards _the attacker, while under attack.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > It's not like they were jaywalking and intentionally blocking traffic or anything!
> ...


I never said the guy was a genius. In fact, he stupidly assumed dumbass bloodthirsty liberals would follow the law. Doesn't nullify the claim of protecting himself.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Except he never killed anyone _just _because they were in the street. Prior to the driver being attacked, they were doing precisely what you consider a failed defense. He only killed her after being struck and fearing for his life.
> ...



Fine. There's no point in talking to you any further if you don't think being struck by a polearm, while surrounded by the associated crowd, is insufficient to fear for one's life. I guess you're one of those normal non-Nazis who will wait until the polearm is buried in your head before any fear comes over you.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack. Being struck by a polearm and then being surrounded by other people from that group is not scary. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time debating someone who holds those positions.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack. Being struck by a polearm and then being surrounded by other people from that group is not scary. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time debating someone who holds those positions.



No.  Driving at people standing in the street without slowing down or attempting to avoid them may be initiating an attack; particularly, intentionally driving into such a crowd is an attack.

Being struck by a flag on a stick (this wasn't a damn halberd, your use of the word polearm is funny) is the kind of thing that would generally lead to anger, IMO.  "That asshole just hit my car!" or something to that effect.  I'm sure the driver was frightened after the collision, because at that point, certainly, the crowd was coming at him with violent intent.  That is after he drove into the crowd, however, and a different circumstance than simply being hit by the flag.

If you think you are wasting your time debating, but you think it is reasonable for a person to decide to run through that crowd to escape someone who hit their car with a flag on a pole.......goodbye then.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17972056 





bgrouse said:


> There's just too much evidence pointing to self-defense/escaping and none pointing to some nefarious plan to kill people. Yes, it's possible he didn't fear for his life.




Fool, you have admitted your Nazi had no reason to fear for his life about five seconds prior to the impact with the convertible. Within a split second of that moment on video there are pedestrians not protesters diving out of the path of his vehicle. Just because he may not have harmed any of those pedestrians does not erase his obvious intent to harm them. 

You fool every single one of those people who had to scramble to avoid being hit by an angry NAZI are witnesses and will be in court to say that Nazi tried to hit them. Intent is proven and the cameras back it up.?

The flag hit was maybe 4 seconds into the attack. It is irrelevant to proving that his speed and reckless driving from the start was intentional. 

Thats why I am reasonsbly certain your Nazi will be tried for committing a hate crime.

The mire rediculous your points get the more I am convinced of that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17972077 





bgrouse said:


> OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack.



We are not saying that.

Driving down a small side street where pedestrians are present (normal day in New Orleans) at a speed unsafe for conditions and at a speed that forces pedestrians to fear for their lives and take evasive action to avoid being hit - equals initiating an attack.

Of course you left all that detail out.

So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack if you do not slow down or stop (If you have time) to allow the 'standing person' to safely move out of your way.

Your Nazi would reasonably never have been hit by a flag had he done that. He would not have maimed and killed people either. He had all the time and visibility he needed to slow down and stop when encountering the first pedestrians in his way. That was six seconds before he got near the large crowd.

You have no consideration for the pedestrians fear for their lives seeing a two ton car coming at them a high rate of speed.

You only have concern for the Nazi fearing for his life. I see something there and it is quite ugly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17972056 





bgrouse said:


> He was attacked from behind and you expect him to make a split-second decision to back out of an alley, moving _towards _the attacker, while under attack.



He was moving forward when his car was hit. There was no one behind him when the flag hit the car. He initiated the vehicular attack prior to being hit by the flag.  His speed and  momentum made impact with people and the car inevitable. I think you have self deluded your mind by looking at the still shot as if the car was stopped, hit, and then the driver decided what to do. That is your fantasy and would never suffice as a defense.

Watch the first link to a video in post #1. The car was moving fast when flag guy struck. A split second later major impact with the crowd was made.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack. Being struck by a polearm and then being surrounded by other people from that group is not scary. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time debating someone who holds those positions.
> ...





I keep hearing this stuff about not slowing down. Do you know he didn't slow down? I asked for his speed throughout the event before and nobody provided it. The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.

I don't care if the pole had a flag on the end. Putting a flag on the end of a pike doesn't make it safer, either. It's obviously an attempt to bring a weapon to the "protest."





NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17972056
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More crap you're pulling out of your ass. Reality is not your friend here. Reality dictates he didn't hit anyone until he was struck first. His supposed intent to hit people prior to being struck is strictly in your imagination. The evidence does not show this.







NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17972077
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holy shit! They *DID *safely move out of the way prior to him being attacked!





> Your Nazi would reasonably never have been hit by a flag had he done that. He would not have maimed and killed people either. He had all the time and visibility he needed to slow down and stop when encountering the first pedestrians in his way. That was six seconds before he got near the large crowd.


He could have also stayed home. I guess anyone who goes outside and gets murdered is totally at fault for it. After all, had they stayed home.

There's nothing unreasonable about exercising your right to travel down a road. The pedestrians should have gotten out of the way, like they did until they attacked him.





> You have no consideration for the pedestrians fear for their lives seeing a two ton car coming at them a high rate of speed.
> 
> You only have concern for the Nazi fearing for his life. I see something there and it is quite ugly.





> He was moving forward when his car was hit. There was no one behind him when the flag hit the car.



The weapon was behind him! How do you think it struck the rear of the car?



> His speed and momentum made impact with people and the car inevitable.


Prove it!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.



Lack of concern by your Nazi for the safety for pedestrians is the major point showing intent to harm at the point by your admission that he had no reason to fear for his life.

Like I said every pedestrian that had to jump or flee from the path of your Nazi's car is a witness in court. The lack of regard for their safety by your Nazi paints a great big guilty sign on his forehead. 

You cant brush aside safety concerns for pedestrians just because it destroys your entire convoluted argument.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.
> ...


I still see no facts from you about the speed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> There's nothing unreasonable about exercising your right to travel down a road



He was not exercising his right to travel down a road. He was violating the due to excessive speed for conditions. As driver's we are required to assess conditions and travel at a speed that is not just safe for us but for people in or near the path to be travel. If you have to slow down to walking speed you have to slow down to walking speed. 

You can blow your horn give people the finger but you cannot deliberately scare them with your car as a weapon. Its not only against the law it is immoral. 

It happens in DC all the time. A delivery truck stops in my path of travel and the driver gets out and starts unloading the truck. Do I have the right to speed up and try to hit the guy because he deprived me of excercizing my right to drive down that road?

Your Nazi was going too fast with pedestrians present and a crowd of people blocking the intersection two blocks ahead of him.He has no right to violate the law. 

What makes you think Nazis have special privileges?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17972573 





bgrouse said:


> I still see no facts from you about the speed.



The facts are the three videos I cited. The fourth is the one in Post 1.

He never stopped or slowed down after passing by that camera where you admitted your Nazi was not in danger.

I cited the police report that said he was going  too fast. They would know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17972573 





bgrouse said:


> I still see no facts from you about the speed.



The video shows a speed by your NAZI that shows intentional disregard for the saftey if pedestrians in his path.

Now you don't want to discuss safety.

I can't force you to watch a video and see obvious facts.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> I keep hearing this stuff about not slowing down. Do you know he didn't slow down? I asked for his speed throughout the event before and nobody provided it. The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.



I base my statements about him not slowing down on the video and pictures of the incident.  From my viewings, the car does not appear to slow down, and the brakes are not applied within about a block of the collision.  I'll grant the possibility that he was coasting and slowing down a bit, but it doesn't appear that way to me. 
I don't see why a discussion about the way the car was driving prior to being hit by the flag is pointless.  The car hit the crowd perhaps 1 second after being hit by the flagpole, without any great increase in visible speed.  That is an indication that the driver was already heading to hit the crowd or, at best, driving recklessly and getting ready to accidentally hit the crowd.  Why would the drivers actions just prior to the collision not be relevant?  It would be just as relevant if he had been braking and suddenly sped up after being hit by the flagpole.



bgrouse said:


> I don't care if the pole had a flag on the end. Putting a flag on the end of a pike doesn't make it safer, either. It's obviously an attempt to bring a weapon to the "protest."



So any flag connected to the pole is an attempt to bring a weapon?  That is a pretty specious argument.  It's possible that the person wanted to have a weapon and used the flag as an excuse to carry one, but people have carried flags on sticks or poles at rallies and protests many times without using them for any sort of violence.  Do you also describe all of the confederate battle flags and black x on a white background carried by the white nationalists as polearms, brought to the protest as weapons?

Or how about something like this, was this a bunch of hippies getting ready to beat in heads?  






Was the protester in Charlottesville carrying a pike that he'd put a flag on?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing unreasonable about exercising your right to travel down a road
> ...


So how fast was he going?





Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing this stuff about not slowing down. Do you know he didn't slow down? I asked for his speed throughout the event before and nobody provided it. The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.
> ...


You have no idea how fast he was going or whether he could have stopped had he not been hit by the polearm.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care if the pole had a flag on the end. Putting a flag on the end of a pike doesn't make it safer, either. It's obviously an attempt to bring a weapon to the "protest."
> ...


No, but this one is.





> That is a pretty specious argument.  It's possible that the person wanted to have a weapon and used the flag as an excuse to carry one, but people have carried flags on sticks or poles at rallies and protests many times without using them for any sort of violence.  Do you also describe all of the confederate battle flags and black x on a white background carried by the white nationalists as polearms, brought to the protest as weapons?


Do they use them as such to try to harm an innocent person?





> Or how about something like this, was this a bunch of hippies getting ready to beat in heads?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no idea how those hippies ended up using them.


----------



## hadit (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17971645
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you're driving, you are responsible for the operation of your car. Even if someone leaps out in front of you, you're going to have a hard time convincing a judge or jury there was no way to avoid the collision. There had better be some skid marks, at least. 

This whole thing saddens me, because the violence isn't going to stop until everyone is willing to condemn it when it happens. The counter protesters should have never been allowed anywhere near the protesters. That's a failing of the city authorities, because once the two groups of extremists got into proximity, collision was inevitable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> You have no idea how fast he was going or whether he could have stopped had he not been hit by the polearm.



I don't know exactly how fast the car was going, of course.  On the other hand, I never claimed to.  I've merely estimated, based on the video an photograph evidence, that he was traveling at perhaps 20 mph when he was hit by the flag, and that he was within 15-20 feet of the pedestrians at that time.  Taking into account the time it would take for him to react and hit the brakes if he were going to do so, I don't think he could have stopped in time.  I don't think I've ever been unclear that these are opinions and estimates. 

Let me point out that the Charlottesville police have described it as he was driving at a "high rate of speed" toward the crowd.  In addition, the Attorney General of the US has described this as an "evil attack" which fits within the definition of domestic terrorism.  It's not as though my opinions on the incident are completely out in left field.
Victim recounts Charlottesville car attack that killed 1, injured 19



bgrouse said:


> No, but this one is.



It continues to be funny the way you complain that other people don't have proof, can't know things for certain, etc.....and yet you make declarative statements like this one.  How could you possibly know what the person with the flag intended when he decided to bring that flag?  That he used it as a weapon does not mean it was intended as such; if he had taken off a shoe and hit the car with that, would you claim that wearing shoes was his way of trying to sneak a weapon to the protest?



bgrouse said:


> Do they use them as such to try to harm an innocent person?



Again, using something as a weapon doesn't mean that thing was intended to be used as a weapon.



bgrouse said:


> I have no idea how those hippies ended up using them.



See above.

I have not argued that the flag was not used as a weapon.  I have argued that calling a flag on a stick or pole a polearm is silly.  I have argued that just because a flag is placed on a pole does not make it a polearm.  I notice you did not answer my question about whether the various confederate battle flags and black X flags brought to the protests also count as polearms, and if they were also clearly an attempt to bring a weapon.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Aug 19, 2017)

What happened in Charlottesville.

James Fields might well walk.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 19, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> What happened in Charlottesville.
> 
> James Fields might well walk.


Like I said in the beginning. Not "murder." I would get the hell out of there if a mob did that to my car.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> What happened in Charlottesville.
> 
> James Fields might well walk.



If he does, they might just get their race war after all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17973030Aa





bgrouse said:


> So how fast was he going?



Too fast. Faster than people walking. Police reported your Nazi traveling south on 4th street at a high rate of speed.

We can see from video your Nazi travelling at a high rate of speed for at least two blocks scattering pedestrians the entire way.

I cant force you to believe the police or your own eyes if you watch the videos, but your insistence on knowing the exact mph is not relevant.

We can all see his intent was to scare, scatter and injure and kill pedestrians for over two blocks.

Those conditions require any driver to slow down to around five mph. My guess he was going over 20.

Crash investigation will tell from the damage to his and the other vehicle the precise Mph.

But you think he was going a proper speed, stopped and accelerated out of fear for his life.

No video evidence supports you fantasy.

He never tried to stop or slow enough to avoid hitting people. You can see it on the faces of the people in his way.

Too fast. That is the answer.


A car going 30 mph travels at 44 feet per second. In the video where you admitted your Nazi was not in danger when he passed the camera I counted 8 seconds from the moment the car passed the camera until someone shouted go go go because your Nazi was backing up.

I looked at a google map and "The Impeccable Pig" restaurant is near where the camera footage was taken. It is approximately 350' from where the camera shot is taken to where your Nazi hit the convertible on Water Street.

So given 8 seconds before backing up, it means at 30 mph your Nazi travelled that 350', hit the crowd and backed up. Perhaps a second or two involved in the collision.

There is no time to stop and decide whether to accelerate into the crowd or backup while in fear for his life. So he didn't stop or slow down unless he was going fifty.

Your scheme to blame the victims is shattered and absolutely unsupported by all the facts and videos.

Give it up.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea how fast he was going or whether he could have stopped had he not been hit by the polearm.
> ...


Is that the "high rate of speed" that was referring to the speed at the time of the crash?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > No, but this one is.
> ...


I answered it. I said "Do they use them as such to try to harm an innocent person?" It means I don't know without more information.

Anyway, I said before I'm not a mind-reader. No, I don't know what was going through his head anymore than I know what was going through the head of the driver. I'm simply making observations based on the facts that are visible in the evidence, such as the way it was actually used and the general demeanor of the crowd: they were up to no good from the beginning.

Regardless, what does any of this have to do with my use of the word "polearm?" Regardless of the reason he brought it there, he still used it as a weapon. If someone bashed the driver's head open with an iron pipe, would the iron pipe be a weapon? Would it matter _when_ the attacker decided to use the pipe as a weapon, whether 1 second ago or 1 day ago?


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 19, 2017)

dblack said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > What happened in Charlottesville.
> ...


Facts mean nothing to the left. They want blood. WHITE blood.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 19, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Why do these communists hide their  faces?


They're not communists, asshole.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17973030Aa
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"When the crash happened." Is that the same "report?"





> We can see from video your Nazi travelling at a high rate of speed for at least two blocks scattering pedestrians the entire way.
> 
> I cant force you to believe the police or your own eyes if you watch the videos, but your insistence on knowing the exact mph is not relevant.
> 
> ...


That would be the speed at the time of the crash, after he was trying to escape with his life.





> But you think he was going a proper speed, stopped and accelerated out of fear for his life.
> 
> No video evidence supports you fantasy.
> 
> ...


No, it wasn't, given that he _didn't_ hit anyone prior to being attacked, dumbass.





> A car going 30 mph travels at 44 feet per second. In the video where you admitted your Nazi was not in danger when he passed the camera I counted 8 seconds from the moment the car passed the camera until someone shouted go go go because your Nazi was backing up.
> 
> I looked at a google map and "The Impeccable Pig" restaurant is near where the camera footage was taken. It is approximately 350' from where the camera shot is taken to where your Nazi hit the convertible on Water Street.
> 
> ...


8 seconds? The video starts as soon as the car is passing the guy with the camera and "go go go" is shouted at the 16 second mark.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

Tipsycatlover, post: 17974232 





Tipsycatlover said:


> James Fields might well walk.



No freakin way. Your narrator on the video subscribes to a theory that because his Nazi didn't hit pedestrians during his 300ft approach to the murderous crash it shows he had no intent to harm protesters. 

Your video is in slo-mo to show the guy hitting the Nazi car with his flag. In real speed there is no effect from that contact with the flag. He was not able to stop had flag guy never struck his reckless driving car. 

This OP showed the same video except the narrator said it was an African-American hitting the car with a bat. Yep a black guy was at fault here. 

Your narrator admits his Nazi was going to fast in his approach but commends him for not hitting people on the way to his big goal. Had someone not turned and saw his Nazi coming they would have been hit and run over.

That narrative is a joke. It is a pathetic argument and hopeless reasoning. 

No one speeds through a crowd of people for over the length of a football field and kills one and injures nineteen and walks. This killer marched with the Nazis before killing anti-Nazi protesters. 

He sought out counter protestors and killed one. No one else is to blame. 

Unless you are as dumb as Trump and believe that too.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > ricechickie said:
> ...



His car was blocked from the front and a man was beating his car blocking his path from behind before he struck anyone, its all on tape so save your lies.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 19, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Why do these communists hide their  faces?
> ...


Yeah, I'm afraid they are. Also, they are anarchists.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> "When the crash happened." Is that the same "report?"



Yes when the crash happened. What do you think it was? The night before?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> His car was blocked from the front and a man was beating his car blocking his path from behind before he struck anyone, its all on tape so save your lies.



Thats a flat out lie. There was no one behind him. He was going too fast to avoid hitting the crowd in front of him.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 19, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> ANTIFA is against fascism and hatred,



Antifa is a violent terrorist organization just like black lives matter...or should I say black lives splatter.  Hey look ma, I'm road kill!  And I can't stop laughing.



> ANTIFA does not seek out violence.



You're too laughable to take seriously.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > His car was blocked from the front and a man was beating his car blocking his path from behind before he struck anyone, its all on tape so save your lies.
> ...



It's all on video you lying faggot the man is hitting his car with a club from behind so fucking kill yourself.



> He was going too fast to avoid hitting the crowd in front of him.



Show me your degree in physics or STFU.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...



I didn't lie about anything.  You said he didn't hit anyone "until they started attacking his car from behind and blocking his escape from the front."  That would mean he didn't hit anyone until they started attacking his car from behind and until they started blocking his escape from the front.  In other words, according to your statement, they weren't blocking his escape from the front at first.  The road was blocked well before the car got down there.

I also don't think characterizing the guy with the flag as "blocking his path from behind" to be entirely accurate.  Perhaps that guy blocked a bit of his path from behind, but the car could certainly have gotten past that one person far more easily than any attempt to move forward through the road which was full of pedestrians, not to mention multiple vehicles.

But hey!  Feel free to point to what I said that was a lie, maybe you are talking about something else.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Is that the "high rate of speed" that was referring to the speed at the time of the crash?



Unfortunately, the statement did not specify just what time frame that high rate of speed encompasses.  However, the videos don't seem to show any dramatic increase in speed between the time the car is hit by the flagpole and the time it hits the crowd.



bgrouse said:


> Anyway, I said before I'm not a mind-reader. No, I don't know what was going through his head anymore than I know what was going through the head of the driver. I'm simply making observations based on the facts that are visible in the evidence, such as the way it was actually used and the general demeanor of the crowd: they were up to no good from the beginning.



Of course you are not a mind reader.  However, you said this:


bgrouse said:


> It's obviously an attempt to bring a weapon to the "protest."


That speaks to the intent of the guy before the protests even happened; it's saying that the flagpole was intended to be a weapon all along.  I don't know what you observed that would speak to the man's intent before the protests.



bgrouse said:


> Regardless, what does any of this have to do with my use of the word "polearm?" Regardless of the reason he brought it there, he still used it as a weapon. If someone bashed the driver's head open with an iron pipe, would the iron pipe be a weapon? Would it matter _when_ the attacker decided to use the pipe as a weapon, whether 1 second ago or 1 day ago?



Yes, an iron pipe can be used as a weapon.  If someone used it as such, I wouldn't decide to call it a quarterstaff.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



What facts do you think mean nothing to "the left" in this instance?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...



Are all Antifa members communist anarchists?


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Are all Antifa members communist anarchists?


Yes.
Twitter


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Yes, communist or Anarchists


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Um, the "blocking his escape" did not happen after his car was struck by a flag.




There illegal presence in the middle of the street was blocking his escape you stupid fuck.


> The car was going fast enough when it was struck by the flag there is almost no chance he could have stopped before hitting the crowd.



Show me your physics degree or Stfu.



> If he was already going to be hitting the crowd, trying to say it was only because of his fear for his life after his car was struck by a flag doesn't hold water.



It wasn't a flag it was a club with a flag on it which is a well documented tactic of Antifa so save your minimization propaganda you laughable fuck.



> Chanting in the street does not make a "violent mob."  Nor does it grant anyone license to hit those people with their car.



Violating the right to freedom of movement is an act of violence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 19, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Um, the "blocking his escape" did not happen after his car was struck by a flag.
> ...


Dude, you have not asked me, but I really think you are beating a dead horse here and being so vociferous about it that you are kind of looking less than wise for it.

You have good reasons for what you think is true, and I was agreeing with you until recently, and you should be able to respect the disagreement of others, right?

No one is going to hell over this issue, are we?

So please, lets back this off a few notches and rembmer we are discussing the issue with our fellow working class countrymen.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Um, the "blocking his escape" did not happen after his car was struck by a flag.
> ...



I understand that the crowd was blocking his escape, assuming escape was his intent.  However, that blocking did not start after or at the same time as the car was struck by the flagpole.  They were blocking his escape from the moment his car is first recorded; the crowd was filling the road when he got there.  If you pay some attention to what I actually said, I said that the blocking did not happen AFTER his car was struck by a flag.  His escape was always blocked.

I'm sorry, do you have a physics degree?  Are you going to explain the formulae you used and the measurements you took to show that the car could have stopped before hitting the crowd at the moment it was struck by a flagpole?  I am obviously giving my opinion on the events based on the speed the car appeared to be moving at and the distance between the car and the crowd as seen in still photos from when the flagpole hits the car.  Besides, I see no reason to be quiet on your command.  

It was a club.....so was it a stout stick, heavier on one end?  And even if it were, as I originally thought, a baseball bat, that doesn't matter in the context of the point I was making.  A club, a bat, a foam pool float, whatever the guy used to hit the car, my point was that at the time the car is struck, it is already going to be hitting the crowd IMO.

Calling people standing in a road an "act of violence" is ridiculous.  If a road crew puts up barricades, preventing traffic from moving, is that an "act of violence?"  If someone's car breaks down in the road, are they committing an "act of violence" until they are able to push it to the breakdown lane?  Your statement actually makes you sound remarkably like some Antifa members I've read statements from, who consider racist or hateful speech to be an "act of violence," and therefore they feel justified in responding with physical violence.

Would you like to simply address my points, or will you once again toss out insults intended to disparage my intelligence while you misunderstand my post?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

Sign Chaos, post: 17974779





Call Sign Chaos said:


> It's all on video you lying faggot the man is hitting his car with a club from behind so fucking kill yourself.



You flat out liar. First you said a man was beating his car and blocking his path from behind. Now you say the man was hitting his car with a club. 

No man blocked his car from behind because he never stopped moving. The car was hit once by someone on the sidewalk as it sped by. Your version is a lie and there is a reason for it to be a lie.

One hit is not beating and blocking. You are a liar.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the "high rate of speed" that was referring to the speed at the time of the crash?
> ...


I thought it said something to the effect of "when the crash happened."

The video from behind, far away, is a bad way to judge speed.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I said before I'm not a mind-reader. No, I don't know what was going through his head anymore than I know what was going through the head of the driver. I'm simply making observations based on the facts that are visible in the evidence, such as the way it was actually used and the general demeanor of the crowd: they were up to no good from the beginning.
> ...


Like the fact that he used it as a weapon and the violent, irrational reaction of the crowd right after the crash. Shows they had violence on their minds, so it would make sense for them to bring a polearm more than it would to bring a flag.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, what does any of this have to do with my use of the word "polearm?" Regardless of the reason he brought it there, he still used it as a weapon. If someone bashed the driver's head open with an iron pipe, would the iron pipe be a weapon? Would it matter _when_ the attacker decided to use the pipe as a weapon, whether 1 second ago or 1 day ago?
> ...


It looked like he adapted it to be used as a polearm, as opposed to a slingshot or crossbow.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > "When the crash happened." Is that the same "report?"
> ...


The 16 seconds before.

Why don't you tell us how you calculated his speed? You counted 8 seconds, but the shouting you described happens at the 16 second mark. So was his speed actually 15 mph instead of 30 mph?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos, post: 1797486 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> Violating the right to freedom of movement is an act of violence.



Who violated the Nazi killer's right to freedom of movement? He killed and maimed nineteen of the people he targeted and got away. That apparently was the movement he intended to have. 

Why else was he speeding down 4th Street heading for a group of counter protestors at a high rate of speed according to the cops.

The only one's to restrict his movement are the cops. Without bond. For good reason. He killed a young woman who opposed racist fascism in America.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 19, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17975102 





bgrouse said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



No the car came by the camera in reverse at 22 seconds on the video. Deduct two seconds stopped at zero mph at the crash point. Deduct two more seconds for acceleration in reverse to top speed and that is 18 seconds round trip. 

9 seconds in and nine seconds out.

But you said reverse was more difficult so 8 seconds in and 10 seconds out is probably more like it.

The 8 seconds to the impact sounds quite accurate. That's 30mph in and 20mph out roughly.

Your Nazi did not stop before he hit all those people. He didn't because he didn't have time. If he was going 15 mph it is even more impossible.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 19, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17975102
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's when he was backing out. You were talking about when he initially approached the crowd before the crash, the time between passing the cameraman and the time of "go go go" (when he started backing out).





> Deduct two seconds stopped at zero mph at the crash point. Deduct two more seconds for acceleration in reverse to top speed and that is 18 seconds round trip.


Surely you realize that he may have been traveling faster while reversing out of there as that's when he feared for his life followed the crash, right?





> 9 seconds in and nine seconds out.
> 
> But you said reverse was more difficult so 8 seconds in and 10 seconds out is probably more like it.


Difficulty affects the top speed, not the minimum speed. I suspect the top speed of that car going forward is more than 100 mph. Even if the top speed going backwards is 50 mph, it's still possible to go 15 mph forward and 45 mph backwards. That would average out to your claimed 30 mph. What matters is _when_.





> The 8 seconds to the impact sounds quite accurate. That's 30mph in and 20mph out roughly.
> 
> Your Nazi did not stop before he hit all those people. He didn't because he didn't have time. If he was going 15 mph it is even more impossible.


It's 16 seconds between when he passes the camera and when you hear "go go go." Those are your markers, stupid!


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 19, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Antifa is a violent terrorist organization just like black lives matter...or should I say black lives splatter.  Hey look ma, I'm road kill!  And I can't stop laughing.
> 
> You're too laughable to take seriously.


Neither group has anything to do with terrorism.  That's what you want people to believe because you're embarrassed normal college kid folk don't buy in to your phony tough guy talk and won't back down when you get in their faces.  You call them terrorists because they don't fear you and you don't know how to handle that.  

ANTIFA is against fascism and white supremacy.  That is a noble cause to be in to.  BLM is a group that is fighting for equality.  Unite the Right is a group that is fighting for white supremacy.  The FBI considers the WS "domestic extremists".  They do not consider ANTIFA and BLM that.

So you're a big mouth who's full of shit.  As usual.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 19, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Yeah, I'm afraid they are. Also, they are anarchists.


What is your proof they are communists?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 19, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



Completely missed the point.

it's a shame you morons can't think outside of your tiny little Saul Alinsky manufactured boxes.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 19, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



There you have it !

The left has spoken.

No need for a trial.  Just dial up big rocks in the head and find out what you need to know.

He knows everything.  

After all....he's a left winger.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Aug 19, 2017)

It was a damn dodge. The brakes probably failed and the accelerator got stuck. Dodge is just happy it ran long enough to actually reach the crowd. They figured it would have thrown a rod two blocks away.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I'm afraid they are. Also, they are anarchists.
> ...


Oh, I dont know...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17975398 





bgrouse said:


> It's 16 seconds between when he passes the camera and when you hear "go go go." Those are your markers, stupid!



Yepp 8 seconds to impact with the convertible 4 seconds to get into reverse and up to speed and 4 seconds To 1/3 back. Then it's go go go and 6 seconds after that your Nazi passes the camera on the way out. 

22 seconds. All at 30 mph going in and a little slower backing out. 

It's average speed you know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17923213





bgrouse said:


> Therefore, anyone whose "accident" involves a fatality is actually a murderer.



How often do the police charge someone who caused a fatality in an accident with second degree murder?

This is not seen as an accident. You only need to watch the video to know that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17923215, 





bgrouse said:


> I got startled once when I hit a curb. Accidentally hit the gas instead of brake. If the curb hadn't been that tall, I'd have kept going, maybe hitting someone.



You think it's ok to speed aggressively toward pedestrians in the street. I'm surprised it happened only once.

I'm surprised you have not killed someone yet.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Antifa is a violent terrorist organization just like black lives matter...or should I say black lives splatter.  Hey look ma, I'm road kill!  And I can't stop laughing.
> ...



You're a lying faggot both openly advocate for and engage in unlawful violence against civilians and civilian property, fucking kill yourself cock sucker.  Black live splatter!  #freeJamesAlexFields a true hero and freedom fighter.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17923215,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He was driving on a public and open thoroughfare they were illegally blocking tge street.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> I understand that the crowd was blocking his escape, assuming escape was his intent.  However, that blocking did not start after or at the same time as the car was struck by the flagpole.



Stupid faggot they were blocking the road and his forward movement before he anyone, god you're fucking dumb.



> I'm sorry, do you have a physics degree?  Are you going to explain the formulae you used and the measurements you took to show that the car could have stopped before hitting the crowd at the moment it was struck by a flagpole?



You're the one making the claim that he couldn't stop the burden of proof is on you dipshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17975866 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> Stupid faggot they were blocking the road and his forward movement before he anyone, god you're fucking dumb.



Can you explain why the police have not charged one single pedestrian with a crime or misdemeanor for blocking your Nazi's forward movement? Only your Nazi has been charged with 2nd degree murder.

Why did you lie about your Nazi's road in reverse being blocked by a man beating his car? 

You know when you are caught in a lie your credibility becomes worthless.


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> How often do the police charge someone who caused a fatality in an accident with second degree murder?
> 
> This is not seen as an accident. You only need to watch the video to know that.


Happens more than you think. Political pressure.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

Death Angel, post: 17976049 





Death Angel said:


> Happens more than you think. Political pressure.



And how many out of 33,000 traffic deaths a year result in murder (not manslaughter) charges being filed? 

Surely you know. You even know the motive.

Care to post your source?

Or did you make it up?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You know when you are caught in a lie your credibility becomes worthless.



Have you figured out why nobody pays attention to your posts ?


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Call Sign Chaos, post: 17975866
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because they were ordered to stand down by the Antifa and BLM terrorist sympathizing Democrat mayor and governor who wanted to shut it down.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Oh, I dont know...


Where's your link that puts these pictures in to context?

Random pictures without any context, is not proof.

Furthermore, the fact that you concentrate all your vitriol towards ANTIFA, an organization dedicated to fighting fascism and nary a word about groups that promote hate and racial superiority, says something.

The fact that you don't condemn white supremacists, but choose to character assassinate an anti-fascist group, speaks volumes about you.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Because they were ordered to stand down by the Antifa and BLM terrorist sympathizing Democrat mayor and governor who wanted to shut it down.


Fuck you, you white sympathizing asshole.   Go live in Weimar, Germany, if you want to be so supreme.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> He was driving on a public and open thoroughfare they were illegally blocking tge street.


And then he legally murdered a woman? You white supremacist piece of shit.

Looks like the country is on my side, because we shut your hating ass down in Boston.  Your little Proud Boys ended their march early, rather than face a crowd of 40,000 people.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I dont know...
> ...



1. No one dresses up in Antifa rags and carried commie flags except for Antifa. If you had any sense you would realize this instead of making a desperate rhetorical argument.

2. I have given just as much shit to Nazis and racists, especially here at USMB.

3. I condemn White Supremacy all the time, dude.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> 1. No one dresses up in Antifa rags and carried commie flags except for Antifa. If you had any sense you would realize this instead of making a desperate rhetorical argument.
> 
> 2. I have given just as much shit to Nazis and racists, especially here at USMB.
> 
> 3. I condemn White Supremacy all the time, dude.


Very well.  I'll take your word for 2 and 3; and take back what I said about your moral compass. But I still have issues with item 1.  Which is conjecture on your part.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. No one dresses up in Antifa rags and carried commie flags except for Antifa. If you had any sense you would realize this instead of making a desperate rhetorical argument.
> ...


Well, till I read about some conservative posing as Antifa and carrying a communist flag, I will continue to 'conjecture' that there are in fact Antifa.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that the crowd was blocking his escape, assuming escape was his intent.  However, that blocking did not start after or at the same time as the car was struck by the flagpole.
> ...



I see you're going to continue with insults.  It seems you are unable to do otherwise.  

I said that they were blocking the road before he hit anyone.  You are the one who indicated in an earlier post that the crowd blocking the road was something that happened during the incident: 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> They were not pedestrians they were a violent mob intentionally blocking a public and open thoroughfare chanting "whose streets? Our streets!" And he didn't strike anyone until they started attacking his car from behind and blocking his escape from the front.



Should I talk about how "fucking dumb" you are for making a post like that if you weren't trying to say that the crowd started blocking his escape?

I have pointed to evidence for my claim that the car was going to hit the crowd anyway at the time the flagpole struck it.  I have been pretty clear that it is my opinion, not an incontrovertible fact.  I don't need a physics degree to make an estimate or give an opinion.

Of course, considering your posts in this thread, I'm sure you'll respond with more juvenile insults and an almost total lack of considered content.  Perhaps that is all you are capable of.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...



Is there any context for the pictures?  I have no idea what might be going on in the first one.  The guy in the second one has his face masked as some Antifa members do, but to be honest, that shirt looks like it could be photoshopped in.  The contrast of the red shirt with the dark jacked and mask just looks a bit off to me.  The third photo also has a masked person, and a group in which some are carrying flags, so appears the most likely to be a group of Antifa people.  The last picture looks like it could be some sort of pro-Soviet march rather than Antifa.

I'm not saying these are not pictures of Antifa people, just that showing some pictures of people carrying hammer and sickle flags with no context isn't particularly strong evidence that they are Antifa.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17975398
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just look at this liberal moron's "facts" change as the evidence points against his ridiculous theory! He goes from:



> when he passed the camera I counted *8 seconds* from the moment the car passed the camera *until someone shouted go go go*



to:


> Yepp *8 seconds* to *impact with the convertible* 4 seconds to get into reverse and up to speed and 4 seconds To 1/3 back_. Then it's go go go_



See how easily he double's the driver's speed by just pulling shit out of his ass? Why not just say he spent 16 seconds fumbling with his transmission? Then you can argue he plowed into the crowd at the speed of light! Liberal "mathematics."


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse, post: 17923215,
> ...


And he still goes to jail for running over 20 pedestrians.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> #freeJamesAlexFields a true hero and freedom fighter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Well, till I read about some conservative posing as Antifa and carrying a communist flag, I will continue to 'conjecture' that there are in fact Antifa.



Are you attempting to tie communist violent Antifa elements to the mainstream left and Democratic Party? If so it would be certainly appropriate to tie Charlottesville killer Nazi to the right and mainstream Republicans/conservatives such as yourself.

I don't see where you are going with this. 

I oppose any organized group that promotes inititiating violence and destroying property. 

Those doing it should be arrested and convicted just like anyone else. 

But choosing between the two sides brawling with each during protest festivities, I would rather Antifa come out on top rather than the white supremacist fascist Nazis. 

How about you. Which side would you prefer if those are your two choices.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17975842 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> You're a lying faggot both openly advocate for and engage in unlawful violence against civilians and civilian property, fucking kill yourself cock sucker. Black live splatter! #freeJamesAlexFields a true hero and freedom fighter.



If there is a way to put a KKK hood on your head when expressing views on a message board CSC has found the words to do it.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> And then he legally murdered a woman? You white supremacist piece of shit.



Self defense, he was attacked with a club.



> Looks like the country is on my side, because we shut your hating ass down in Boston.  Your little Proud Boys ended their march early, rather than face a crowd of 40,000 people.



Proud boys were not dispatched because of the Boston mayors blanket stand down order you stupid fuck.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Black lives splattered all over the sidewalk, James Alex Fields is a true hero and freedom fighter, Heather Heyer is a dead monkey dick taking terrorist whore who got what she had coming.


And you're a tough guy talking pussy who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Proud boys were not dispatched because of the Boston mayors blanket stand down order you stupid fuck.


Your days are numbered Nazi boy.  This country is not going to tolerate your hate.  You are a pariah.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you attempting to tie communist violent Antifa elements to the mainstream left and Democratic Party? If so it would be certainly appropriate to tie Charlottesville killer Nazi to the right and mainstream Republicans/conservatives such as yourself.
> 
> I don't see where you are going with this.
> 
> ...


Most of ANTIFA are good people with good intentions.  They just don't get all MLK when provoked.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Are you attempting to tie communist violent Antifa elements to the mainstream left and Democratic Party? If so it would be certainly appropriate to tie Charlottesville killer Nazi to the right and mainstream Republicans/conservatives such as yourself.
> ...



They are a violent terrorist organization and legitimate targets for extrajudicial execution.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Black lives splattered all over the sidewalk, James Alex Fields is a true hero and freedom fighter, Heather Heyer is a dead monkey dick taking terrorist whore who got what she had coming.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Black lives splattered all over the sidewalk, James Alex Fields is a true hero and freedom fighter, Heather Heyer is a dead monkey dick taking terrorist whore who got what she had coming.



If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a challenger.


----------



## Dalia (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


I have a question ; was she a Antifa or not ? the mother said that she went there to protest in a peace way.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > He was driving on a public and open thoroughfare they were illegally blocking tge street.
> ...




he 'legally murdered' a woman?

Didn't know the trial was over, and the verdict published


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



The crowd she was marching with was Antifa and BLM.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 20, 2017)

.....


----------



## Dalia (Aug 20, 2017)

Is she one of the idiots who bumped into the car? We did not see where she's really is located in the video but I think she got struck after  the car was put in reverse.


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 20, 2017)

Pogo said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Yeah, those negro people with bats and chains surrounding to kill the young man was not an illusion.

Damn, how you wish that young white man used a gun.

Damn!

Car and color of skin will do though.

Oh, and why again are you ignoring the negro people with bats and chains?

Is it because they are negro people?


----------



## Dalia (Aug 20, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Is she one of the idiots who bumped into the car? We did not see where she's really is located in the video but I think she got struck after  the car was put in reverse.





Dalia said:


> Is she one of the idiots who bumped into the car? We did not see where she's really is located in the video but I think she got struck after  the car was put in reverse.




She can be the girl we see in front who is hit at first who wears black pants and and purple sweater with a small  little blue T-Shirt and after she lie down at the right and the hair color matches.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 20, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Didn't happen the way you claim dummy.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

Those pieces of shit who attacked the car after the crash got what they deserved. Hopefully there are many permanent injuries and paralysis involved.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Those pieces of shit who attacked the car after the crash got what they deserved. Hopefully there are many permanent injuries and paralysis involved.


Yeah, they should have attacked the driver and not the car.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Those pieces of shit who attacked the car after the crash got what they deserved. Hopefully there are many permanent injuries and paralysis involved.
> ...


Whatever happened to figuring out why the crash occurred before trying to murder the driver?


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Commit an act of terrorism, expect the victims to fight back.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


And how did the bystanders know that a car crash = "act of terrorism?" Do they murder or try to murder every person who causes a car crash?


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


It's not hard to figure out someone who mows over a crowd, making no effort to stop, is trying to kill them. Hell, one of the more fortunate protesters who didn't get hit identified it on the spot as an act of terrorism.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> making no effort to stop,



Who made that determination?


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Are you fucking blind?? The only thing that stopped him was ramming into another car. How many pedestrians would you accidentally hit before stopping? He hit 20 before crashing his car.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> They are a violent terrorist organization and legitimate targets for extrajudicial execution.


You just say that because they don't run when you try to bully them.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> The crowd she was marching with was Antifa and BLM.


Both of those groups fight for equality, your group fights for supremacy.  Which means, they're the good groups and you're the evil groups.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


>




bgrouse, post: 17978201 





bgrouse said:


> See how easily he double's the driver's speed by just pulling shit out of his ass?



Didn't double the driver's speed at all, liar. Travelling 700 ft in 22 seconds, in and out, is 31 mph avg.

Allowing 8 seconds in, four seconds for impact and getting into reverse and four seconds to get a third of the way out puts the go go go shout at 16 seconds.

You assumed I meant when your Nazi started backing up the guy says go go go. But your Bazi didn't see your Nazi coming until he came into the camera's view at 13 to 14 seconds. The guy didn't shout go go go until 16 seconds.

This confirms about 8 seconds to impact at 30 without stopping or slowing down. A few seconds stopped and getting into reverse. And two to three seconds becoming visible to the camera.


30 fps = 20 mph. 37 fps = 25 mph.  44 fps = 30 mph.

700 ft in 21 seconds = 33 fps. Around 23 mph avg.

700 ft in 18 seconds = 39 fps. around 27 mph

I am assuming from the video he reversed slower than going in.

Reviewing the video the flag guy swings at the car when it was likely going at least 30 mph and your Nazi did not change speed or stop before flag guy took a swing. He was on the sidewalk and the end of the flag pole had to be going more than 30 mph to make contact. Just sayin'.

The hit by the flag would likely be noticed by an aggressive dangerous driver with people in front of him diving out of his way until he hit the most dense crowd.  Still say it was about 8 seconds to impact.

So you lied again. And you are not getting good at lying for your Nazi.

Give it up. You are the liar here.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17979134 





Call Sign Chaos said:


> The crowd she was marching with was Antifa and BLM.



Much more than that. Your Nazi was with the Nazis. Drove all the way from Ohio to kill anti-Nazis. 

She was in her hometown. Never expressed views like your Nazi did such as German concentration camps are where 'the magic happened' in exterminating Jews.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Call Sign Chaos, post: 17979134
> 
> 
> 
> ...





NotfooledbyW said:


> Drove all the way from Ohio to kill anti-Nazis.


The plan was to kill anti-Nazis?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

Theowl32 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



1. The people surrounding the car after it ran into the crowd were not all "negro people."

2. I did not see any chains, although I did see what looked like a couple of bats and a pipe....and one umbrella.

3. How the crowd reacted after the collision does not really matter when discussing whether the driver ran into the crowd intentionally.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I think the fact that the brake lights don't come on until after the car has already crashed into the vehicle in front of it is a pretty good indication of a driver not making an effort to stop.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



What ever happened to not driving into a crowd of pedestrians when something hits your rear bumper?  

It's strange that you seem to find it perfectly reasonable for the driver to both be in fear for his life from the moment his rear bumper is hit by a flagpole, and to react to that fear by plowing into a crowd, yet people reacting to that same act by attacking the car is incomprehensible.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

I'm perfectly happy for the legal system to analyze what happened, and reach a verdict.

hopefully, you and your buds haven't stormed the jail, broken him out, and hung him from the nearest lamppost before that happens.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> I'm perfectly happy for the legal system to analyze what happened, and reach a verdict.
> 
> hopefully, you and your buds haven't stormed the jail, broken him out, and hung him from the nearest lamppost before that happens.


Well at the very least, you could answer the question... how many pedestrians would *you* hit before hitting the brakes?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > I'm perfectly happy for the legal system to analyze what happened, and reach a verdict.
> ...


Depends on the circumstance, my fear level, many other factors.

I'm sure you would be cool, calm, and collected while people were screaming, yelling, and beating on your car.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

Theowl32, post: 17979313 





Theowl32 said:


> Yeah, those negro people with bats and chains surrounding to kill the young man was not an illusion.



That was after he killed and maimed whites blacks anybody in his way, and trying to escape. 

Not sure how you determined the race of the guys with sticks trying stop a murder from escaping.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



Other than the one guy with the flag, all of that happened *after* he hit the crowd.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Find that out in court, or from a blog?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite, post: 17981372 





WillHaftawaite said:


> I'm sure you would be cool, calm, and collected while people were screaming, yelling, and beating on your car.



No one was beating on your Nazi's car because that is impossible to do to a car travelling at around 30 mph until it smashes into a crowd and rear ended a convertible at the intersection of 4th and Water at a high rate of speed according to the police report.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite, post: 17981372
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Link the report..

then link the psychologists analysis of what was going thru the boys mind while he was driving.


Or....

stop spewing all this crap, and wait til official word comes out as to what occurred.

So far, I've seen a 10 second, (if that long) video, taken on a cellphone, of what happened.

Unlike you, and your buds, I need a bit more than that before I call for him to be hung from the nearest lamppost.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


There's zero evidence anyone was beating on his car until he started mowing people down.

If it's truly an accident, any sane individual would answer, "one."

Fields kept driving until he crashed. And had it been an accident, he could have backed out from that road before running so many people over.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Is all the evidence in?


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


I'm in the court of public opinion, not a court of Justice. As such, I can formulate my own opinion based on the videos of a lunatic driving *into* a crowd and not hitting his brakes until after crashing his vehicle, which he used  as a weapon.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> I'm in the court of public opinion, not a court of Justice.


Obviously.

Big problem with the 'court of public opinion'.

a lot of the evidence is overlooked, or ignored


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> So far, I've seen a 10 second, (if that long) video, taken on a cellphone, of what happened.



There is a 24 second video that shows the car passing the camera headed for the counter-protest peaceful marchers. The Nazi's car is forcing pedestrians to run out of his way. Pedestrians on this side street are fearing for their lives, screaming as the car comes at them. I calculated from a google map that the camera was about 350 feet from the intersection where the death and most the injuries occurred. The Nazi's car comes back and passes the same camera 21 seconds after it passed going to main and murder. 

We don't need to wait to know the Nazi killer did not stop until he hit people and the silver convertible. 

Right wing nut jobs are posting lies. Saying the car was stopped and people were beating on it before he hit anybody. 

That is a lie. Why can RWNJs post flat out lies and we are not supposed to expose those liars for what they are.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


Oh? What evidence is being overlooked?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > So far, I've seen a 10 second, (if that long) video, taken on a cellphone, of what happened.
> ...




YOU calculated.

Go away little boy, come back when the professionals have made their statement


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > So far, I've seen a 10 second, (if that long) video, taken on a cellphone, of what happened.
> ...


Rightwingnuts are circling the wagon to protect one of their own.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Oh? What evidence is being overlooked?



Have they had the trial yet?

No telling how much has been over looked.

Come back when the jury makes a decision...

or at least wait til the prosecutor has made his opening speech


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...




Bud, if he's guilty of what you claim, hang him.

but at least wait to do it legally


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


Why do you have to wait for a trial to formulate an opinion?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I've found that making opinions end in lynchings.

and at least 3 of you in this thread want to have the rope in your hands when it happens


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.





NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



You know what you did, asshole. You counted 8 seconds from the time he passed the camera to the "go go go." 



> I counted 8 seconds from the moment the car passed the camera until someone shouted go go go



When I pointed out it was 16 seconds, you started adding things to arrive at the same result. Face it: you already know what you want the result to be and are just cherry-picking/inventing evidence to get there.

There's no point in discussing this with a liar like you unless you provide all of the details of how you came up with your conclusion, like how you know from the video from the rear when the collision took place and what map you used to measure the distance (including how you determined scale).


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


You're shitting me, right? How the fuck is giving your opinion on this forum going to end in a lynching? 

You just can't bring yourself to admit the guy intentionally drove down an entire block to drive *into* a crowd and didn't hit his brakes until after he crashed into another car, can ya?

How is what he did any different than the mother fuckers who drove into crowds in Barcelona?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite, post: 1798167 





WillHaftawaite said:


> Big problem with the 'court of public opinion'.



Why do right wingers post comments that are obvious lies and those of us that don't lie have to wait for the trial to be concluded before exposing lies for what they are. 

The videos available provide certain truths and facts - timing, distance, speed and pedestrian reactions as the Nazi sped toward them and his ultimate target - the dense crowd of anti-fascist marchers on Water Street. 

The Nazi did not stop or slow way down before hitting the crowd. 

I suppose this particular Nazi coulda woulda been looking for an ice cream store in the same area where an anti-Nazi march was going on and low and behold his accelerator got stuck and his brakes failed and damned if he tried so hard to shut off the engine but the dad gummed key was stuck too.

Then why all the lies that the death and mayhem should be blamed on the left and negroes that can run thirty mph swinging bats and chains? 

 I would wait if the liars wait. But they won't.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



seriously, just how effing stupid are you, and the others on this board?

I've told you idiots time and time again, I prefer for official word on this case, and you keep responding with your typical, "why can't you see it our way".

Take a break, start a menage a trois, enjoy yourselves..

But take a fucking hint, for once in your miserable lives.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite, post: 1798167
> 
> 
> 
> ...



go away, little boy. find some building blocks to play with.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


You're a fucking hypocrite. 

With Fields, who killed someone, you want to wait until he gets a trial to spout an opinion.

Yet here you are, on another thread, not batting an eye over a guy getting gunned down without ever having a trial. Where was your call for a trial there?


WillHaftawaite said:


> Sounds like he was found guilty by a group of his peers, and sentenced.
> 
> Sentence carried out.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




and you're a moron.

Please keep proving it.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


Spits the hypocritical idiot who brushes off the murder of a guy released from jail without a trial but insists we must wait until Fields has his day in court to render an opinion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> When I pointed out it was 16 seconds, you started adding things to arrive at the same result. Face it: you already know what you want the result to be and are just cherry-picking/inventing evidence to get there.



Liar, I changed  nothing. You jumped to your own simpleminded conclusion that I intended the go go go shout to be at the 8 second point of impact. So I gave you further details as to why the shout did not happen until 16 seconds. 

Nothing changed from my original post. You said doubled your Nazi's speed. I didn't. You lied.

I got it from a Google map that has a scale. Fortunately the camera captured s restaurant on the corner so I could be certain of the intersection near which the rear view mayhem your Nazi was causing as he passed by. From their it is easy to determine distance. 

You claim, I believe, that your Nazi was stopped or barely moving when the flag guy hit his car, then he panicked and feared for his life and the best escape route was through a dense crowd of pedestrians. 

The video does not show that. It shows the flag  guy swinging his flag from the sidewalk as the car keeps speeding by.

You can't prove your Nazi stopped so you lie about my calculations and provide none of your own.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



I watched multiple videos of the incident.  I will clarify that there was yelling before the crash, but only one person appears to threaten the car (the guy with the flag) before the crash.  After the crash, multiple people come forward to attack the car.

Other than the videos having been tampered with, I'm not sure what evidence would exist that the driver was being attacked by anyone other than the guy with the flag on the block of the crash.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite, post: 17981372
> ...



I'm curious what you think might have happened before that 10 second video that would justify driving into a crowd of pedestrians?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite, post: 17981781 





WillHaftawaite said:


> go away, little boy. find some building blocks to play with.



Why should I go away. You are already running from the facts and truth available about this. 

It's not looking good for your Nazi. The videos and eyewitnesses, I mean. There's three good videos. One from above. One recording the impact from the front. And the best recorded the Nazi going down 4th Street from behind with eyewitnesses scrambling and screaming to get out of his way. 

All those eyewitnesses and the video, and there's this. Your Nazi is a Nazi. 

You don't think that will come up in a trial?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



If more evidence becomes available, I'll be happy to reassess my position.  However, I have a hard time trying to imagine what evidence could come to light that would significantly change my opinion.  The car seemed to be driven under control, the brakes were not applied, and only one person hit the rear bumper of the car from all of the available video evidence.  That video evidence doesn't seem to have a lot of hidden or blocked areas in which something relevant might have occurred which cannot be seen.

I believe I have already stated in this thread that the driver deserves his day in court.  I don't think it looks good for him from the available evidence.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> WillHaftawaite, post: 17981781
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WillHaftawaite is nothing but another loser hypocrite. Despite calling for presumption of innocence for a nazi, he afforded no such luxury for Hillary...


WillHaftawaite said:


> Only a Fucking tard  fails to believe that HIllary is a crook...


... remind me -- when did Hillary have her day in court?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.



I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable.  A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 20, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



Really, seen a bunch of lynchings, have you?  No one should have an opinion, lest someone be lynched?

Look, the driver absolutely and unequivocally deserves his day in court.  No lynching should occur.  You seem to be saying no one should form an opinion, though, and that is ridiculous.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > When I pointed out it was 16 seconds, you started adding things to arrive at the same result. Face it: you already know what you want the result to be and are just cherry-picking/inventing evidence to get there.
> ...


Was that my claim? Can you quote where I made that claim?





> , then he panicked and feared for his life and the best escape route was through a dense crowd of pedestrians.
> 
> The video does not show that. It shows the flag  guy swinging his flag from the sidewalk as the car keeps speeding by.
> 
> You can't prove your Nazi stopped so you lie about my calculations and provide none of your own.


Let's try this an easier way, one thing at a time.

Is the following statement correct?


```
8 seconds from the moment the car passed the camera until someone shouted go go go
```


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 20, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.
> ...


And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Yet here you are, on another thread, not batting an eye over a guy getting gunned down without ever having a trial.


Held 2 years in jail?

Court screwed up.

and you don't even want to wait for that to happen.

Thanks for additional proof you're a moron


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 20, 2017)

Faun said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite, post: 17981781
> ...



YOU might wants to take another gander at that thread.

I cut and pasted a post of Tyrones, and changed  the names from Trump to Hillary..

Which is just more proof you like to jump to conclusions, moron


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


Now you're simply lying. Which is the last piece of evidence needed to see you're full of shit. I never said anyone should be denied their day in court. What I did say is that from the evidence available so far, the guy appears guilty of driving intentionally into a crowd.

What I also said is that you're a hypocrite who picks and chooses who and who isn't a criminal without receiving a trial.

So far we've seen you insist an alt-right wingnut, who's charged with murder, should not be judged on this forum until he has his day in court; but neglect to offer such a position for a black guy gunned down without a trial ... or for Hillary, who was never even charged with a crime, no less had a trial.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


That's true, they are not comparable. The crowd was  attacking the guy who was trying to kill them.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Why would anyone assume his brakes failed? I would expect a driver would shift their car into park if heading uncontrollably for 2 blocks towards a crowd of people.

That he made no attempt to stop his vehicle, or honk his horn as a warning he was approaching uncontrollably, convinces me the crowd reacted appropriately.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


LOL

As if that means you didn't post it.

And look, here's a third time you advocated someone's guilt without affording them a trial..,


WillHaftawaite said:


> When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?



Hypocrite.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 21, 2017)

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


and you prove again you're a moron.

"When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?"


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...


Of what crimes, ya flamin' hypocrite? She hasn't been charged with anything.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?





> I would expect a driver would shift their car into park if heading uncontrollably for 2 blocks towards a crowd of people.


If he had time to do so. Most people don't have a developed reaction to shift into park when an obstacle comes into view like they do to hit the brakes.

Besides, modern cars can have features in the transmission that are designed to avoid damage in such a situation. For example:
Accidently put in park while moving

I don't know if his car has such a feature, and I certainly don't know if he knew at the time. Either way, don't expect a modern car to react the same way to it as Reese's car did in Terminator.


> That he made no attempt to stop his vehicle, or honk his horn as a warning he was approaching uncontrollably, convinces me the crowd reacted appropriately.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17981953 





bgrouse said:


> Let's try this an easier way, one thing at a time.



I was counting 8 seconds to the point of the crash. And still do. Nothing changed. The guy yelling go go go did not say it immediately when the car came into view. He said it a couple of seconds after the car came into view.

It has all been explained how the numbers work out in more detail and the original calculated speed has not changed. Do you agree the Nazi in reverse passed the camera 21 seconds after passing the same camera going forward? You must know I could not have meant the crash occurred 16 seconds after passing the camera going in. That would only leave about 4 seconds to cover the same ground coming out as he did going in. Which is twice as fast which is an average speed of 60 MPH.

Do you actually believe he went 60 mph in reverse?!

Also, If you don't believe your Nazi stopped or slowed down at some point prior to accelerating into the crowd because he suddenly became in fear for his life because of flag guy. What do you believe happened. 

Akso, how many seconds was it after passing the camera until flag guy took a swipe at his car?

I say it is about 4 seconds. And it looks as if to be about halfway to your Nazi's bigger target. The most dense crowd of anti-Nazi pedestrians. At this point it looks on video to be densely populated with pedestrians. He should have been stopped at this point to avoid hitting any of them. 

What is your argument?


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


I already explained why it was reasonable to think he was trying to run them over. He drove for at least 2 blocks before running into that crowd. He had other options had it been break failure, including but not limited to ... throwing his car into park ... laying on his horn ... screaming out his window to get out of his way ... etc....

He neither made any attempt to stop his vehicle nor attempt to warn anyone to get out of his way. His intentions were clear. At least one eyewitness even called it an act of terrorism. I know I'd be pissed as shit if someone intentionally tried to run me over.

Not to mention, there's been no evidence his brakes failed him -- which means the crowd reaction was both accurate and justifiable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?



Nope. He has made his Nazi views public, He drove 8 hours to be part of a hate group protest movement. He was driving toward black, white, all races of marchers who were protesting his hate groups coming to Charlottesville. 

For his brakes to fail at the precise moment his car was forcing panicked pedestrians to jump out of his way, is extremely farfetched. 

He drove away in reverse you might think at 60  mph -  without brakes? And drive a few miles and was caught. I bet the first thing after a drunk test in cases like this would be if the brakes wiere working. Including the parking brake


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I can't say for sure why some members of the crowd immediately attacked the car.  Did they have some indication before the crash that it was intentional?  Perhaps.  The speed the car traveled at, the lack of brake lights, people being forced to jump out of the way as the car made its way down the road, any or all of these might have given the members of the crowd the idea it was intentional.

Perhaps those members of the crowd that attacked the car were simply prone to violence.  I won't deny that possibility.  Maybe their first reaction to seeing friends or family injured like that is to seek retribution, without worrying about whether it was accidental or intentional.  Or it may have been less considered than retribution; more of a lashing out at the thing which just caused such violence, without any clear goal or rationale.

I wasn't so much comparing the two actions, driving into the crowd and the crowd attacking the car, as comparing your reactions to them.  You quite easily come up with reasons you think that driving into a crowd of people is a reasonable action, whereas you seem to find the idea of people attacking a vehicle which had just driven into their fellows something for which there cannot be a rational reason.  While I believe the driver intentionally hit the crowd, and I disagree that driving into the crowd would be a rational way to try to escape, I certainly can see how a panic reaction could lead to such an accident.  I also can see how members of the crowd might feel attacking the car to be appropriate, if they believed it had run into their fellows on purpose.

You have made comments about how the driver did not have time to make a fully thought out, rational decision.  That makes sense, at least in the context of the amount of time between the car being hit by the flagpole and the car striking the crowd.  How much time did the crowd have to make a rational decision after the crash?  Is the lack of time to think the situation through and reach a rational conclusion not applicable to them for some reason?  A car had just driven into the crowd, at least injuring a bunch of people.  If a man hitting the back bumper of a moving car is enough for the driver of that car to become fearful for his life and make a hasty, perhaps panicked, reaction, wouldn't a car driving into a crowd of which you are a member be enough for the same?  Couldn't the members of the crowd have been in fear for their lives and reacting to that fear?

Put another way, I question the reasoning behind seeing self-defense when a car runs into a crowd of people who have done nothing to the driver or the car, yet not seeing self-defense when members of a crowd, that has just been run into by a car, attack that car.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 21, 2017)

ricechickie said:


> You are disgusting.



One can only hope that the poster is a troll, and does not seriously believe the content of the posts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17981953 





bgrouse said:


> a


 






See the green line. I did a recheck on google earth at work today. You can select two points on the "path" feature and it calculates the distance. Very exact.  I get 280' each way from where I think your Nazi passed 
The camera. So his speed going in is about 24 mph figuring 8 seconds to impact. 

He still has no time to slow way down before the flag guy hit his car and no brake lights were used. I think flag guy was located on the sidewalk somewhere maybe a car length behind the silver car in the travel lane. By the time your Nazi passed flag guy there was no doubt he was going to start hitting people. 

This is not meant to be a perfect calculation since several assumptions have to be made. But it is close enough to know he was going over 20 mph where he should have been no faster than people can walk and stopped before hitting anyone that could not get out of his way.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 17981953
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you answer the questions that were asked instead of making up your own?





> And still do. Nothing changed. The guy yelling go go go did not say it immediately when the car came into view. He said it a couple of seconds after the car came into view.
> 
> It has all been explained how the numbers work out in more detail and the original calculated speed has not changed. Do you agree the Nazi in reverse passed the camera 21 seconds after passing the same camera going forward? You must know I could not have meant the crash occurred 16 seconds after passing the camera going in. That would only leave about 4 seconds to cover the same ground coming out as he did going in. Which is twice as fast which is an average speed of 60 MPH.
> 
> Do you actually believe he went 60 mph in reverse?!


Why don't you take it easy and answer the questions first? You're getting ahead of yourself and I don't think you have the cognitive capabilities to do that.





> Also, If you don't believe your Nazi stopped or slowed down at some point prior to accelerating into the crowd because he suddenly became in fear for his life because of flag guy. What do you believe happened.
> 
> Akso, how many seconds was it after passing the camera until flag guy took a swipe at his car?
> 
> ...









NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?
> ...


Why don't you answer the questions about what you said earlier first. You're making claims and not backing them up or explaining them so we're going in circles.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He might have been driving for 200 miles. Brakes can fail suddenly.





> He had other options had it been break failure, including but not limited to ... throwing his car into park ... laying on his horn ... screaming out his window to get out of his way ... etc....


Have you ever been in a situation where you had to brake suddenly? Not much time to do much else. You're also assuming the parking system in his car works the same way as a 1960's car.





> He neither made any attempt to stop his vehicle nor attempt to warn anyone to get out of his way.


There's no way the crowd would have known this at the time. I told you about numerous, far more common reasons cars fail to stop.





> His intentions were clear. At least one eyewitness even called it an act of terrorism. I know I'd be pissed as shit if someone intentionally tried to run me over.
> 
> Not to mention, there's been no evidence his brakes failed him -- which means the crowd reaction was both accurate and justifiable.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Only one of the groups reacted in an undeniably violent manner.





> A car had just driven into the crowd, at least injuring a bunch of people.  If a man hitting the back bumper of a moving car is enough for the driver of that car to become fearful for his life and make a hasty, perhaps panicked, reaction, wouldn't a car driving into a crowd of which you are a member be enough for the same?  Couldn't the members of the crowd have been in fear for their lives and reacting to that fear?


Then they would have gotten out of the way, not jumped ONTO the car, which undoubtedly caused more injuries.





> Put another way, I question the reasoning behind seeing self-defense when a car runs into a crowd of people who have done nothing to the driver or the car, yet not seeing self-defense when members of a crowd, that has just been run into by a car, attack that car.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 21, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> No I say that because they advocate and engage in violence against civilians and civilian property.


So do you.  They do it when provoked; you do it by design.  They seek equality; you seek supremacy.

You're the evil, not them.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Aug 21, 2017)

Billo_Really said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > No I say that because they advocate and engage in violence against civilians and civilian property.
> ...



No they do the provoking *XXXX Mod Edit --- too close to bestiality. *


> They seek equality; you seek supremacy.



No they want to destroy the republic which has granted equality under the law to hundreds of millions, what I want is to slaughter them to the last, the armies of Kek are mobilized, there will be much more blood to come.



> You're the evil, not them.



Good, bad, we're the guys with the guns and the Normie faggots better watch their six because we're coming and hells coming with us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Why don't you answer the questions about what you said earlier first. You're making claims and not backing them up or explaining them so we're going in circles.


 

I made a claim that it was about 8 seconds to the major impact. That has not changed. if you cannot see that your Nazi was in and out in 21 seconds then you must believe he was backing up three times faster backing out than driving in. That car might get 0 to 60 in 5 seconds with a full drag strip burn out, but in reverse under the conditions, nope. He probably would need to be going 70 mph when he passed the camera getting out from the crash in 5 seconds. 

Do some math. You are still arguing that at the 16 second point your Nazi started going in reverse. That is nuts.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you answer the questions about what you said earlier first. You're making claims and not backing them up or explaining them so we're going in circles.
> ...


Here is what you said!

```
8 seconds from the moment the car passed the camera until someone shouted go go go
```

Also, where did I make the claim that 
	
	



```
your Nazi was stopped or barely moving when the flag guy hit his car
```
?

It's obvious you're a damned liar and will avoid the issue when it's pointed out to you. I could point at a can of blue paint and you'll say "nope, it's orange!" My question then is, WTF is the point of arguing with you? It's unreasonable to expect that you will even consider an unknown like the driver's true intention if you can't even accept a simple fact.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



It did not appear to be a group that attacked the car, but rather some individuals from the crowd.  They came from both sides as well as from behind the car.

You seem to have a bit of a double standard regarding reactions.  For the driver, going into the crowd may have been a poorly thought out plan, a panic reaction, an irrational but understandable response to being afraid.  For the crowd, they cannot have had an irrational reaction to a car running into their fellows?  Do you think flight is the only possible reaction to fear?

I'm still trying to understand how driving into a crowd that has, at that point, done nothing to you can be considered self-defense, but people attacking a car which just drove into the crowd of which they are a part is not self-defense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17986500 





bgrouse said:


> Only one of the groups reacted in an undeniably violent manner.



No your Nazi was driving in a violent aggressive dangerous  manner at least 10 seconds before hit maimed and killed unarmed people compared to a two ton motor vehicle.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Three's a crowd.





> They came from both sides as well as from behind the car.
> 
> You seem to have a bit of a double standard regarding reactions.  For the driver, going into the crowd may have been a poorly thought out plan, a panic reaction, an irrational but understandable response to being afraid.  For the crowd, they cannot have had an irrational reaction to a car running into their fellows?  Do you think flight is the only possible reaction to fear?
> 
> I'm still trying to understand how driving into a crowd that has, at that point, done nothing to you can be considered self-defense, but people attacking a car which just drove into the crowd of which they are a part is not self-defense.


I just *can't imagine* how endangering yourself by jumping onto an unsafe vehicle in this situation can be considered an attempt to avoid harm to oneself, whether due to reflex action or a poorly thought out, but understandable decision. I *can see* how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



First of all, who "jump[ed] onto an unsafe vehicle"?  I don't see a single person jump onto the car from the video.  Instead, I see some people attacking the car, and one person who ends up on top of the back of the car because the car backs into them.

Second, we're talking about reflexive and poorly thought out actions.  You seem to be looking for a well thought out action in a poorly thought out action.  Driving into a large crowd, even assuming the driver did not realize other vehicles were in the road, is an incredibly poor decision if the driver was trying to escape.  Every one of the people who attacked the car appear to have been unhurt by it backing up; the one person who looked like they may have been hurt did not attack the car, so it's possible they were coming forward to assist rather than attack (the person with the umbrella).  Once again, we have you discussing driving a car into a crowd of people as an understandable action, but attacking a car that just drove into a crowd of people as not understandable.

You can see how a person might decide to drive into a large crowd, one which apparently was so full of people that the driver could not see far enough to realize there was another vehicle in front of him, to escape from a man hitting the bumper with a flagpole.  You can't imagine people attacking a car that just ran over what could have been a bunch of friends and family.

You can consider driving into a crowd of people who have done nothing to you a form of self-defense.  You cannot consider a person attacking a car that just ran into a crowd which the person was a part of a form of self-defense.

Have I got that right?

Your continued use of the word polearm makes me think you are intentionally trying to make the flag seem as dangerous as possible.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.

Regardless, they were needlessly endangering themselves.





> Second, we're talking about reflexive and poorly thought out actions.  You seem to be looking for a well thought out action in a poorly thought out action.  Driving into a large crowd, even assuming the driver did not realize other vehicles were in the road, is an incredibly poor decision if the driver was trying to escape.


Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.





> Every one of the people who attacked the car appear to have been unhurt by it backing up;


Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?





> the one person who looked like they may have been hurt did not attack the car, so it's possible they were coming forward to assist rather than attack (the person with the umbrella).  Once again, we have you discussing driving a car into a crowd of people as an understandable action, but attacking a car that just drove into a crowd of people as not understandable.


From the point of protecting oneself from an imminent attack, yes.





> You can see how a person might decide to drive into a large crowd, one which apparently was so full of people that the driver could not see far enough to realize there was another vehicle in front of him, to escape from a man hitting the bumper with a flagpole.


If he knew it was a flagpole. He probably just heard his car being struck with some sort of weapon.





> You can't imagine people attacking a car that just ran over what could have been a bunch of friends and family.


I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.





> You can consider driving into a crowd of people who have done nothing to you a form of self-defense.  You cannot consider a person attacking a car that just ran into a crowd which the person was a part of a form of self-defense.
> 
> Have I got that right?


No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in *an attempt to avoid harm to oneself*.





> Your continued use of the word polearm makes me think you are intentionally trying to make the flag seem as dangerous as possible.


It's a pole used as a weapon. It's unlikely the driver knew it was a flag, which is why I am calling it that. If someone is charging at you with some sort of spear, does it matter if it's from the 17th or 18th century or made in the guy's home last night?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

There is a utility pole in front of the red car. On the day of the attack there was a large black pickup truck parked ahead of the pole. Just in front of the truck is where the Nazi started hitting pedestrians. That's like three car lengths  hitting pedestrians.

You can't get much more mass murderer and Nazi terrorist than this guy.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Again ... he made no attempt to brake. There was no reason for anyone there to think his brakes failed. Not to mention, they assumed his brakes didn't fail and they were right.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

A guy mows down a crowd of people and you moronically call the crowd he drove into the violent ones, and not the crazed rightwingnut.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> I *can see* how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.



Your Nazi did not speed away after flag guy took a swipe at his car.  Speeding away suggests you think your Nazi first slowed down enough to avoid hitting protesters in front of his car. And then he accelerated into the crowd out of fear for his life. I thought you are claiming he did not slow down.


Flag guy was at four seconds after your nazi passed the camera. Your Nazi had already hit people. His windshield was smashed by at lest one body as he came by the black pickup truck. It looks like your Nazi passed the pickup truck and kept going mowing down people for a car length or two,

Flag guy was about one second before we see the violent carnage your Nazi initiated. 

Your nazi is a killer, deliberate hate filled killer.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.
> 
> Regardless, they were needlessly endangering themselves.



Putting your body weight onto a car is a far cry from jumping on a car.  You seem to be describing someone leaning on the car.  



bgrouse said:


> Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.



I never said the people attacking the car were attempting to escape.



bgrouse said:


> Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?



I said that the guy with the umbrella might not have been attacking, he's the one that got squeezed between the two cars.

I argued that attacking the car could be seen as self-defense, and more easily to me than driving into a crowd that had done nothing to the driver.  If the people attacking the car either disabled it, or disabled the driver, that could prevent the driver from running into or over anyone else.



bgrouse said:


> From the point of protecting oneself from an imminent attack, yes.



So disabling an attacker, or the attacker's weapon, is not a way to protect oneself?



bgrouse said:


> If he knew it was a flagpole. He probably just heard his car being struck with some sort of weapon.



How did he know it was a weapon?  Why couldn't his car have been struck by a bird, or a person's foot, or a dog, or anything else?  If the driver did not know what hit his car, now he's reaction to an unknown impact on his rear bumper by assuming it is something that should cause him to fear for his life?  I figured that in your narrative, the driver at least saw the person hit the car with the flagpole.



bgrouse said:


> I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.



Once again, you can't see how disabling a weapon or the wielder of that weapon is protecting oneself?



bgrouse said:


> No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in *an attempt to avoid harm to oneself*.



And again, see above.  



bgrouse said:


> It's a pole used as a weapon. It's unlikely the driver knew it was a flag, which is why I am calling it that. If someone is charging at you with some sort of spear, does it matter if it's from the 17th or 18th century or made in the guy's home last night?



Now someone was charging at the car with a spear?  

We seem to have a driver see his car attacked, but miss the fact that he is attacked with a flag.  That's fine.....but somehow he misses the flag, yet sees the pole the flag is attached to?  And assumes it is a spear?  And then, fearing for his life because his car was just attacked by a spear wielding madman who charged at his car by stepping one foot into the road to swing his polearm, the driver decides that it is a good idea to drive directly into a large crowd of people to escape.

That is plausible, but when a crowd of people is hit by a car, somehow attacking that car in the hopes of disabling it or the driver is incomprehensible?

I don't even think that the people attacked the car in self-defense, but it still seems more of a plausible scenario to me than someone consciously deciding that driving into a street full of people is the way to escape a guy with a polearm, particularly when the street behind the car is mostly empty; and it certainly seems more plausible than the idea that driving into the crowd was a form of self-defense.

I just find it amazing that someone would consider attacking a car that just ran into a crowd of people less acceptable than intentionally driving into that crowd of people, especially after various vehicle attacks such as those in Nice or Stockholm.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


There's no way of knowing if Fields even saw the guy swing a flag at his car. He was already passed the guy when he tried to hid Fields' car.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 21, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.



NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I *can see* how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.
> ...


You're a dumbass who doesn't want to discuss or back up his statements so I'm not going to argue with you anymore.



Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.
> ...


You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.

jump on

Would you prefer if I used "lunge" instead, as it is a synonym?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.
> ...


They weren't. Not the ones that were attacking, anyway. Those were just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?
> ...


Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.
> ...


In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in *an attempt to avoid harm to oneself*.
> ...


It's an example.





> We seem to have a driver see his car attacked, but miss the fact that he is attacked with a flag.  That's fine.....but somehow he misses the flag, yet sees the pole the flag is attached to?


You can tell it's some sort of polearm from the way it is used (swinging motion). I missed that it was a "flag" from the initial videos, thinking it was a bat.





> And assumes it is a spear?


That was an example. Don't be obtuse.





> And then, fearing for his life because his car was just attacked by a spear wielding madman who charged at his car by stepping one foot into the road to swing his polearm, the driver decides that it is a good idea to drive directly into a large crowd of people to escape.
> 
> That is plausible, but when a crowd of people is hit by a car, somehow attacking that car in the hopes of disabling it or the driver is incomprehensible?


Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

We're going in circles. You keep ignoring modifiers and the point.





> I don't even think that the people attacked the car in self-defense, but it still seems more of a plausible scenario to me than someone consciously deciding that driving into a street full of people is the way to escape a guy with a polearm, particularly when the street behind the car is mostly empty; and it certainly seems more plausible than the idea that driving into the crowd was a form of self-defense.
> 
> I just find it amazing that someone would consider attacking a car that just ran into a crowd of people less acceptable than intentionally driving into that crowd of people, especially after various vehicle attacks such as those in Nice or Stockholm.



The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.


In that atmosphere of hate and violence, it would be lunacy to assume brakes failed over an intentional act of terrorism, especially given the driver made zero attempts to either stop or warn the crowd.

*And again, the point which destroys your point -- the crowd called it right.* It was an act of terrorism. And they reacted appropriately.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> f you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you



It's location location location. A member of a Nazi organization, A hater of blacks and Jews who came to C-ville to demonstrate solidarity with other haters of blacks and Jews, decided to take a sightseeing tour of the city and just happens to end up rolling into 
 dozens of anti-Nazi protesters at a location where a crowd protesting against Nazis was very deep. And the brakes went out precisely when your Nazi wax so full of peace in his heart.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.



Not true. It was a peaceful protest until your Nazi comes barreling down a narrow street filled with pedestrians. That's terrorism to you unless a Nazi dies it. Wherever violence that occurred following the attack is justifiable as self defense. Your Nazi could have jumped out of the car spraying the crowd with his Ak47 if he had one. 

Tension was high in fear of Nazis show of force with weapons at their side.


----------



## hadit (Aug 22, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.
> ...



It was incumbent on the driver to stop when he saw people in the street in front of him, period. It was also foolish, and ultimately deadly, for the counter protesters to stay in the area when they realized they were facing weapons. Staying, and escalating tensions was dumb. Do you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.



The idiom "jump on" would mean to do something before someone else.  



bgrouse said:


> They weren't. Not the ones that were attacking, anyway. Those were just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.



Ah, so the people hitting a car that just drove into the crowd they were a part of with bats are just waiting for an excuse to kill someone, but the guy that drives his car into a crowd is making a reasonable decision for how to escape?  You don't see the disconnect there?



bgrouse said:


> Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.





bgrouse said:


> You can tell it's some sort of polearm from the way it is used (swinging motion). I missed that it was a "flag" from the initial videos, thinking it was a bat.



Now a bat is a polearm?  

So now we have a guy driving a car towards a crowd filled with people with weapons?  Let me make sure I am reading this correctly.  The driver is in fear for his life because his car was hit by some sort of weapon, and he can see that there are many weapons in the crowd.  Because of this, he wants to escape, and attempts to do so by driving through the crowd.  You consider this an understandable reaction.

At the same time, you argue that the first instinct of a person seeing a threat is to move the other way, and therefore don't think people attacking the car is an understandable reaction.

So the driver chooses to move at the crowded street, apparently knowing it contained many people with weapons, rather than trying to move away from that threat and back down the mostly empty road he just came from.  That makes sense.  Someone lashing out at a car that just ran over their friends, a car that is at that moment not moving, that can only happen if the people were already looking for a reason to kill someone.  Is that about the gist?



bgrouse said:


> In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!



I didn't say coming at the car from behind was smart or rational.  That doesn't mean I can't understand the urge to lash out at a car that just ran into a crowd of people, particularly if they were people I knew and cared about.



bgrouse said:


> Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.
> 
> We're going in circles. You keep ignoring modifiers and the point.



What is the point I am missing? 



bgrouse said:


> The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.



A few of points regarding this quote.  

First, everyone does not react the same way.  I would guess that for the vast majority of people, yes, the first instinct is to move away from a threat.  That may not be true for everyone.

Second, people overcome instincts all the time.  Those members of the crowd that attacked might have had that first instinct to move away, but decided to ignore it and attack the car instead.

Third, based on what you've said, the driver moved *toward* danger.  If he saw a crowd which had a bunch of people carrying weapons, and that is part of the reason he feared for his life, driving forward as he did was driving toward danger.  So he did basically the same thing you think makes no sense for the crowd.  Now, perhaps that is because he made a bad decision; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.  That makes sense.  However, the same is true of the crowd; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.

I'm also curious about the timing of events.  As I've pointed out before, there is only about a single second between the time the driver is hit by the flagpole and the time the car crashes.  I base this on the video evidence, and will repost it should you feel it necessary.  At what point do you think the driver realized his car had been attacked, that the crowd was filled with people with weapons, that he should fear for his life?  Did the driver already know he was heading toward a crowd filled with weapons before his car was struck?  

Honestly, the most reasonable supposition I can think of that would explain the incident without the driver intentionally hitting the crowd is that he completely froze; there was no decision, no panicked swerve or acceleration or braking, he just could not do anything and so continued the way he was going right into the crowd and vehicles in front of him.  That seems like a far better argument than that he drove directly into a crowded street in an attempt to flee.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2017)

hadit, post: 17990353 





hadit said:


> It was also foolish, and ultimately deadly, for the counter protesters to stay in the area when they realized they were facing weapons. Staying, and escalating tensions was dumb. Do you agree?




No. They had 20 casualties already on the ground. Since they could not subdue the NAZI attacker and it appeared he was alone, some did the right thing in attacking the murder weapon and the others did the right thing in tending to casualties until EMT could arrive.

Fortunately this killer didn't have a firearm like most Nazis did.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 22, 2017)

*re-opened after Mod Clean-up.. *


----------



## hadit (Aug 22, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> hadit, post: 17990353
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not telling about the one incident, I'm talking about the protest as a whole. Is it not wise to leave a legal protest that you are protesting if you think there are weapons present and you fear for your safety?  IOW, somebody was ready for violence, and somebody else thought it a good idea to accommodate them. In either case, the police did a lousy job keeping them apart. The city officials need to come clean with who was ordered to do what and when. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 22, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.
> ...


If the brakes failed, they wouldn't notice the attempt to stop the car unless they were looking at his feet.





> *And again, the point which destroys your point -- the crowd called it right.* It was an act of terrorism. And they reacted appropriately.






Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.
> ...


First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was *understandable*: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.
> ...


The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.





> At the same time, you argue that the first instinct of a person seeing a threat is to move the other way, and therefore don't think people attacking the car is an understandable reaction.


It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.





> So the driver chooses to move at the crowded street, apparently knowing it contained many people with weapons, rather than trying to move away from that threat and back down the mostly empty road he just came from.  That makes sense.  Someone lashing out at a car that just ran over their friends, a car that is at that moment not moving, that can only happen if the people were already looking for a reason to kill someone.  Is that about the gist?


The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver *at that time*. I think you're being obtuse.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!
> ...


It's not even instinctive (as far as self-protection is concerned). That's the point.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.
> ...


What I just said in the part you quoted.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.
> ...


All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!





> Second, people overcome instincts all the time.  Those members of the crowd that attacked might have had that first instinct to move away, but decided to ignore it and attack the car instead.


So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.





> Third, based on what you've said, the driver moved *toward* danger.  If he saw a crowd which had a bunch of people carrying weapons, and that is part of the reason he feared for his life, driving forward as he did was driving toward danger.  So he did basically the same thing you think makes no sense for the crowd.  Now, perhaps that is because he made a bad decision; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.  That makes sense.  However, the same is true of the crowd; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.


If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind *did*). Either way it makes sense.





> I'm also curious about the timing of events.  As I've pointed out before, there is only about a single second between the time the driver is hit by the flagpole and the time the car crashes.  I base this on the video evidence, and will repost it should you feel it necessary.  At what point do you think the driver realized his car had been attacked, that the crowd was filled with people with weapons, that he should fear for his life?  Did the driver already know he was heading toward a crowd filled with weapons before his car was struck?


I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).





> Honestly, the most reasonable supposition I can think of that would explain the incident without the driver intentionally hitting the crowd is that he completely froze; there was no decision, no panicked swerve or acceleration or braking, he just could not do anything and so continued the way he was going right into the crowd and vehicles in front of him.  That seems like a far better argument than that he drove directly into a crowded street in an attempt to flee.



Maybe. It's certainly reasonable. I see plenty of reasonable doubt. Of course, this doesn't mean this guy isn't a christian holy warrior with a manifesto to kill negroes and their enablers. I'm just saying I'm not convinced without further evidence as there is plenty of reasonable doubt.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash.



The crash is happening whether flag guy hit the car or not. That is a fact. Your Nazi established his intent to commit an act of terror at second one on the 21 second video that recorded his reckless path in and out.

Flag guy swiped at the moving car 4 seconds into the 21 second terror attack. The location of the parked black pickup truck during the attack can represented on this google earth map photo, as in the second parking space from the crosswalk. 









The silver car just happens to be at the location that your Nazi was on the day of the attack when flag guy swiped at the rear bumper.

We know from video that your Nazi began hitting pedestrians as he arrived at the rear of the parked black pickup truck. 

This means that your Nazi was hitting pedestrians within a second of flag guy hitting his car.

Your Nazi is doomed. He was hitting people 59 feet before get hit the cars in front of him.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was *understandable*: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.



I was talking about the people who attacked the car after the crash.  You continue to consider driving into a crowd of people understandable, but attacking a car that just injured and possibly killed people the attackers may have known and cared about not understandable.

If a person went into a crowd and started stabbing members of that crowd, would you not understand if some of those crowd members attacked the knife-wielder?



bgrouse said:


> The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.



You are being unclear about whether the crowd was a threat or not.  Sometimes you seem to be saying the threat of the crowd plays a part in the drivers reaction, then it changes.



bgrouse said:


> It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.



The car was not moving when the crowd members attacked it after the crash.



bgrouse said:


> The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver *at that time*. I think you're being obtuse.



Even the motives of the flag guy would have been unknown, but I'll concede this point.



bgrouse said:


> It's not even instinctive (as far as self-protection is concerned). That's the point.



I'm not sure if you are using instinct in the sense of something a person is born with, or if you are including reactions that can be taught.  Whatever the case, for some people, retaliation might be their first reaction when they feel they have been attacked.  



bgrouse said:


> All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!



Or, you know, people who have had to endure bullying, and learned to stand up to attackers.  Or people who work in law enforcement, or fight fires, or have been in the military, or amateur/professional fighters.....the idea that everyone will react the same way in such a situation is just silly.  The car had already crashed, the people no longer needed to try to get out of its path, but some of them reaching a point of, "That guy just drove into us!  Get that f&*#er!" is not understandable?



bgrouse said:


> So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.



Why are rationally or instinctively the only options?  Why couldn't they have acted irrationally?  And as I've already mentioned, there is a rational explanation for attacking the car: an attempt to disable the car or the driver before he could once again hit people.

Even if they were "violent pieces of shit," if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd, as you've posited, wouldn't he also be a violent piece of shit?



bgrouse said:


> If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind *did*). Either way it makes sense.



That you think it makes sense to drive into a crowd because someone hits the back of your car with a hand-held weapon, while you are moving, without doing any noticeable damage or causing any reaction from the car (by which I mean the car is not prevented from continuing to drive as it was, there is no disruption of function), is flabbergasting.  It's hard for me to come up with a reason it would make sense to drive into a crowd that was not threatening me.  I cannot be certain, but I think it is likely that the law in every state would agree that intentionally driving into a crowd is just not acceptable.



bgrouse said:


> I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).



I'm curious why, if the driver suspected he was moving toward a crowd filled with bad people, he did not attempt to stop.  Before you ask, I base that statement on the video evidence, which shows that the brake lights do not come on for a block or so of travel before the crash.  They did come on at least momentarily before that, indicating they worked.

How often do people go the wrong way on a road, backwards?  Probably almost never.  How often do people intentionally drive into a crowd of pedestrians?  Now and again, unfortunately, and those are just about all considered terrorist attacks.

Driving against traffic, backwards, certainly may be dangerous. However, so is driving into a crowd of pedestrians, even if not a one of them attacks you, but especially if you suspect it is a crowd "filled with bad people," some of who are carrying weapons.

The driver drove into a crowd that was too thick to see through.  Here's a picture of what the driver was heading toward what appears to be about a block away from the collision: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Here is an overhead view of the event, which occurs in the bottom left corner.  Again, notice how full the road is: 
You are arguing that it is understandable that the driver decided to go forward into that crowd in an attempt to escape.  That seems almost as ridiculous as if the driver had turned and tried to escape by driving through the wall of one of the buildings.  Considering he ended up rear-ending another vehicle, it was that ridiculous.

On the other hand, you cannot understand how a person might decide to attack the car that just drove into what may have been friends once it has stopped.  

The idea of attacking someone who just hurt people you know and perhaps care about doesn't make sense to you, not to disable the vehicle or the driver to prevent further attacks, and not as retribution against someone who potentially just murdered people you know, but driving into a large crowd of innocent bystanders to escape a vague threat does make sense?

Honestly, I would be worried to be in a car with you driving or around you when you are driving.



bgrouse said:


> Maybe. It's certainly reasonable. I see plenty of reasonable doubt. Of course, this doesn't mean this guy isn't a christian holy warrior with a manifesto to kill negroes and their enablers. I'm just saying I'm not convinced without further evidence as there is plenty of reasonable doubt.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17993694 





bgrouse said:


> First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash.









Do you think this scene is before or after flag guy took a swipe at his 2 ton weapon?

Click here. This Nazi asshole plowed through fifty to sixty feet of people. 

Jamil Smith on Twitter


To escape a stick Jgrouse says.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 22, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was *understandable*: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.
> ...


Are knife attacks in public caused, in most cases, by inattention or mechanical failure? Don't be obtuse.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.
> ...


You said it! The visible threat level of the crowd changes throughout the incident, obviously. They become more of a threat after trying to kill this guy. Did it take you this long to figure that out?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.
> ...


I can see a few that charge it as it was moving backwards.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver *at that time*. I think you're being obtuse.
> ...


I say that only a violent scumbag would attack a car that just crashed without knowing anything else, whether it's due to instinct or not.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!
> ...


I'm certain the vast majority of calls to crashes involve mechanical failure/inattention, not murder.





> or fight fires, or have been in the military, or amateur/professional fighters.....the idea that everyone will react the same way in such a situation is just silly.  The car had already crashed, the people no longer needed to try to get out of its path, but some of them reaching a point of, "That guy just drove into us!  Get that f&*#er!" is not understandable?


Only if they're violent scumbags.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.
> ...


Use all the adjectives you want. I can't think of why a nonviolent person would react like that.

First of all, smashing a car's rear window will do little to "disable" the car. In fact, if you smash someone's window like that, if there was ever a chance that this was unintentional, guess what? You've now given the person a VERY good reason to run (backwards possibly over more people).





> Even if they were "violent pieces of shit," if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd, as you've posited, wouldn't he also be a violent piece of shit?


For trying to avoid harm to himself? Not really.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind *did*). Either way it makes sense.
> ...


I didn't say it was a great decision, I said it was an *understandable *one given the split second he had to decide. There is a difference.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).
> ...


The same reason I pass through bad neighborhoods: to get to wherever I'm going. I always assume I will not be harmed that day. Once he was there, it looks like his options were go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse.





> How often do people go the wrong way on a road, backwards?  Probably almost never.  How often do people intentionally drive into a crowd of pedestrians?  Now and again, unfortunately, and those are just about all considered terrorist attacks.


The decision to drive backwards became _relatively _safe *when those people started attacking*.





> Driving against traffic, backwards, certainly may be dangerous. However, so is driving into a crowd of pedestrians, even if not a one of them attacks you, but especially if you suspect it is a crowd "filled with bad people," some of who are carrying weapons.


I drive through bad neighborhoods all the time. It's still far safer than making a wrong-way infraction (especially backwards), *unless* someone hits my car with a crowbar or throws a brick at it.





> The driver drove into a crowd that was too thick to see through.  Here's a picture of what the driver was heading toward what appears to be about a block away from the collision:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't even see a vehicle in that picture, so how could it have been his consideration?





> On the other hand, you cannot understand how a person might decide to attack the car that just drove into what may have been friends once it has stopped.


*I've* been driven into. I didn't turn violent. I had no idea what the guy's motive was. Funny how that ended without bloodshed.





> The idea of attacking someone who just hurt people you know and perhaps care about doesn't make sense to you, not to disable the vehicle or the driver to prevent further attacks, and not as retribution against someone who potentially just murdered people you know, but driving into a large crowd of innocent bystanders to escape a vague threat does make sense?


You keep ignoring the fact that the vast majority of car crashes are not caused by intent to kill, as opposed to something like a knife attack you mentioned. That seems to be the biggest misunderstanding for you. I suspect you're being obtuse.





> Honestly, I would be worried to be in a car with you driving or around you when you are driving.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't worry. If someone crashes into me, I don't immediately turn murderous. Coincidentally, neither does anybody else I've seen involved in a crash. Ever.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


But his brakes didn't fail and the crowd suspected it was an intentional act of terrorism since he made no effort to either stop or warn the crowd.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash.


If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 22, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17993694 





bgrouse said:


> First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was *understandable*: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.




https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf

At 25 MPH Total Stopping Distance = 85 ft.

Flag guy hit your Nazi's car on the rear bumper. If it was hearable by the driver your Nazi had to process 'fear for his life and whether to stop and backup to escape, from a little tap on his car or whether to hit the mass crowd a car length or two in front of him. He also had to be processing what if a body comes through the windshield, would that put him in more danger than backing up. 

Your Nazi has traveled 85 ft after
flag guy swiped at the car. (if he applied the brakes while deciding all that) Either way the 85 ft stopping distance at 25 mph would never have given the people in the path of a 2 Ton car going 25 mph a chance to avoid being hit.

Your Nazi is hitting people in a terrorist attack whether or not flag guy took a swing.  

People were hit before your Reached the rear end of the parked pickup truck. A woman was knocked into the rear bumper of that truck. 

Your Nazi hit people sooner than I originally thought.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 23, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash.
> ...



You'll never know all the facts with total certainty. I'm just telling you what I think happened, what I think is the most likely course of events.



> But his brakes didn't fail and the crowd suspected it was an intentional act of terrorism since he made no effort to either stop or warn the crowd.



You keep dragging out this bullshit argument over and over again. For the 10th time:

1. There's no way the crowd would have known his brakes didn't fail or that it wasn't due to inattention.

2. There's no way to know if he even had time to warn them. The times when I was involved in car crashes, there was no yelling, no honking, and only one (out of half a dozen) cases of brakes screeching. I guess all but that one were murder attempts, eh?

3. Even if he did try to warn them, the noise of the crowd together with the way a vehicle can block noise could make it practically impossible for the crowd to determine if he made any attempt to warn them or not even if he did try to warn them.


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


And you keep ignoring the signals to the crowd that his brakes did not fail.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> 1. There's no way the crowd would have known his brakes didn't fail or that it wasn't due to inattention.



A buck would win you ten million in Vegas iif those anti/fascist crowd members had time to bet that someone's brakes would fail exactly at that moment on a weekend when Nazi's were cane to town to spew their hatred all over the place.

Stop being a dildo. Jesus. Even if the Brakes actually failed and Mr Rogers was there to buy a new sweater the crowd reacts the same with full justification.

The crowd probably all drive and can be very very certain the car coming at them is deliberate because everyone who has driven a car and are decent human beings the know  if the primary brakes failed, you try the parking brake and if the parking brake failed you turn off the engine, and if you can do nothing mechanical to stop or slow the car over a two block area you turn on your flashers and blow your horn like crazy and if coincidentally your horn and flashers fail and you see people cannot get out of your way you try to stop your car by hitting something on an angle to slow you down like the side of a building where no people are present.

You are entitled to your opinion that the sun revolves around the earth but this brakes failed in a late model vehicle is even more insane.

I don't know but I'm sure you have to be quite stupid to be Nazi, but normal people protesting the presence of Nazis marching in their diverse community would have any reason they were being attacked due to brake failure.

And the Nazi sure would have mentioned when arrested uhhhhh officer my brakes are not working, have it checked right away, I didn't mean to kill or hurt anybody. It was an accident. My Nazi shirt doesn't mean anything. I love blacks and Jews. I drove all the way from Ohio with perfect brakes just to be with blacks and Jews. And darnn it they just went out six seconds before the crash.  Oh going fast before that was because I saw some black people up ahead and was excited to meet them and hang out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> 2. There's no way to know if he even had time to warn them. The times when I was involved in car crashes, there was no yelling, no honking, and only one (out of half a dozen) cases of brakes screeching. I guess all but that one were murder attempts, eh?



You cannot explain why he was forcing pedestrians to flee in fear for their lives in front of his path as he passed the camera that captured his too fast car going by toward a large crowd. No horn signals, no brake lights on, no fiashers, no attempt to find something else non life threatening to hit. Just a steady unsafe speed for conditions all  on the way to impact with the most number of people possible. 

We saw his brake lights worked briefly which means he did not have his Goose Stepping boot on the brake which is not natural instinctively for someone barreling into a crowd of fellow hunan beings. 

Everything points to intentional terrorist attack, and I mean everything. 

The flag hit was way too late to avoid casualties. 

The Schizophrenic trust fund Nazi defense is all you got. Or it was a false flag attack and his brakes and mental condition were fine. He's an ANTIFA plant. You'll defend the Nazi movement better with that. 

You could try saying some tech savvy negroes planted remote control devices during the night in his car and remotely steered and drove the car into their own crowd to discredit Nazis. 

Yeah that's it.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 23, 2017)

Wow.  A lot of ridiculousness to go through with this one.  And the irony of you calling me obtuse is strong.



bgrouse said:


> Are knife attacks in public caused, in most cases, by inattention or mechanical failure? Don't be obtuse.



As we've discussed multiple times, there is plenty of reason to suspect the crowd believed this to be intentional.  Whether it was or not, the reaction of the crowd certainly may have been based on the idea that it was.



bgrouse said:


> You said it! The visible threat level of the crowd changes throughout the incident, obviously. They become more of a threat after trying to kill this guy. Did it take you this long to figure that out?



I was talking about the driver's reaction to the flag hitting his car.  You've seemed to indicate at some points that his reaction was based, in part, on the threat that the crowd presented.  At other times, you seem to indicate the threat of the crowd did not enter into his thinking.



bgrouse said:


> I can see a few that charge it as it was moving backwards.



I'm talking about people actually attacking the car.  Moving to the area of the crash might be in preparation for an attack, or it might be to render aid.  



bgrouse said:


> I say that only a violent scumbag would attack a car that just crashed without knowing anything else, whether it's due to instinct or not.



Of course you say that.  You also say you understand a person driving a car into a crowd so thick they cannot see through it, and cannot see other vehicles that are on the road past it.  You also seem to think that, even if a vehicle intentionally drives into a crowd, there is no excuse for attacking that vehicle.



bgrouse said:


> I'm certain the vast majority of calls to crashes involve mechanical failure/inattention, not murder.



That has nothing at all to do with what I was saying.



bgrouse said:


> Only if they're violent scumbags.



I guess you think attacking someone that just injured or murdered people you know is something only violent scumbags do.  



bgrouse said:


> Use all the adjectives you want. I can't think of why a nonviolent person would react like that.
> 
> First of all, smashing a car's rear window will do little to "disable" the car. In fact, if you smash someone's window like that, if there was ever a chance that this was unintentional, guess what? You've now given the person a VERY good reason to run (backwards possibly over more people).



I did mention possibly disabling the vehicle or the driver.  It's a bit hard to get to the driver unless you can get in the car.  



bgrouse said:


> For trying to avoid harm to himself? Not really.



Intentionally driving into a crowd of people doesn't make someone a violent piece of shit.  Smashing in the window of a car that you think tried to murder people, violent piece of shit.  Got it.



bgrouse said:


> I didn't say it was a great decision, I said it was an *understandable *one given the split second he had to decide. There is a difference.



That you think it is understandable to intentionally drive into a crowd of people that have done nothing to you in order to escape the threat of someone that just hit the bumper of your moving car with some sort of hand-held weapon is amazing.



bgrouse said:


> The same reason I pass through bad neighborhoods: to get to wherever I'm going. I always assume I will not be harmed that day. Once he was there, it looks like his options were go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse.



How many times have you driven into a bad neighborhood, seen a crowd completely filling the road, and continued toward it anyway?  You are making false equivalencies in an attempt to make this incident seem like something it was not.

It's hilarious the way you describe the driver's option.  He could "go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse"?  So going forward, driving into a street filled with pedestrians, would not be any sort of dangerous infraction?    Driving into a crowd of pedestrians is a far more dangerous infraction than backing down a road that is pretty much empty.



bgrouse said:


> The decision to drive backwards became _relatively _safe *when those people started attacking*.



The decision to drive backwards always made more sense if the driver wanted to get away.  Moving forward through a crowd so thick that you cannot see past them is not only morally reprehensible, it is nonsensical.  The odds of driving into and through that many people are going to be far, far worse than backing down a mostly empty street.  The guy was driving a Challenger, not a bulldozer.



bgrouse said:


> I drive through bad neighborhoods all the time. It's still far safer than making a wrong-way infraction (especially backwards), *unless* someone hits my car with a crowbar or throws a brick at it.



Do you drive through pedestrians in bad neighborhoods all the time?  You are talking as though Fields was driving down an empty street in a bad area.  He drove into a crowd of people.  Driving through a bad neighborhood may be safer than a wrong-way infraction, but that has nothing to do with the incident that actually happened.  He wasn't driving through a bad neighborhood, he was driving *into* a crowd of people.  Once again you are trying to create a false equivalency.



bgrouse said:


> I can't even see a vehicle in that picture, so how could it have been his consideration?



I didn't say he should consider it.  I said that driving into the crowd turned out to be as bad a decision as driving into a wall would have been.  Of course, the fact that he couldn't see through the crowd well enough to notice the car that was there should be an indication of the unsafe nature of trying to drive through that crowd.



bgrouse said:


> *I've* been driven into. I didn't turn violent. I had no idea what the guy's motive was. Funny how that ended without bloodshed.



Have you been part of a crowd and seen a car drive into that crowd?



bgrouse said:


> You keep ignoring the fact that the vast majority of car crashes are not caused by intent to kill, as opposed to something like a knife attack you mentioned. That seems to be the biggest misunderstanding for you. I suspect you're being obtuse.



I'm not ignoring anything.  I'm well aware that the vast majority of crashes are accidental.  You, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring the possibility that the crowd had reason to think this incident was intentional.  As far as you are concerned, there is absolutely no reason for the crowd members to think this was anything but an accident. I've brought up the increasing number of terrorist attacks carried out by someone driving through a crowd as an example of why the crowd might have thought this was intentional.  There is also the fact that the driver appears to have been headed down that road with little regard for the people on it, as evidenced by the pictures of people running and jumping to get out of the way of the car before the crash occurred.  

On the other hand, you seem to think there was every reason for the driver to fear for his life and intentionally drive through pedestrians, injuring or killing innocent bystanders, because someone hit his bumper.  



bgrouse said:


> Don't worry. If someone crashes into me, I don't immediately turn murderous. Coincidentally, neither does anybody else I've seen involved in a crash. Ever.



Have you ever seen a car crash into a crowd of people?  Particularly after it was forcing people to flee from its path before the crash occurs?  I'm going to guess the answer is no.

I'm not worried about what happens if someone crashes into you.  What would worry me would be that you might plow through some innocent pedestrians if you were driving through what you consider a bad neighborhood and some kid accidentally hits your car with a ball.  According to everything you've posted here, you consider that a perfectly reasonable reaction.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 23, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > First, at least one is on video hitting the car *before *the crash.
> ...



You can hear what sounds like the flagpole hitting the car.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 23, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



1. That degree of inattention is almost as bad as intention.  He was paying enough attention to brake a block or so away from the crowd, but not paying enough attention to notice the people running to get out of his path or to realize he was driving toward that large crowd in front of him?  Oh, and he was that inattentive, but still able to drive a nice, straight path down the road?

2. I'm going to guess that none of the times you were involved in car crashes included a car driving into a crowd that had been in the road since well before the car ever arrived, and were clearly visible well before the car got to them.

3. The driver did not honk the horn.  You can hear what seems to be the flagpole hitting the bumper of the car in the video taken from behind the car, a car horn would be much louder than that.  I wonder, should the crowd have considered that the car's horn and brakes might both have gone out?


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


It could be. But there is so much noise at that point, that sound could be anything. There's no way anyone can say conclusively that the flag struck the car based on that video. Bear in mind, I'm not saying the flag didn't touch the car.... just that it's not possible to make that determination from that video.

It's a red-herring anyway since the flag was swung at the back of the Dodge, meaning it had already passed the guy swinging the flag and already on the way to running people over.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 23, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think the sound is pretty convincingly the flagpole hitting the car.  However, I agree that it doesn't really matter because of the overall circumstances.  Flag or no flag, it looks as though the car was going into the crowd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 17999584 





Montrovant said:


> I think the sound is pretty convincingly the flagpole hitting the car. However, I agree that it doesn't really matter because of the overall circumstances. Flag or no flag, it looks as though the car was going into the crowd.



There is no doubt that jgrouse's Nazi was on a collision course with people in front of him before the flag touched his car.








The parking sign is a perfect landmark to locate the car when the flag touched it.

THe black pickup was parked where the 2nd car is parked in this Google street view.

jgrouse's Nazi started hitting people about a car length before arriving at the black pickup's rear bumper.

THe video shows one woman shoved by impact under the bumper of the truck.

Prosecutors can do what I did but much better.

This was intentional. Flag guy changed nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

Faun said:


> It's a red-herring anyway since the flag was swung at the back of the Dodge, meaning it had already passed the guy swinging the flag and already on the way to running people over.



Your assessment is confirmed by the location of the car when flag guy hit it. 







It's a Federal Hate crime. There should be no doubt.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 1799639


bgrouse said:


> You'll never know all the facts with total certainty. I'm just telling you what I think happened, what I think is the most likely course of events.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Montrovant, post: 17999584
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You pay attention to zero facts. You don't need all the facts to know your Nazi had every intention of harming and killing anti-Nazi marchers.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 23, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat



Yes after the far left terrorists started the violence, they attacked anyone that disagreed with them..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Yes after the far left terrorists started the violence, they attacked anyone that disagreed with them..



We are dealing with facts about the Nazi killer's intent.

Your bumped  link is a lie. Huge lie.






The vehicular assault was premeditated and deliberate.

No hate filled Nazi white supremacists were killed or injured seriously in Charlottesville Va last weekend.

A car hit by a flag - its all you haters got? How pathetic.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 23, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Yes after the far left terrorists started the violence, they attacked anyone that disagreed with them..
> ...



One counterprotester apparently deployed a chemical spray, which affected the eyes of a dozen or so marchers. It left them floundering and seeking medical assistance.

One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash

No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..

Silly far left drone!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

Kosh said:


> No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..



The crowd mowed down by a Nazi in a two Ton Dodge, was peaceful until they saw they were under attack by a driver heading straight at them.

You link is a lie. It is in slow motion to deceive and it said an African American hit the car with s bat. Not true.

And the hit by the flag had no impact on the decision by the Nazi to plow into a crowd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 23, 2017)

Kosh, post: 18003037 





Kosh said:


> No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..



That is a lie. Your second link says this



> .  Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people. Witnesses said the street was filled with people opposed to the white nationalists who had come to town bearing Confederate flags and anti-Semitic epithets.



'Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people"

That's your Nazi that did that according to the second link you posted.

What does anti Semitic epithets have to do with  protesting the removal of Confederate Era statues? 

It seems your Nazi's lied about the purpose of their rally.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 23, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..
> ...



And more proof the far left thinks violence started by far left terrorists is "peaceful"..

I love it when these far left drones proves my comments!


----------



## Kosh (Aug 23, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..
> ...



It is funny to see the far left which embraces "Nazism" and fascism, trying to pin that label on anyone..

The far left terrorists start the violence and the far left drones ignore it!

Then again maybe the far left mayor should not have let these two groups be in arms reach of each other in the first place..

See how the far left policies kills people!

The reason why the far left should never be in power of anything!


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 23, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.





> 2. I'm going to guess that none of the times you were involved in car crashes included a car driving into a crowd that had been in the road since well before the car ever arrived, and were clearly visible well before the car got to them.


I *was *clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.





> 3. The driver did not honk the horn.  You can hear what seems to be the flagpole hitting the bumper of the car in the video taken from behind the car, a car horn would be much louder than that.  I wonder, should the crowd have considered that the car's horn and brakes might both have gone out?



No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.








Montrovant said:


> Wow.  A lot of ridiculousness to go through with this one.  And the irony of you calling me obtuse is strong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe. It would take a violent, presumptuous person, so I'm not surprised that's how the crowd reacted.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You said it! The visible threat level of the crowd changes throughout the incident, obviously. They become more of a threat after trying to kill this guy. Did it take you this long to figure that out?
> ...


You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I can see a few that charge it as it was moving backwards.
> ...


I guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!

Come on, don't be silly.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I say that only a violent scumbag would attack a car that just crashed without knowing anything else, whether it's due to instinct or not.
> ...


I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certain the vast majority of calls to crashes involve mechanical failure/inattention, not murder.
> ...


You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Only if they're violent scumbags.
> ...


If it's a car crash you know next to nothing about? Yes!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Use all the adjectives you want. I can't think of why a nonviolent person would react like that.
> ...


Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > For trying to avoid harm to himself? Not really.
> ...


Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say it was a great decision, I said it was an *understandable *one given the split second he had to decide. There is a difference.
> ...


I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.





> It's hilarious the way you describe the driver's option.  He could "go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse"?  So going forward, driving into a street filled with pedestrians, would not be any sort of dangerous infraction?    Driving into a crowd of pedestrians is a far more dangerous infraction than backing down a road that is pretty much empty.


Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.


Prior to the initial attack, options are:

A. Stop (doesn't solve anything).
B. Go forward to let pedestrians know to get out of the way (most reasonable).
C. Drive backwards/cause dangerous infraction (most dangerous).

After the attack:

A. Stop and suffer the polearm wielder's attack (most dangerous).
B. Go backwards, again towards the attacker (risky, especially since people/drivers don't expect cars to move backwards).
C. Go forward away from the attacker towards people of unknown motives (least dangerous).

After the crash:

A. Stop (certain death).
B. Go forward (stuck, certain death).
C. Go backwards (only option not ending in certain death).



> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The decision to drive backwards became _relatively _safe *when those people started attacking*.
> ...


Why was it unreasonable? Weren't there cars who were slowly making their way through the crowd? The ones he ended up hitting? Why does a crowd with uncertain motives equal a brick wall?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I drive through bad neighborhoods all the time. It's still far safer than making a wrong-way infraction (especially backwards), *unless* someone hits my car with a crowbar or throws a brick at it.
> ...


Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I can't even see a vehicle in that picture, so how could it have been his consideration?
> ...


Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > *I've* been driven into. I didn't turn violent. I had no idea what the guy's motive was. Funny how that ended without bloodshed.
> ...


Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a *liberal* crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You keep ignoring the fact that the vast majority of car crashes are not caused by intent to kill, as opposed to something like a knife attack you mentioned. That seems to be the biggest misunderstanding for you. I suspect you're being obtuse.
> ...


They can make whatever assumptions they want. They just shouldn't act on them by trying to kill the driver until they know better. In the meanwhile, they could have just gotten out of the way.





> On the other hand, you seem to think there was every reason for the driver to fear for his life and intentionally drive through pedestrians, injuring or killing innocent bystanders, because someone hit his bumper.


I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry. If someone crashes into me, I don't immediately turn murderous. Coincidentally, neither does anybody else I've seen involved in a crash. Ever.
> ...


I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.

If I get hit with a ball I'll have to make a judgment call regarding what to do. There's no guarantee it will involve driving into a crowd. I've been hit with objects before and there was no such reaction. It's about the totality of the circumstances. Mostly it's because I'm smarter than Fields and don't drive to crowds of rabid liberals: I don't put myself into the situation to begin with.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 18003226 





bgrouse said:


> Prior to the initial attack, options are:



The initial attack is your Nazi driving too fast through the pedestrian walkway intersection where the camera persin recirded his attack vehicle going in and coming  out.

There is no initial attack after that. 

A couple car lengths before flag guy touched his car your Nazi had to brake hard (skid) in order to have options that involved not hitting people. He never touched his brakes. His mind was made up when he initiated his attack when the very first or destroyed had to run from the path of his 2Ton weapon. 

It's all right here: 







I located the position of your Nazi's four wheeled assault weapon based upon the still shot at 14 seconds into this slo motion video:


The parking sign is the landmark. 

This vehicle position (rear wheel at parking sign) happens four seconds after passing the camera in real time. 

I know where the black pickup truck was parked thanks to the utility pole and the parking space markings on the pavement. The parking space closest to the intersection was empty on the day of the Nazi attack.

The location of the rear bumper on the pickup is critical because one girl's leg is visible lying under the bumper of that truck. Bodies are seen flying before the Dodge passes the truck. 

Your Nazi hit people before passing the truck.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 18003226 





bgrouse said:


> They always got out of the way when I approached



You need to have your license revoked.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It's a red-herring anyway since the flag was swung at the back of the Dodge, meaning it had already passed the guy swinging the flag and already on the way to running people over.
> ...



Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


As you can see, at no time in this video did Fields even attempt to apply his brakes as he drove down the street and towards the crowd. The crowd knew it was intentional.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.



I wasn't talking about a lack of pull so much as the way the car was so well pointed down a somewhat narrow road, and the slight adjustments that look to have been made while the car was traveling in that last block.  I understand why it would seem I meant the car should pull one way or the other, I apologize.



bgrouse said:


> I *was *clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.



I wasn't speaking about the "value" of any victims.  I was trying to point out the difference in hitting a single individual vs a crowd that fills a street.  A single individual is far easier to miss than a crowd filling the road from one side to the other.  If you cannot see how a crowd that completely fills a road is different, and much harder to miss, than a single individual, you probably shouldn't drive OR walk near roads.



bgrouse said:


> No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.



The driver did not hit the brake or the horn.  



bgrouse said:


> You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.



Here is an example of what I mean:


bgrouse said:


> Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.


This indicates the driver's reaction was based, at least in part, on the threat the crowd represented.



bgrouse said:


> I guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!
> 
> Come on, don't be silly.



If you mean the person with the umbrella that got pinched between the Dodge and the parked car, that person ran toward the Dodge, but gave no real indication of intent.  All you see is him running forward, then putting his hands forward because the car began backing up.  He was not one of the people clearly attacking the car.



bgrouse said:


> I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).



I absolutely agree that the crowd acting in retaliation is a better argument than self-defense.  I absolutely disagree that the driver acting in self-preservation is a better argument than premeditation.



bgrouse said:


> You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.



I mentioned law enforcement as one in a list of examples of people who might move toward danger rather than away from it based on training/experience.



bgrouse said:


> If it's a car crash you know next to nothing about? Yes!



And here we once again reach a disconnect.  You are willing to accept that the driver of the car instantly was able to determine that his life was threatened by the person that hit the rear bumper with a flagpole, but a crowd of people coming to the conclusion that the driver intentionally ran into them makes no sense to you.  You are willing to assume the driver saw the flagpole hitting his car (otherwise the driver simply reacted to an unknown impact on the rear bumper), but you are unwilling to assume some of the members of the crowd may have seen the car drive down the road without braking or using the horn at an unsafe speed.  Why is that?



bgrouse said:


> Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?



First, we've been talking about the fact that attacking the car was not necessarily the most rational action.  Second, sure, you can get into a car by smashing the rear window.  Maybe the rear window was just the first thing in range, or the attacker hadn't thought things through completely......you know, as you've been saying about the driver?



bgrouse said:


> Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.



It doesn't matter if it is a cut and dry case of terrorism.  What matters in this context is the perception of the crowd.  You continue to think the crowd had no reason to think the act was intentional, for some reason.



bgrouse said:


> I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.



So you have not been in the situation the driver was in Charlottesville.

I wonder, did you drive toward those crowds at a speed which forced them to run or leap to get out of the way of your vehicle?



bgrouse said:


> Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.



When you said "once he got there" I thought you meant once he got to the place he was struck by the flagpole.  That is why I switched, sorry.



bgrouse said:


> Prior to the initial attack, options are:
> 
> A. Stop (doesn't solve anything).
> B. Go forward to let pedestrians know to get out of the way (most reasonable).
> ...



I can accept your choices for before the attack, except for the fact the driver appears to have been moving at an unsafe speed when the flagpole attack occurred.

After the flagpole attack, I disagree entirely.  I'll give you option A, but going backward down a mostly empty road is much less dangerous than trying to drive through pedestrians.  And let's be clear, since you seem to want to try and make this sound like less than it was: the driver was driving into, through, and over pedestrians, not moving forward to let those pedestrians know they should move out of the way.  The driver had no idea how far the crowd continued in the road, did not seem to notice the cars not too far ahead of him, so all he saw would seem to be a large amount of people in his path and very close.  Intentionally moving forward at them in an attempt to escape would be intentionally running into an unknown number of them.  You are saying that intentionally running into, hitting, an unknown number of people was a safer option than backing down a mostly empty road, with the only known threat a pedestrian that hit the rear bumper with something.

After the crash, while death wasn't certain, I accept the basic premise.



bgrouse said:


> Why was it unreasonable? Weren't there cars who were slowly making their way through the crowd? The ones he ended up hitting? Why does a crowd with uncertain motives equal a brick wall?



Yes, there appear to have been cars *slowly* making their way through the crowd.  The driver of the Challenger was not driving particularly slowly before or after being hit by the flagpole.  Also, I thought we had pretty much agreed that the Challenger driver did not actually see the cars in the crowd, based on his running into them.



bgrouse said:


> Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.



The Challenger driver was not approaching slowly to allow the crowd to get out of the way.  The car did not brake for a good block of travel before hitting the crowd.  And if pedestrians are running and jumping to avoid your car, as indicated by the photo and video evidence, that is not a person trying to "approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way."  That is a driver leaving it up to pedestrians to get out of the way, or not.  

I find the argument that Fields panicked pretty thin.  The argument that Fields intentionally drove into the crowd to escape flag guy is thinner, and pretty terrible even if true.  The idea that Fields was approaching the crowd and waiting for them to get out of the way is ludicrous.



bgrouse said:


> Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."



There was a thick crowd at the 4 way intersection, and heading a bit down each of those ways, based on overhead images.  I haven't seen any evidence that Fields drove through that sort of crowd prior to the crash.  Based on the video evidence, the block or so of road before the crowd was pretty clear.  Are you now arguing that Fields drove through a crowd as dense as that at the crash site in another place?



bgrouse said:


> Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a *liberal* crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.



It matters because you have been talking about the reaction of the crowd as though you have a particular insight into what a person experiences in that situation.  More, you've been describing things as though everyone would react in the same way.  

Also, you compared having been hit in an accident with the incident in Charlottesville, as though they are equivalent.  Do you think any accident you've been a part of is the equivalent of, say, the Nice attack, as well?  Are all accidents and attacks where a driver hits a pedestrian the same?

I don't give a crap if the crowd is liberal, conservative, or any other political affiliation.



bgrouse said:


> They can make whatever assumptions they want. They just shouldn't act on them by trying to kill the driver until they know better. In the meanwhile, they could have just gotten out of the way.



Yes, the crowd could have just gotten out of the way.  The driver could have just backed up instead of intentionally running a bunch of people over.  Strangely, you seem to give the driver a pass for hitting people who had done him no harm, but blame the crowd for attacking the driver who had done them or people they were with harm.  Why do you find it more acceptable for someone to hurt people innocent of any wrongdoing (in the context of the event) than someone to hurt a person not innocent of wrongdoing (in the context of the event)?  Keep in mind that, even if Fields panicked or was trying to escape, running into a crowd of pedestrians is still wrong.



bgrouse said:


> I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.



The crux of this disagreement.  I think the evidence points in the opposite direction.  So far, it appears that law enforcement, up to the Attorney General of the US, also think the evidence points in the opposite direction.  We'll see if that changes as this goes forward.



bgrouse said:


> I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.
> 
> If I get hit with a ball I'll have to make a judgment call regarding what to do. There's no guarantee it will involve driving into a crowd. I've been hit with objects before and there was no such reaction. It's about the totality of the circumstances. Mostly it's because I'm smarter than Fields and don't drive to crowds of rabid liberals: I don't put myself into the situation to begin with.



I haven't brought up the question of if you've been in a crowd struck by a car to question who you care more about.  I have done so in an attempt to point out that if you haven't been in a similar situation, and never seen a similar situation, you might not know how you or someone else would react.  I have been hit by a car as well, but I don't equate it to this Charlottesville incident.  I was alone; I was hit, rather than someone I was with being hit; I didn't see a car moving toward a street which was so filled with people as to be unpassable; I didn't see a car heading toward me, with nowhere it might be able to turn away or go around me, at an unsafe speed and without braking; I didn't have a recent history of terrorist attacks that were similar in nature to compare it to; I understand the very different nature of the situations.  

If you have to make a judgement call about running innocent people over because the bumper of you car is struck with a ball, you should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

hadit said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I doubt the whole crowd knew it was intentional, but at least some of them certainly seemed to think it was.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Either one. I see demands that this be treated as a hate crime, but I don't really think that applies here, since it cannot be clear that the driver targeted the crowd because it was composed of protected minority groups. Typically, hate crime legislation applies in cases where the peep expressed hatred toward the protected group to which the victim belonged, for example,a white supremacist ranting on FB about black people, then killing a black man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

hadit said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I'd have to see the specific law involved, but I understand your question now, thanks.

Off the top of my head, they might prosecute it if the hate crime law applies to crimes against people based on political ideology.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant, post: 18005344 





Montrovant said:


> I doubt the whole crowd knew it was intentional, but at least some of them certainly seemed to think it was.



Being there as part of a counter demonstration against white supremacists and anti Semitic Nazi-like hate groups - and under the circumstances of the crowd on a narrow side street plus the speed at which the vehicle was approaching them - it is difficult to believe that anyone close to the carnage would immediately believe this was just an unfortunate accident.

Survivors and friends of those injured in an incident like this are going to naturally be angry at a driver that plows his car into a crowd like that.

First thought these days is terrorist act not mechanical failure or driver inattention.

It's the world we live in.

If the driver was Muslim and victims were beating the shit out of him jgrouse would be calling the ones doing the beating on his car heroes.

Since it's a Nazi he gets the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Since the underlying basis for the entire weekend events was proponents of white supremacy vs opposition to hate based on race, this in my view this very easily is a hate  crime based on the driver's association and participation with the racist hate groups. 

His acts leading up to the attack and being at that location at the time of the attack make it deliberate and a hate crime. 

It looks like one of the first guys he hit was black. Dead center in front of his car right before impact.


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 24, 2017)

I don't agree with your assessment of the "underlying basis" here.  Are we saying that historical societies are automatically white supremacists if they protest the tearing down of a historical monument?


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2017)

hadit said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


So a guy from one of these alt-right hate-filled groups who runs over black folks, does not qualify as hatred for the black folks he ran over?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



He did not just run over black folks.  It would be easier to call it a racially-based hate crime if the crowd had been all black or minorities.

I am not a fan of hate crime legislation anyway, and I would have no trouble with this being prosecuted as just murder, the associated driving infractions, and perhaps terrorism.


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


He obviously didn't run over only black folks -- Heather Heyer was white. But he did run over blacks  at a protest for bigots who hate blacks (among others) -- charging him with a hate crime is not a stretch.


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Also, I'm not clear why he was charged with murder but not attempted murder for all the others who were more fortunate to survive his rampage?


----------



## EverCurious (Aug 24, 2017)

Second Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sustaining it might be difficult because of the diversity in the crowd.  He could have been running them over for being Antifa, or just for opposing the white nationalist protesters.  I think it's hard to prove that the reason he ran into the multiracial crowd is a hatred of blacks or minorities, even if that's the only reason he actually did it.

I could be wrong, but I would think hate crime convictions are most commonly tied to more explicit evidence: yelling racial epithets, scrawling bigoted slogans at the scene of a crime, things of that nature.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That's a good question.  It might have to do with how they are attempting to prosecute this, or how second degree murder is defined in Virginia.  I can find definitions for capital murder, first-degree murder, and second-degree murder in Virginia criminal code, but I have had a harder time finding just a definition of the word murder in Virginia law.  That could be a factor.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 24, 2017)

Kosh said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



Yes. Anyone that disagrees and beat racist hatred groups like KKK, NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACIST, ALT RIGHT ----- Are heroes and noble thing to do. I admired those people. 
Someone has to stand up against these bastards. We fought 2 wars because of hatred and bigotry.  Why should we stop now?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Well, as I understand it, we fought WWII because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  We also treated the Japanese with fear and bigotry, putting many in internment camps.  Let's not try to simplify history and make it seem as though the US went to war in WWII just to stop the bigotry of the Nazis.

Also, physically attacking someone, white supremacist or not, is illegal.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Attacking someone? You purposely ignored who they attack. The KKK, White Supremacist, NAZIS, Alt right groups hate groups. These are not good people. We ( we means not you ) cannot allow these groups spreading hate, racism, intimidation, bigotry and most especially violence. 
So tell me. How should we fight these bastards? 

Japanese encampment was the right thing to do during that time. That's for their own safety. Just imagine if they are out in the public. They could all get killed. Don't you think? Don't get confused. 

We went to 2 wars because of racism, hatred and bigotry. Period.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



You are right, I do purposely ignore who they attack, because it is not relevant to the law.  Perhaps you believe in a country in which there is no rule of law.

Japanese internment was the right thing to do, huh?  For the safety of the Japanese.  Got it.

The US did not go to war in WWII until after the Pearl Harbor attack.  That is was caused us to finally get involved.  It was not just a noble struggle to fight against racism and bigotry, although those were certainly positive effects of the war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

Kosh, post: 18003104 





Kosh said:


> And more proof the far left thinks violence started by far left terrorists is "peaceful



There has been no evidence of any violence directed at the Nazi in a 2 Ton Dodge prior to him initiatiating a deadly assault against people marching peacefully in the street in his full view for two blocks. 

I keep hearing RWNJs complaining that victims of this assault reacted violently to being attacked and that is so horrible.  I brought up self defense by the victims as a right to subdue their attacker after he splattered bodies all over the scene. 

Nothing but crickets. 

Recent vehicle attacks around the world have made awareness that terrorists drive into crowds and then start shooting or knifing more people to add to their score.

It is not one bit unreasonable for victims at this scene to assume more weapons could be involved.

No one in a life or death situation like that horrendous scene of carnage had time or an obligation to assess whether this attack was over. 

It's unreasonable to expect human beings in shock and in tremendous fear to concern themselves with restraint and being perfect law abiding citizens.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.
> ...


So what is your point? Yes, a car will usually go quite straight if it's a modern car with no problems, even without steering input from the driver.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I *was *clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.
> ...


I doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.
> ...


How would the crowd have known that?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.
> ...


_That_ reaction would have been based on the threat level of the _polearm attacker_, not the crowd in the front.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!
> ...


No, I didn't mean the guy with the umbrella. I thought he was incapacitated by the hit. I'm talking about the one who ran after the car after getting up.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).
> ...


Which would mean the polearm attacker was a coincidence or planted by the driver. I find the theory where all the pieces fit to be more likely.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.
> ...


No, you're being obtuse again. He had a split second to react so it could easily have been a natural inclination to move away from an imminent threat.

And no, it does make sense to me: if the crowd is violent and presumptuous, willing to act violent on the presumption. And again, how would the crowd have been certain he hadn't braked? Did they see his rear lights?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?
> ...


I find it unacceptable to decide (meaning NOT a split second reaction to a moving imminent threat) to attack violently without thinking a driver of a car crash that, *for all you know*, was most likely an accident and presenting no imminent threat to you, and especially when doing so _obviously _puts you in _greater _danger.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.
> ...


The perception would have been without any good evidence of failing to attempt to brake, for example.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.
> ...


I did, one time. It was at about 5 mph. The moron was jaywalking like he was the last man on earth and I didn't see him. This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.
> ...


Maybe. He might have been moving in an attempt to disperse the crowd. There was no indication at that time that he couldn't have stopped if he needed to.





> After the flagpole attack, I disagree entirely.  I'll give you option A, but going backward down a mostly empty road is much less dangerous than trying to drive through pedestrians.  And let's be clear, since you seem to want to try and make this sound like less than it was: the driver was driving into, through, and over pedestrians, not moving forward to let those pedestrians know they should move out of the way.  The driver had no idea how far the crowd continued in the road, did not seem to notice the cars not too far ahead of him, so all he saw would seem to be a large amount of people in his path and very close.  Intentionally moving forward at them in an attempt to escape would be intentionally running into an unknown number of them.  You are saying that intentionally running into, hitting, an unknown number of people was a safer option than backing down a mostly empty road, with the only known threat a pedestrian that hit the rear bumper with something.


I doubt the driver had much knowledge about what was behind him, other than the polearm attacker who forced him to look. Following the idea that the driver was trying to make the crowd disperse by driving a little faster, he would have been totally focused ahead.

But even if he did know, driving backwards requires manipulation of the transmission, which probably required him to come to a complete stop first (option A), which even you thought was a bad idea.





> After the crash, while death wasn't certain, I accept the basic premise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't have to. The point is those other drivers saw the same crowd and determined it was possible to pass, and apparently it was. Couldn't Fields have made the same assessment having seen the same crowd?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.
> ...


And yet it was working until he was attacked. Listen, your theory might be the true one, but until we know more, I prefer the theory where all the pieces fit.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."
> ...


Are you talking before the polearm attack or after? Before the attack the crowd was not as dense, correct. After the attack it might have been reflex action or a self-preserving decision. After the attack, the "wall" of people went flying quite easily so if he thought there were only people there, he might have made it through like he was until he hit a car. Not saying it was the best idea with hindsight available. Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a *liberal* crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.
> ...


I agree the crowd reacted violently, being violent liberals, and it's a different reaction from a nonviolent person like me.





> Also, you compared having been hit in an accident with the incident in Charlottesville, as though they are equivalent.  Do you think any accident you've been a part of is the equivalent of, say, the Nice attack, as well?  Are all accidents and attacks where a driver hits a pedestrian the same?


They're not the same. The people in Charlottesville who attacked the driver were *not *personally struck. I *was*.





> I don't give a crap if the crowd is liberal, conservative, or any other political affiliation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because I don't think the street should be the jury and execution room. As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.
> ...


Do you mean because they charged him? That's probably to avoid a negro chimpout.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.
> ...


I don't have to be a murderer or rapist to judge one like I don't have to be a rabid liberal protester to do the same.


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Since Fields drove for at least 2 blocks before hitting the crowd and they (the ones he passed) would had neither seen his brake lights nor heard his horn nor observe his car slow down in any appreciative degree, that's how the crowd would know.

And again, the salient part you ignore -- *the crowd was right*, it was an intentional attack. Why are you questioning the motives of the crowd when they were right?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 18008745, 





bgrouse said:


> As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.



Totally ignoring the hurtful violence that your Nazi initiated and inflicted on his target,

Go drive thirty mph through a busy pedestrian laden parking lot with no regard for the safety of pedestrians and other drivers and see what reaction you get,

If a baseball were handy you would deserve a good snack  on your windshield by someone you damn near ran over.

That's real life. Not your Nazi pampering that you have engaged in for almost a week.


Here's real life too:

You may ignore it, but the prosecution won't:








The pedestrians had no time to get out of his way - they were hemmed in. You attack the victims that had a split second devoid to make about whether your Nazi was finished killing or not. He could have been armed with an assault weapon as well.

Being run over by his car you must assume the worst.

As you can see there is nowhere to run if hecststred spraying off a few hundred rounds.

Your Nazi had all day to decide to drive down a little more than an alley and confront this crowd. The crowd had seconds to react with their lives in the balance

And you think a self defense reaction is wrong on their part. But not your Nazi?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.




You have to stop lying that your Nazi reacted to the flag brushing against his car.

This photo shows the bent over parking sign to be at least two car lengths ahead of your Nazis rear wheels . The flag guy hit the car when the rear wheels were lined up with that sign.




The black guy appears to be bracing for impact in this photo.

Your Nazi hit at least one person before the guy with the flag was alongside the car.

Your fantasy was always dead in a court of law. This is proof now.






When do you quit?


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


His lawyers will have a legitimate point because of Antifa presence. Nazi's had a permit to march...and were represented by the ACLU in obtaining said permit. His case is strong in light of leftist intolerance toward the Constitution of the United States of America , and racism against any White American. Antifa is no better than neo-skinheads.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 24, 2017)

News date 8/24/17. We had this break in the news that something new happened in Charoltesville. Then, a whole lot of nothing. So like, why  the hoopla as if it's the second coming, then...NOTHING? The media likes it's games.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

MaryL said:


> News date 8/24/17. We had this break in the news that something new happened in Charoltesville. Then, a whole lot of nothing. So like, why  the hoopla as if it's the second coming, then...NOTHING? The media likes it's games.


Especially liberal media.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92, post: 18009507 





Bush92 said:


> His lawyers will have a legitimate point because of Antifa presence.



No he won't. Antifa is not responsible for his act of violence. Even jgrouse has admitted Fields was not in danger at least 6 to 8 seconds before plowing into the crowd. Plenty of time to stop and back out. No one was after him at that poiht. 

The killer has a huge problem. His assault is on video. He was not acting in any way in self defense.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush92, post: 18009507
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let it play out in court. Show film of Antifa terrorist and their culpability in what happened there. He has strong case in court.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

He will get vehicular homicide...most likely on a plea agreement.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 24, 2017)

I love statues, Bernini and Michelangelo were great sculptors. People destroyed their works over political grounds. They melted down Da Vinci's greatest equestrian statue into bronze cannons.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

His legal team will bring up the lack of preparation by City of Charlottesville, and the appropriate response a week later by City of Boston. He will get about 24 months on vehicular homicide and victims family will win a buttload of $$$$ from a City of Charlottesville in a civil suit.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

MaryL said:


> I love statues, Bernini and Michelangelo were great sculptors. People destroyed their works over political grounds. They melted down Da Vinci's greatest equestrian statue into bronze cannons.


My favorite


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush92, post: 18009507
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes...their actions make them culpable and they are open to a civil suit.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush92, post: 18009507
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you know? We're you in the car? What evidence do you have? Prosecutors have a tough case to prove if they go for second degree murder. First degree is out of the question.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> So what is your point? Yes, a car will usually go quite straight if it's a modern car with no problems, even without steering input from the driver.



The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road.  That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side.  Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.



bgrouse said:


> I doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.



Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.



bgrouse said:


> How would the crowd have known that?



The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn.  As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road.  Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos.  This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.



bgrouse said:


> _That_ reaction would have been based on the threat level of the _polearm attacker_, not the crowd in the front.



You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy.  That is what I was talking about.



bgrouse said:


> No, I didn't mean the guy with the umbrella. I thought he was incapacitated by the hit. I'm talking about the one who ran after the car after getting up.



In that case, I'm not sure who you mean.  I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though.  It doesn't sound hard to believe.



bgrouse said:


> Which would mean the polearm attacker was a coincidence or planted by the driver. I find the theory where all the pieces fit to be more likely.



Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.  



bgrouse said:


> No, you're being obtuse again. He had a split second to react so it could easily have been a natural inclination to move away from an imminent threat.
> 
> And no, it does make sense to me: if the crowd is violent and presumptuous, willing to act violent on the presumption. And again, how would the crowd have been certain he hadn't braked? Did they see his rear lights?



First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him.  If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous.  Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked.  If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights.  I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.



bgrouse said:


> I find it unacceptable to decide (meaning NOT a split second reaction to a moving imminent threat) to attack violently without thinking a driver of a car crash that, *for all you know*, was most likely an accident and presenting no imminent threat to you, and especially when doing so _obviously _puts you in _greater _danger.



I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car.  I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions.  Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat.  You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.



bgrouse said:


> The perception would have been without any good evidence of failing to attempt to brake, for example.



Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing.  Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle.  The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.



bgrouse said:


> I did, one time. It was at about 5 mph. The moron was jaywalking like he was the last man on earth and I didn't see him. This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).



This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph.  And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.



bgrouse said:


> Maybe. He might have been moving in an attempt to disperse the crowd. There was no indication at that time that he couldn't have stopped if he needed to.



There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.



bgrouse said:


> I doubt the driver had much knowledge about what was behind him, other than the polearm attacker who forced him to look. Following the idea that the driver was trying to make the crowd disperse by driving a little faster, he would have been totally focused ahead.
> 
> But even if he did know, driving backwards requires manipulation of the transmission, which probably required him to come to a complete stop first (option A), which even you thought was a bad idea.



Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do.  Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else?  He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn?  Talk about things that don't fit!



bgrouse said:


> He didn't have to. The point is those other drivers saw the same crowd and determined it was possible to pass, and apparently it was. Couldn't Fields have made the same assessment having seen the same crowd?



Certainly.  However, those other drivers apparently *slowed down* rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd. 



bgrouse said:


> And yet it was working until he was attacked. Listen, your theory might be the true one, but until we know more, I prefer the theory where all the pieces fit.



All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction.  The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.



bgrouse said:


> Are you talking before the polearm attack or after? Before the attack the crowd was not as dense, correct. After the attack it might have been reflex action or a self-preserving decision. After the attack, the "wall" of people went flying quite easily so if he thought there were only people there, he might have made it through like he was until he hit a car. Not saying it was the best idea with hindsight available. Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.



"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?  

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.



bgrouse said:


> I agree the crowd reacted violently, being violent liberals, and it's a different reaction from a nonviolent person like me.



Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.



bgrouse said:


> They're not the same. The people in Charlottesville who attacked the driver were *not *personally struck. I *was*.



I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck.  Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows.  Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.



bgrouse said:


> Because I don't think the street should be the jury and execution room. As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.



You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable.  Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance.  I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).



bgrouse said:


> Do you mean because they charged him? That's probably to avoid a negro chimpout.



"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence.  I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.



bgrouse said:


> I don't have to be a murderer or rapist to judge one like I don't have to be a rabid liberal protester to do the same.



I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.  

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout."  Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > So what is your point? Yes, a car will usually go quite straight if it's a modern car with no problems, even without steering input from the driver.
> ...


Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



What legitimate point will his lawyers have because of Antifa?  The driver had no more right to drive into a crowd of Antifa than an Antifa driver would have had to drive into a crowd of white nationalists.

Just because a crowd is made up of ass-holes doesn't mean you get a lesser sentence for running into them.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Show me film inside the car when he used racial epithet and floored it? Antifa were the instigators of the violence. Skinheads had a permit. They have legal high ground. If she had stayed home she would be alive. But she made a conscious choice to violate the law and other people's free speech rights.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


That it is not an open shut case. DA will not pursue murder in the first.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



They haven't charged him with first degree murder, but with second degree.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



These look like brake lights to me:


NotfooledbyW said:


>



What do you think?


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


The "panicked defense " will work with a jury when they are shown video of the lunatic behavior of both sides. Skinheads had legal standing to be there. City did not provide proper security or traffic control. Her family will settle out of court with city in civil suit...he will get vehicular man slaughter. Couple years and out.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


DA will not go for murder in the first. Have flimsy case.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



I never claimed he used any racial epithet.  I have, in fact, said that I think any racially-based hate crime charge could be difficult to prove.

What do permits have to do with it being illegal to intentionally drive a car into a crowd of people?  How were Antifa "the instigators of violence" when we're talking about the car driving into the crowd?  Was the driver actually an Antifa member?

What legal high ground do skinheads need in this case?  We are talking about one man driving a car into a crowd, not the entire protest/counter-protest scenario.

That a person would live if they aren't in the place a car crashes into a crowd does not make it OK for that car to plow into a crowd.

How was the woman who died violating anyone's free speech rights?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Yeah, based on the video, that looked to be about a block away from the crash, not two blocks.  Still plenty of time for the crowd to see the car head toward them without stopping from that point, though.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Will not get it. Too much stupidity on all sides. Including the city.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



I don't think it will.  I think the evidence shows that the driver was already going to hit the crowd before his car was hit by the flagpole.  That assumes the defense uses such an argument, of course.

We'll see when it goes to trial.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



How does stupidity on the part of the city change the illegality of driving into a crowd of people?  You seem to be trying to connect separate actions.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


what legal right did crowd have to be there without a permit ? Their actions resulted in the tragedy.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


If city had set up security and separated the sides like Boston did, this would not have happened.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



That still doesn't grant the driver any legal license to drive into a crowd of people.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



It was my understanding that at the time and place of this crash, there were no white nationalist protesters, it was just a group of the counter-protesters.  Was that not the case?


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



If the crowd he runs into is composed of both black and white people, it's hard to say he was motivated by racial animus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think it would be easily defended, because no one could make the case that he specifically targeted a protected group. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > So what is your point? Yes, a car will usually go quite straight if it's a modern car with no problems, even without steering input from the driver.
> ...


Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.
> ...


The whole point I was arguing re: potential inattentiveness was regarding the crowd's reaction. I don't think him falling asleep behind the wheel was the cause of the crash *given what I know* and what the crowd *did not know*.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > How would the crowd have known that?
> ...


Without seeing the brake lights (whether they're on or off) they'd have no way of knowing he didn't attempt to brake. Hence the argument re: mechanical failure: they'd have no way of knowing it wasn't the cause.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > _That_ reaction would have been based on the threat level of the _polearm attacker_, not the crowd in the front.
> ...


Which reaction are you talking about?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > No, I didn't mean the guy with the umbrella. I thought he was incapacitated by the hit. I'm talking about the one who ran after the car after getting up.
> ...


He didn't get hit hard, just knocked over. Got up and ran after the car.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Which would mean the polearm attacker was a coincidence or planted by the driver. I find the theory where all the pieces fit to be more likely.
> ...


Doesn't matter what his reason is. What matters is he hit the car and likely led to the driver's reaction.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're being obtuse again. He had a split second to react so it could easily have been a natural inclination to move away from an imminent threat.
> ...


There's no indication he was incapable of avoiding the protesters prior to the crash.





> You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous.  Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.


You keep mixing up the apparent intent: self-preservation vs revenge. I didn't say the driver was a good person. I just think he acted strictly to protect himself.





> I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked.  If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights.  I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.


It's HIGHLY presumptuous because it ignores a common car problem (failed brakes) and presumes highly unlikely homicidal tendencies.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I find it unacceptable to decide (meaning NOT a split second reaction to a moving imminent threat) to attack violently without thinking a driver of a car crash that, *for all you know*, was most likely an accident and presenting no imminent threat to you, and especially when doing so _obviously _puts you in _greater _danger.
> ...


You keep repeating your bullshit. I do understand and I do know: it's because the crowd is violent. I said it was *unacceptable* not *incomprehensible*.





> Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat.  You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.


And if the driver had the mentality of violent members of that crowd, he would have stopped his car, gotten out, and proceeded to bludgeon the man to death with a bat.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The perception would have been without any good evidence of failing to attempt to brake, for example.
> ...


So how did they determine the brakes didn't fail?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I did, one time. It was at about 5 mph. The moron was jaywalking like he was the last man on earth and I didn't see him. This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).
> ...


I was. The rest of the crowd was in a crosswalk.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe. He might have been moving in an attempt to disperse the crowd. There was no indication at that time that he couldn't have stopped if he needed to.
> ...


I guess we'll never know. All the evidence points to his control of the situation until he was hit.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt the driver had much knowledge about what was behind him, other than the polearm attacker who forced him to look. Following the idea that the driver was trying to make the crowd disperse by driving a little faster, he would have been totally focused ahead.
> ...


Going forward still gets him away from the attacker much faster. Let's not split hairs.





> So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else?  He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn?  Talk about things that don't fit!


He was probably focused on the polearm wielder at the time, which is hardly surprising. Would have taken his attention away from the front, as well as the other mirrors. As for not honking, maybe he thought it wouldn't work. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't have to. The point is those other drivers saw the same crowd and determined it was possible to pass, and apparently it was. Couldn't Fields have made the same assessment having seen the same crowd?
> ...


Doesn't change the fact that he could have determined it was possible to pass through the crowd without seeing the other cars in front of him.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > And yet it was working until he was attacked. Listen, your theory might be the true one, but until we know more, I prefer the theory where all the pieces fit.
> ...


What do you mean lack of braking? I thought you said he did brake. I don't honk at crowds, either. It's illegal in some areas.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Are you talking before the polearm attack or after? Before the attack the crowd was not as dense, correct. After the attack it might have been reflex action or a self-preserving decision. After the attack, the "wall" of people went flying quite easily so if he thought there were only people there, he might have made it through like he was until he hit a car. Not saying it was the best idea with hindsight available. Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.
> ...


He was doing fine until he hit one of the cars, right?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I agree the crowd reacted violently, being violent liberals, and it's a different reaction from a nonviolent person like me.
> ...


Is that it?





> And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.


I guess when I say "nonviolent" I mean nonviolent except when protecting myself. You must have known what I meant.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > They're not the same. The people in Charlottesville who attacked the driver were *not *personally struck. I *was*.
> ...


I wasn't a liberal either! Yes, totally different situation! You win this one!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Because I don't think the street should be the jury and execution room. As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.
> ...


Self-preservation against an imminent threat is not what the jury and executioner are about. The latter are about punishment/revenge. The former is about self-preservation.





> Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance.  I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).


I do understand it: they were violent, rabid liberals.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean because they charged him? That's probably to avoid a negro chimpout.
> ...


You keep saying I haven't been in a crowd of liberals so I can't make a judgment about them.





> Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout."  Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?


Just the facts.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Why was crowd there?


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



He hated the black people he hit, but not the white people? That's absurd.

It's not a hate crime for the simple reason that he did not target a protected group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


True. But the city will face a lawsuit over their inaction.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He may yet be, or perhaps the prosecution doesn't think they could make it stick. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Can you read a man's emotional state from the video? Was he panicked? It was a very violent situation.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


So he was trying to leave? Makes his case stronger.


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Because they haven't done anything illegal. It's still legal in this country to hold unpopular opinions, even if they are stupid and ignorant. When they break the law or hurt someone, however...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> He will get vehicular homicide...most likely on a plea agreement.



He will almost certainly be convicted of something. The bottom line is that a driver has the responsibility to avoid hitting people on foot. It's really no more complicated than that.  He saw the crowd in the street. He should never have gotten that close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> True. But the city will face a lawsuit over their inaction.



That is entirely possible.  I just don't think it's really relevant to a discussion of the driver hitting the crowd.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 24, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



I don't see how.  If he made a decision to drive into the crowd, and argues that he was merely "trying to leave," I expect the charges would be upheld.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.



That's certainly not the way it looks.



bgrouse said:


> The whole point I was arguing re: potential inattentiveness was regarding the crowd's reaction. I don't think him falling asleep behind the wheel was the cause of the crash *given what I know* and what the crowd *did not know*.





bgrouse said:


> Without seeing the brake lights (whether they're on or off) they'd have no way of knowing he didn't attempt to brake. Hence the argument re: mechanical failure: they'd have no way of knowing it wasn't the cause.



Other than full brake failure being rare, from what I can find about the subject, the car not only did not appear to slow down, it did not make any significant movements to avoid the crowd, nor was the horn used.  You expect the crowd to wonder if it might have been a guy with total brake failure, a broken horn, and who did not react in any noticeable way to the fact his car was headed toward a large crowd of people with brakes that weren't functioning?



bgrouse said:


> Which reaction are you talking about?



You've seemed to indicate that the driver was cognizant of the crowd posing a threat, and that that played a part in his reaction to the car being hit by the flagpole.



bgrouse said:


> Doesn't matter what his reason is. What matters is he hit the car and likely led to the driver's reaction.



It does matter in the context of whether the action "fits," which you made a point of.



bgrouse said:


> There's no indication he was incapable of avoiding the protesters prior to the crash.



I've pointed out multiple times the indications.



bgrouse said:


> You keep mixing up the apparent intent: self-preservation vs revenge. I didn't say the driver was a good person. I just think he acted strictly to protect himself.



One can act violently in attempting to protect oneself.  As far as I am concerned, intentionally driving into a street packed with people is a violent act.  I don't see how anyone could describe it as not being violent.



bgrouse said:


> It's HIGHLY presumptuous because it ignores a common car problem (failed brakes) and presumes highly unlikely homicidal tendencies.



Again, from what I've been able to gather in a short search, total brake failure is rare.  Here are a couple of links that make such an argument; take of it what you will.  Brake Failure Analysis Brake Failure Accidents

Partial brake failure is supposed to be more common, but would still allow the car to be slowed with the brakes.

Homicidal tendencies may be unlikely, but how likely is total brake failure and driving a straight line with no use of the horn right into a large crowd of people?  There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that some people do, in fact, drive into crowds intentionally.  I don't recall ever hearing about a car running into a large crowd because the brakes and horn failed, and the driver did not even attempt to avoid the crowd.  A car driving straight at a crowd, not slowing down, not making any indication there is a problem; it's not shocking that members of the crowd came to the conclusion it was intentional.



bgrouse said:


> You keep repeating your bullshit. I do understand and I do know: it's because the crowd is violent. I said it was *unacceptable* not *incomprehensible*.



You have described driving into a crowd as understandable on a few occasions, while not being willing to apply the same to the reaction of the crowd, not even if they believed the act was intentional.



bgrouse said:


> And if the driver had the mentality of violent members of that crowd, he would have stopped his car, gotten out, and proceeded to bludgeon the man to death with a bat.



Which, in the end, would have been a less violent decision, sadly enough.

Of course, your statement is ridiculous; the person with the flag had not even done any visible damage to the bumper of the car, while the car had just run over more than a dozen people before members of the crowd attacked it.  You continue to draw false equivalencies.  A person hitting the back bumper of a moving car with a flagpole is far different from a car plowing into a large crowd.



bgrouse said:


> So how did they determine the brakes didn't fail?



See previous answers in this post.



bgrouse said:


> I was. The rest of the crowd was in a crosswalk.



*Sigh*  Still trying to draw a false equivalency.  You hitting a single person at 5mph is not the same as a car driving toward a crowd that was clearly blocking the road at what appeared to be at least 20mph, without braking, without using a horn, without any visible attempt to avoid hitting anyone.



bgrouse said:


> I guess we'll never know. All the evidence points to his control of the situation until he was hit



All the evidence I've seen points to his control throughout.  I did not see any loss of control after the flagpole hit the car.



bgrouse said:


> Going forward still gets him away from the attacker much faster. Let's not split hairs.



For the first bit of distance, sure.  Long term, probably not, as the car seems likely to be stopped by hitting that many bodies, even if there were no other vehicles in the way.  And, of course, there is the insanity of thinking that plowing through a crowd of bystanders is a reasonable action.



bgrouse said:


> He was probably focused on the polearm wielder at the time, which is hardly surprising. Would have taken his attention away from the front, as well as the other mirrors. As for not honking, maybe he thought it wouldn't work. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck.



"Thought it wouldn't work"?  Really?

At the time the flagpole hit the car, there appears to be very little distance between the car and the crowd; perhaps 2 car lengths, if I'm remembering the photo correctly.  Even if we assume the driver had time to stop before hitting anyone, at the time the flagpole hit the car, he would have to have known that he needed to stop just about right then to avoid hitting pedestrians.



bgrouse said:


> Doesn't change the fact that he could have determined it was possible to pass through the crowd without seeing the other cars in front of him.



If he thought he could pass through the crowd without hitting anyone, that would be one thing.  This crowd was far too dense for anyone to think they would get through other than by hitting people, though.  No matter how many times you say it, driving into a bunch of pedestrians is simply not acceptable nor understandable if intentional.



bgrouse said:


> What do you mean lack of braking? I thought you said he did brake. I don't honk at crowds, either. It's illegal in some areas.



Lack of braking for the block before hitting the crowd.  In the video that shows the incident from behind, the car brakes at the very beginning, something like a block away, and not again.



bgrouse said:


> He was doing fine until he hit one of the cars, right?



It's hard to say, but I would imagine that hitting that many people had begun slowing down the car and caused some damage.



bgrouse said:


> I guess when I say "nonviolent" I mean nonviolent except when protecting myself. You must have known what I meant.



I'm sorry, but choosing to run over a bunch of innocents to avoid a vague possible threat sounds like a violent person.  



bgrouse said:


> I wasn't a liberal either! Yes, totally different situation! You win this one!



Again with false equivalencies.  Being part of a crowd that was just run into in what may have appeared an intentional manner is very different from a single person being hit by a vehicle.  When you were hit, did you think the person had done so purposely?  



bgrouse said:


> Self-preservation against an imminent threat is not what the jury and executioner are about. The latter are about punishment/revenge. The former is about self-preservation.



Oh, sorry.  I forgot that you consider killing a bunch of innocents reasonable if you have any sense that there may be a threat to your life.



bgrouse said:


> I do understand it: they were violent, rabid liberals.



Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?



bgrouse said:


> You keep saying I haven't been in a crowd of liberals so I can't make a judgment about them.



I never said that, actually.  I did say that being a part of a crowd which you believe to have just been intentionally driven into is different than your average accident of one vehicle hitting one person.  



bgrouse said:


> Just the facts.



I find that questionable.  I just noticed this gem, as well:





bgrouse said:


> This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).



Still, perhaps your bigotry isn't influencing your opinion.  I'm honestly not sure which is worse.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.
> ...



I think that is the longest post I have ever seen on this MB, lol.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> He will get vehicular homicide...most likely on a plea agreement.


Plus charges filed by the federal government, should they decide to prosecute him.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Where were the police? Could he have exited in another direction...or did he have to drive through the Marxist agitators?


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > He will get vehicular homicide...most likely on a plea agreement.
> ...


Why would Fed charge him? Hate crime? Tough to prove when both sides spewing hate. Also, she was White and he was White. The Black Muslims in the civil rights division of DoJ will not want to take the case.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


If I'm not mistaken, the alt-right's permit was pulled.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Nope.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


Glad you agree hate was a factor. It matters not that both sides were full of hate. It also matters not that the person who died was white as his target was the crowd and not her in particular.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


You're correct, I am mistaken. So I had to look it up....

The city did revoke their permit but they sued when that happened and prevailed...

Charlottesville Violence Highlights Cities' Struggle To Balance Rights And Safety

... however, the counter-protesters also had permits...

Charlottesville Grants 2 Permits for Counterprotests of Unite the Right Rally


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


That's as he's already upon the crowd. As the videos show, he did not slow down until he crashed into another car.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


Panicked from what? There is no evidence he was attacked while in his car prior to driving down that street.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You don't even know he's already been charged by the state with 2nd degree murder, do you?

And the federal government has not yet decided if they will also charge him.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


My guess is he will attempt a defense of insanity.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


They were on a public street.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

_What is not well understood about brake failures is that *true catastrophic brake failures are rare.* Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation._​


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


Not on that street, it wasn't. There appeared to be no other alt-right folks other than Fields where he hit the crowd; and there were no other altercations.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


Trying to leave by running over a crowd of people?? What kind of case is that?


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


They are also considering the possibility of domestic terrorism...

Was the Charlottesville car attack domestic terrorism, a hate crime or both?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2017)

hadit, post: 18004073 





hadit said:


> Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?



It's not perceived ideology. Fields stood with hate groups and it looks like there is a black man in the center of his path hands forward as if bracing for impact. That photo is captured at least two car lengths prior to the moment Fields' car was barely hit by a flag.

Thanks to video and google earth street views we know it is a fact this Nazi began hitting pedestrians (no brake lights) seconds before a bystander out of his path swiped at his car with his flag.

The entire argument about flag guy causing Nazi boy to panic is entirely untrue and not supported by the information we have.

That's what should be clear. The argument that  a violent crowd is to blame for being run over is pure BS and pro-Nazi propaganda.

There is no excuse for spreading it.

And it's why I believe a Federal hate crime decision coming is more likely than not.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> hadit, post: 18004073
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's misleading though. The driver has no excuse for what he did. The whole self defense thing goes out the window when you realize that he could easily have avoided the crowd in the first place. Hate crimes, however, were created to add additional punishment for crimes clearly targeted at protected classes of people, minorities and homosexuals for example. That's not clear in this case because the crowd was composed of a variety of people. Applying hate crimes just because we're really, really mad at the guy doesn't work in court. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I win USMB!  


LOL, I've seen longer......but we *are* getting pretty damn lengthy with this crap.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



That's always a possibility, but if I'm not mistaken, that type of defense is rarely successful.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these  camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are  so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp. 


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate. 

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?


----------



## Kosh (Aug 25, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Yes we know you far left drones will not condemn the far left terrorists that started the violence!

One counterprotester apparently deployed a chemical spray, which affected the eyes of a dozen or so marchers. It left them floundering and seeking medical assistance.

One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.
> ...


According to you, here's what he did:
*
there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.*

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point I was arguing re: potential inattentiveness was regarding the crowd's reaction. I don't think him falling asleep behind the wheel was the cause of the crash *given what I know* and what the crowd *did not know*.
> ...


Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.





> from what I can find about the subject, the car not only did not appear to slow down, it did not make any significant movements to avoid the crowd,


So what about this?
*there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.*


> nor was the horn used.  You expect the crowd to wonder if it might have been a guy with total brake failure, a broken horn, and who did not react in any noticeable way to the fact his car was headed toward a large crowd of people with brakes that weren't functioning?


No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Which reaction are you talking about?
> ...


Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't matter what his reason is. What matters is he hit the car and likely led to the driver's reaction.
> ...


Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > There's no indication he was incapable of avoiding the protesters prior to the crash.
> ...


That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You keep mixing up the apparent intent: self-preservation vs revenge. I didn't say the driver was a good person. I just think he acted strictly to protect himself.
> ...


OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > It's HIGHLY presumptuous because it ignores a common car problem (failed brakes) and presumes highly unlikely homicidal tendencies.
> ...


Yeah, _eventually_.





> Homicidal tendencies may be unlikely, but how likely is *total brake failure* and driving a straight line with no use of the horn right into a large crowd of people?  There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that some people do, in fact, drive into crowds intentionally.  I don't recall ever hearing about a car running into a large crowd because the brakes and horn failed, and the driver did not even attempt to avoid the crowd.  A car driving straight at a crowd, not slowing down, not making any indication there is a problem; it's not shocking that members of the crowd came to the conclusion it was intentional.


*Strawman*. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You keep repeating your bullshit. I do understand and I do know: it's because the crowd is violent. I said it was *unacceptable* not *incomprehensible*.
> ...


So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

*He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)*

then I said this:
*
It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)*

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > And if the driver had the mentality of violent members of that crowd, he would have stopped his car, gotten out, and proceeded to bludgeon the man to death with a bat.
> ...


I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.





> Of course, your statement is ridiculous; the person with the flag had not even done any visible damage to the bumper of the car, while the car had just run over more than a dozen people before members of the crowd attacked it.  You continue to draw false equivalencies.  A person hitting the back bumper of a moving car with a flagpole is far different from a car plowing into a large crowd.


Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > So how did they determine the brakes didn't fail?
> ...


Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I was. The rest of the crowd was in a crosswalk.
> ...


We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we'll never know. All the evidence points to his control of the situation until he was hit
> ...


Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Going forward still gets him away from the attacker much faster. Let's not split hairs.
> ...


That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > He was probably focused on the polearm wielder at the time, which is hardly surprising. Would have taken his attention away from the front, as well as the other mirrors. As for not honking, maybe he thought it wouldn't work. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck.
> ...


Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.





> At the time the flagpole hit the car, there appears to be very little distance between the car and the crowd; perhaps 2 car lengths, if I'm remembering the photo correctly.  Even if we assume the driver had time to stop before hitting anyone, at the time the flagpole hit the car, he would have to have known that he needed to stop just about right then to avoid hitting pedestrians.


And your point is?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change the fact that he could have determined it was possible to pass through the crowd without seeing the other cars in front of him.
> ...


But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean lack of braking? I thought you said he did brake. I don't honk at crowds, either. It's illegal in some areas.
> ...


Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > He was doing fine until he hit one of the cars, right?
> ...


Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I guess when I say "nonviolent" I mean nonviolent except when protecting myself. You must have known what I meant.
> ...


Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't a liberal either! Yes, totally different situation! You win this one!
> ...


No.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Self-preservation against an imminent threat is not what the jury and executioner are about. The latter are about punishment/revenge. The former is about self-preservation.
> ...


You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > I do understand it: they were violent, rabid liberals.
> ...


Do I? Does it matter?





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > You keep saying I haven't been in a crowd of liberals so I can't make a judgment about them.
> ...


I *wouldn't* think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!





> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Just the facts.
> ...





Faun said:


> Brake failure is not common.
> 
> Brake Failure Analysis
> 
> _What is not well understood about brake failures is that *true catastrophic brake failures are rare.* Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation._​



No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



As long as they are not violating the rights of other people, members of those groups have the same rights and protections as any other citizen.  

Are you trying to justify suppressing someone's speech because you find it offensive?  Are you trying to justify assault against anyone you disagree with strongly enough?  Are you opposed to a nation built on the rule of law?

If white supremacists become violent, a person has every right to defend themselves.  If they do not, you do not have the legal right to attack a white supremacist because they hold repugnant beliefs.

Our freedom to speak, assemble, and express ourselves is specifically designed to protect disliked or offensive ideas, IMO.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Yes, I think the internment of those with Japanese ancestry without due process was wrong.  I think the Supreme Court erred badly in allowing it.  I don't think it was as bad as the Dredd Scott decision, but I consider it a black mark in US history.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd.  You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into.  You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into.  In that case, it's not possible that they could have felt their lives might be threatened.  A person in a moving car who is hit by a flagpole, however, *that *is life-or-death time).  

You have now tried to say that because the driver did not run anyone over while the road was mostly clear, it is evidence that the crash was caused by the flagpole hitting the car.  That is the change in circumstance you consider important, not the difference between a mostly clear road and a road filled with pedestrians.

You have equated the cars which were moving extremely slowly, surrounded by the crowd, with this driver heading into the crowd at an unsafe speed.

You have claimed the driver may have not used the horn because he didn't think it would work, instead just plowing into the crowd intentionally.  In your mind, driving over dozens of pedestrians, killing who knows how many of them, would have been a justified action on the part of the driver, because someone hit his bumper with a flagpole.  Perhaps there were mothers carrying infants in that crowd, but apparently that's OK; if there is a bump on your car at any time, you can just mow down any innocents unfortunate enough to be in your path.

You are determined to make excuses for any action the driver took, no matter how outlandish.  If you honestly believe that someone hitting your bumper while you are moving is such an imminent threat that killing any number of innocents is justified if it might allow you to get away from that oh-so-terrible threat, if you think a driver has no responsibility to avoid pedestrians, if you think that when there is a clear road behind you and a road full of people in front of you, that driving through the people is a justified action, there is really no reason for discussion.  

If, on the other hand, you are just trolling, there is still no reason.

Maybe you should just boil this down to blaming a bunch of "rabid liberals" and a "chimpout" in the "negrohood".  That would make about as much sense, but would perhaps be a more honest representation of your opinion.

Whatever the case, as has been pointed out, this is getting ridiculously long.  I see no reason to continue.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


No I didn't, moron. I said that's likely why he did it, not that it gave him a "license." You even quoted and addressed what I said:
*
Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.*


> I see no reason to continue.


Indeed. You keep going in circles, unable to understand simple concepts like different information being available at different times, and you can't even understand the static articles you're quoting!


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


He didn't brake a block before hitting the crowd. He tapped his brake as he was about to hit them. That as far as I needed to get into your logorrhea to see you're lying about the events which took place.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Why won't you answer this question...?

The crowd was right when they assumed it was an intentional attack -- so why are you criticizing them for attacking back?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...





bgrouse said:


> You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 25, 2017)

Kosh said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Anyone that fight against these hate groups are  heroes. Someone has to stand up against bigotry, racism, hatred, intimidation and violence. We cannot allow these hate groups that are worse than animals spread their hate propaganda that will ruin this country. 
Im glad to hear which side you are in. Your link just proved what kind of animals are these people that you supported.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Based on the video taken from behind the Dodge, he did brake about a block away from where he hit the crowd.  I can't see any brake lights after that.

The still photo of the car with its brake lights on, if accurate, would seem to have been from the very beginning of the behind-the-car video.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Hate groups KKK, White Supremacist, NAZIS, ALT RIGHT and other hate groups do NOT have place in America. These hate groups are and always been violent. 

ONLY goal and ONLY goal is to eliminate meaning kill ALL minorities. Because it's the only way they can achieve their goal just like Hitler did with the Jews. That's also the primary reason why they have swastika flag, salutes and idolize Hitler. 

That only WHITE POWER should exist here in America. Explain that.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Who said it was an intentional attack?


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


At what mark in this video do you see brake lights illuminate?


----------



## Faun (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


The DA.

Are you claiming it was an accident?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 18015049 





bgrouse said:


> Who said it was an intentional attack?



"Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an *intentional killing *that is not premeditated or ... to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder."

Plenty of eyewitnesses said immediately it was intentional.  

The Police Chief said it was intentional,

The video captured an intentional act. The videos tell us and the prosecutor a lot.

We know from the video your narrative is entirely false that flag guy panicked the driver and he defended his life by driving through fifty feet of violent pedestrians. 

He hit people before flag guy. A couple of car lengths. 

Prosecutors and jury will see that even clearer when the videos are turned into evidence and presented in the court room. 

His association with Nazi hate group adds to your Nazi's difficult defense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This photo is likely 25 feet rear wheels to rear wheels before the guy with the flag hit the car still going very fast when the car was hit. 

So the coward killer Nazi did not apply brakes to avoid hitting anybody. 

He did not brake hard but he apparently tapped the brake a second before hitting his first defenseless pedestrians. 

This photo shows the bent over parking sign to be at least two car lengths ahead of your Nazis rear wheels . The flag guy hit the car when the rear wheels were lined up with that sign.




The black guy appears to be bracing for impact in this photo.


----------



## hadit (Aug 25, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



The best way to combat hateful rhetoric is not by violence. That's just playing into what they want, victimhood. By attacking them with violence because it's their words, you become worse than they are. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Never.  

In this video, however, the brake lights are on for a moment at the very beginning:


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Someone might make the same argument that Antifa and Black Lives Matter are violent groups and should not be allowed.  The argument would be the same there: if members of a group make threats or attack another person, they should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.  If you just don't like their philosophy, beliefs, or message, don't listen.

I'd be happier if people did not subscribe to the ideas of white supremacy.  However, I am unwilling to subvert the freedoms we enjoy, to go against the principles of things like the first amendment, to make that happen through force of law.

Do you think freedom of speech should only apply to those who espouse views you agree with?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 25, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


I was quoting what he said, stupid. Got a problem with it? Take it up with him.



Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where did the DA say that?


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


^^^ this video is unavailable


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


When they charged him with murder.

Now answer my question.... are you claiming this was an accident?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

hadit, post: 18016468 





hadit said:


> The best way to combat hateful rhetoric is not by violence. That's just playing into what they want, victimhood. By attacking them with violence because it's their words, you become worse than they are.



The counter protestors were very peaceful when they were ran over by a freakin (we know now) Nazi. It is one hate group member's violence being discussed here. The counter protestors did not kill anyone with a two ton weapon.

I dont like or condone ANTIFA tactics specifically if they initiate violence. I prefer MLK and Ghandi tactics.

But if fascists strike them first I am not some  Pollyanna expecting that all anti fascists who take a stand will react peacefully.

Trouble is it is difficult to determine who started the skirmishes between the two groups on that weekend. Because of that I lend my support to the group that opposes parading fascists, not the fascists themselves.

There is no equating the two in my view.

Anyway the hate group member that killed and wounded peaceful defenseless marchers is entirely separate from the skirmishes that took place during that weekend.


----------



## hadit (Aug 26, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> hadit, post: 18016468
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's why the authorities need to answer some questions. They knew the groups would clash if they got together, and didn't do much to prevent it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

hadit, post: 18018232 





hadit said:


> That's why the authorities need to answer some questions. They knew the groups would clash if they got together, and didn't do much to prevent it.




Different issue. Different topic. This is about the Nazi that rammed his car into a crowd of peaceful protestors. Protesting against his kind of hate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> I've been in an accident once. Just a fender bender. Therefore, anyone whose "accident" involves a fatality is actually a murderer. Can't possibly kill someone unintentionally if *I *haven't done so!



How would you know if your Nazi's 'accident' was not intentional. 

The videos show it was intentional prior to his car being hit with a flag and the odds against the "failed brakes" excuse are so high it's more likely his car was struck with lightning on a sunny day and the poor harmless peace loving guy was disoriented because of that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 17923215 





bgrouse said:


> I got startled once when I hit a curb. Accidentally hit the gas instead of brake. If the curb hadn't been that tall, I'd have kept going, maybe hitting someone.




That would be an accident. Not what we see on video in Charlottesville.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:
> 
> 
> Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
> ...




We see your racist bias on the tragedy. 

But you should know by now that the flag hit was a reaction in anger and helplessness as your negro hating Nazi was already beyond a point of no return of plowing into a crowd of peaceful protestors


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


He will plea out to a lesser charge and walk.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 26, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:
> ...


They were far from peaceful. They were violent antifa pieces of shit.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


Why? Show video of alt-left crowd and the hatred they spew. Prosecutors will not want a jury to see it. Plea...he walks.


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Wishful thinking. The state has since doubled the number of felony charges against him...

James Alex Fields charged with five additional felonies - CNN

And the federal government is still considering charging him independently of state charges.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Because they need more chips to bargain away in order to preserve original charges after plea is reached. Defense should force a jury trial.


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


You have zero evidence anyone in that crowd where Fields drove into was with Antifa.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well crap, it was fine when I posted the link.  Sorry.  

Here, this video shows the same thing.  At the very beginning, you can see the brake lights on the car, but after that, as the car travels down the block, nothing.


----------



## 12icer (Aug 26, 2017)

I am going to be on the grand jury and he will never see a courtroom because antifa was completely responsible for the womans death, and her decision to attend an assault against America, and the Constitution cost her her life.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 26, 2017)

12icer said:


> I am going to be on the grand jury and he will never see a courtroom because antifa was completely responsible for the womans death, and her decision to attend an assault against America, and the Constitution cost her her life.


"Thank's O.J. You made my jury duty easy!" Lol.


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

Bush92 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


To the brain-dead right, chanting, _"whose streets? Our streets,"_ is violent and "far from peaceful."


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

I've been watching the video again, and I can't be certain, but I think you may be able to hear the car accelerating before being hit by the flag.  It sounds like you hear acceleration at 2 seconds, while the flag hits the car at 3 seconds.

As I said, I'm not at all sure about this.  Does anyone else hear it, or am I just crazy?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



I'm not going to broad-brush "the right" on this, but to some posters here, apparently you are correct.

Unfortunately, I've heard similar sentiments from some Antifa people; I've read excuses for violence from Antifa members who consider supporting racist, bigoted, or hateful ideas a form of violence, and therefore feel justified in using physical violence against those people.

Too many people, regardless of ideology, seem to consider physical violence a perfectly reasonable way to enforce their own opinion.  

Of course, even if the crowd were Antifa and had been violent, they weren't being violent toward the driver when he drove at them.


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> I've been watching the video again, and I can't be certain, but I think you may be able to hear the car accelerating before being hit by the flag.  It sounds like you hear acceleration at 2 seconds, while the flag hits the car at 3 seconds.
> 
> As I said, I'm not at all sure about this.  Does anyone else hear it, or am I just crazy?


I hear so much noise in that video, who knows what it is?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


A charge means they're going to go to trial or plea bargain with him. Only a moron like you thinks it means he's definitely guilty. Even your DA knows there's more to the process, and even then there can be a mistake even if he's convicted.





> Now answer my question.... are you claiming this was an accident?


No, I'm saying there's reasonable doubt, from the information available, as to his guilt.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Watch the video. Looks like someone hit his car right before he hit the people



Yes. His intent was to hurt peacefully protesting people because he was plowing into the crowd fleeing for their lives before the flag could have made contact with his 2 Ton weapon. 

Yet you persist denying reality.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 26, 2017)

hadit said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs? 
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How? 

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America. 
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Are physical violence or ignoring them the only options?


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 26, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Cry me river. Like wanting to kill all Jews? The antifa and BLM was created and existed only to counter violent hate groups that you are protecting. 
Are we supposed to let those hate groups kill Jewish and other minorities?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

MikeK, post: 1792320 





MikeK said:


> I'm thinking three or four (or more) incidents I've seen on tv news of someone who accidentally stepped on the gas and drove right through a wall or store window. It happens a _lot,_ and all this fellow's lawyer(s) need to do is collect as many examples as they can find and, provided this fellow hasn't already hung himself by talking, he stands a very good chance of being acquitted of the first degree murder he's charged with. Unless he confesses, or unless there is strong evidence that he planned it, he can walk free.



He is not charged with first degree murder. It is second degree. Not planned. It is intent. 

There are no examples of people accidentally stepping on the gas for two blocks. 

His constant speed too fast for conditions of pedestrians present, is not accidentally stepping on the gas instead of hitting the brake. When drivers do that they keep pressing on the gas as if it were the brake harder and they accelerate until they crash into something. 

This guy's  lawyers are not going down that path because only a fool would think of that.

If this was a pure accident somehow, why does your Nazi need to keep his mouth shut.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Of course not.  I've never advocated allowing any group to kill other people.  

Apparently you are an authoritarian who does not believe in the constitutional protections of the first amendment.  That amendment is not about protecting only the speech that you like.  If someone hates minorities, they have every right to hate minorities.  They can spout their hate any time they want to.  The rest of us are also free to call them idiots, to point out that their opinion is based on fear and ignorance, and to laugh at and shun those same people.

You appear to want to use the government as thought police, to throw away our freedom of speech and right to assembly.  If a group is actually being violent, or making direct threats, they are breaking the law.  If they are, instead, simply promoting an unpopular opinion, then I absolutely believe in protecting that right.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 26, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Why are you asking me? 

I asked you first. Now answer my 2 questions.


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


What doubt?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



No, you asked hadit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 26, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 18020288 





bgrouse said:


> No, I'm saying there's reasonable doubt, from the information available, as to his guilt.



Are you saying there is doubt about the clear indication from video and still photos and Google earth location of landmarks that the flag swipe had zero impact on your Nazi's decision to hit those "negroes and negro loving morons" (your words not mine)  in the street?

You would make a great witness for the defense .
Just want to know what your lying eyes are telling you.

Probably should send your opinion to the Feds deciding if this was a hate crime or not. According to your hatefilled words - I firmly believe this is indeed a hate crime.

Birds of a feather you and your Nazi.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've been watching the video again, and I can't be certain, but I think you may be able to hear the car accelerating before being hit by the flag.  It sounds like you hear acceleration at 2 seconds, while the flag hits the car at 3 seconds.
> ...



It's definitely not the clearest sound ever.  

I still hear it as I rewatch the video, but I don't know if it's the kind of thing that would hold up in court.  Maybe if the audio were fiddled with and that sound isolated, it could be used as evidence of acceleration prior to the car being struck by the flagpole.  Of course, it also might just be evidence that I have poor hearing.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 26, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



I asked you because you only seemed to provide two options: violence or ignoring the groups.  

I'll answer your poorly put together questions, though.

1. Who says anyone even has to talk to these groups?  Talk to people not involved in the groups, and point out how the bigotry and ignorance of supremacism of any stripe is morally repugnant.  If you do decide to speak to supremacist groups, speak however you want, outside of direct threats which violate the law.

2. I don't think anyone is saying you must ignore hate groups.  However, what hadit seems to be saying (and I agree) is that physically attacking people who have done you no direct harm is illegal, and should be so.  Simply saying you think one race is better than others, or one religion, or one ethnicity, or whatever form a person's supremacist opinion might derive from, is not something that the government should be silencing.  Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles of our nation, and one that has (thankfully) tended to be increased over time.  If we start deciding to suppress speech we don't like, speech which does not directly infringe upon the rights of others, then that freedom becomes meaningless.  One day it may be your opinion which becomes unpopular and is suppressed.

If you don't want hate groups to spread their ideology, speak against it.  If the hate groups make actionable threats against people, they should be arrested and charged.  If the hate groups just offend me with their rhetoric, however, the government should stay out of it.


----------



## hadit (Aug 26, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Do what is legal and what we have always done with groups that say bad things. Keep an eye on them and when they break the law, prosecute. Until then, mock and ridicule them. They hate that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 27, 2017)

Faun said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Reasonable doubt from at the very least all of the information discussed by me in this thread.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Aug 27, 2017)

bgrouse, post: 18024955 





bgrouse said:


> Reasonable doubt from at the very least all of the information discussed by me in this thread.



I believe your discussion involves the theory that flag guy affected your Nazi's decision  to attack a crowd of negroes and moron negro supporters.

Information discussed by you that is physically and technically impossible from video evidence publically available must be excluded from a discussion about reasonable doubt as to your Nazi's motive.

Your "negro" addition to this discussion verifies that racist bias on your part renders "information discussed by" you to be tainted and obviously worthless.


----------



## Faun (Aug 27, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> bgrouse, post: 18024955
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing worth reviewing.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 28, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Rubbish. Both of your answers is way way off from my questions. Maybe I was not specific.
1. How? How can I talk to these hate groups about giving up killing Jews and other minorities?
2. Are to saying that we just ignore them and let them spread their violence and hatred against my fellow Americans? 
Speaking to them? These hate groups are born and bred for violence. How would you feel if you are Jewish seeing this video? 

Racism, bigotry and hatred don't have place in this country. Even your president told you that.


----------



## charwin95 (Aug 28, 2017)

hadit said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Wong answer. Try again. 

Hatred, bigotry and racism has no place in this country. Even Trump condemned these animals.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 28, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



1.  Do you not know how to communicate with others?  You're doing it now.  If you feel the need to speak directly to members of hate groups, I'm sure many have websites you can go to and post messages.
If you are actually asking how you can convince hate groups to change their minds.....figure that out and your name will go down in history.

2. Again, no one is saying you have to ignore anything.  The only options are not to ignore something or to commit violence against that thing.
If groups directly threaten or commit violence, there are laws against that.  They should be arrested and charged.  
Do you know my religious affiliation or ethnicity?  Do you know that I am not Jewish?

You seem to have a problem with the idea that freedom of speech covers offensive speech.  You or I may not agree with racism or bigotry, but that doesn't justify assault.

Whatever the president may have said, racism and bigotry are not a valid justification for assault.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 28, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Condemning someone is different from assaulting them or otherwise committing violent acts against them, which is where this all started.


----------



## hadit (Aug 28, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Correct. There are right ways and wrong ways to react to hateful rhetoric. Violence is worse than just saying things. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Aug 28, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > charwin95 said:
> ...



Do you realize that you said doing what's legal is the wrong answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 29, 2017)

Just read this and thought I'd post an update:  It appears the charge against Fields has been upgraded to first degree murder.

Charlottesville murder suspect faces life


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 29, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Just read this and thought I'd post an update:  It appears the charge against Fields has been upgraded to first degree murder.
> 
> Charlottesville murder suspect faces life



It's common for prosecutors to over-charge.  If the Defense keeps racists off the jury, there won't be a murder conviction.  The driver was in a hostile crowd that had attacked his car, making fleeing a reasonable thing.  It just so happens his path was blocked by a car.  If he wanted to hurt people, he would have swerved to the crowded sidewalk instead of hitting the car in front of him.  

The bimbo who died was breaking the law by being in the street. She also shouldn't have been part of the mob bent on denying others their free speech rights.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 29, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Just read this and thought I'd post an update:  It appears the charge against Fields has been upgraded to first degree murder.
> ...


Her cause of death being a heart attack,  doesn't help the prosecution much...


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 29, 2017)

Life in prison sounds like a good idea for him.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 29, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Just read this and thought I'd post an update:  It appears the charge against Fields has been upgraded to first degree murder.
> ...



This thread has over 100 pages going over this, so I won't get into much detail.  To summarize, the sidewalk wasn't particularly more crowded than the street; by the time the car was struck, it was already probably going to hit someone; if there had been no car, it's entirely possible that Fields still wouldn't have been able to pass through, because of how crowded the streets were; it does not require racism for someone to look at the evidence and believe this was an attack rather than some sort of escape attempt.


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 29, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> This thread has over 100 pages going over this, so I won't get into much detail.  To summarize, the sidewalk wasn't particularly more crowded than the street; by the time the car was struck, it was already probably going to hit someone; if there had been no car, it's entirely possible that Fields still wouldn't have been able to pass through, because of how crowded the streets were; it does not require racism for someone to look at the evidence and believe this was an attack rather than some sort of escape attempt.



How many libtard racists admit to their racism?  

If you wanted to kill people, do you aim for the car or the crowd beside the car?  Idiot, do you know beyond a reasonable doubt that he looking in front of the car he hit, and looking at all those people thinking that he could hurt them by rear-ending a car?  








If you're in a hostile mob and your are attacked, are you not going to make haste to get out of there? 







Idiot racists like you should be kept off of juries.  I  hope the Defense does its job in jury selection.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 29, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Life in prison sounds like a good idea for him.


I would prefer execution about 6 months ago for the jack ass.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 29, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Life in prison sounds like a good idea for him.
> ...


Trials are so over rated...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 29, 2017)

Vastator said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


There is nothing wrong with a quick trial before hanging the perp.


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 29, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Trials are so over rated...



Yeah!  That kid dispatched a bimbo sans trial. Death Penalty for being a douche.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 29, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Trials are so over rated...
> ...


Did he?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 29, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


No....he's a alt-right murderer.  Nice try.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 29, 2017)

BULLDOG said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not evenb penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


If you were an Alt_Right NAZI you know you'd have plenty of defenders if you did.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 29, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Trials are so over rated...
> ...


something you can only wish about doing....eh?    living the violent life vicariously thru others.


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 29, 2017)

bodecea said:


> something you can only wish about doing....eh?    living the violent life vicariously thru others.



That sounds so black.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 29, 2017)

Vastator said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


roflmao

yeah, he did and in front of dozens of people too

hang his ass


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Just read this and thought I'd post an update:  It appears the charge against Fields has been upgraded to first degree murder.
> 
> Charlottesville murder suspect faces life


He’s been indicted on 10 felony counts, including first degree murder.

Charlottesville suspect James Fields hit with 10-count indictment


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Just read this and thought I'd post an update:  It appears the charge against Fields has been upgraded to first degree murder.
> ...


His car wasn’t attacked until he headed towards a crowd of pedestrians.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


She died as a result of him committing a felony. That falls within the scope of murder.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


The fact that he shifted into reverse to escape after running over pedestrians indicates it was an attack. Had he actually been trying to escape, he could have brought his car to a stop and shifted into reverse before hitting anyone.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has over 100 pages going over this, so I won't get into much detail.  To summarize, the sidewalk wasn't particularly more crowded than the street; by the time the car was struck, it was already probably going to hit someone; if there had been no car, it's entirely possible that Fields still wouldn't have been able to pass through, because of how crowded the streets were; it does not require racism for someone to look at the evidence and believe this was an attack rather than some sort of escape attempt.
> ...


There’s no evidence he ever saw the car he ran into through the crowd prior to hitting it.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Trials are so over rated...
> ...



How was she a "bimbo"? What wrong did she commit?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 30, 2017)

So the mayor got off Scott free and wasn't charged with anything?

It figures , her murder is on his hands for telling the cops to step down


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Racists defend fellow racists and attack the victim.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 30, 2017)

I've seen the photo of Marcus Martin already in the air, having pushed his fiancee clear, by the time Fields hit the second car. Mr. Martin said that Ms. Heyer was walking in front of them. He said that the three had attended the rally together. Try as one may like, you can't pretty up this picture when you have the testimony of a person who was sent flying off the hood of Fields' car and the testimony of bystanders. Fields carried out a deliberate attack on the pedestrians, same as the Muslim guy in NYC did.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> I've seen the photo of Marcus Martin already in the air, having pushed his fiancee clear, by the time Fields hit the second car. Mr. Martin said that Ms. Heyer was walking in front of them. He said that the three had attended the rally together. Try as one may like, you can't pretty up this picture when you have the testimony of a person who was sent flying off the hood of Fields' car and the testimony of bystanders. Fields carried out a deliberate attack on the pedestrians, same as the Muslim guy in NYC did.


I’m surprised he was charged with only 10 counts. He ran over about 20 people.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen the photo of Marcus Martin already in the air, having pushed his fiancee clear, by the time Fields hit the second car. Mr. Martin said that Ms. Heyer was walking in front of them. He said that the three had attended the rally together. Try as one may like, you can't pretty up this picture when you have the testimony of a person who was sent flying off the hood of Fields' car and the testimony of bystanders. Fields carried out a deliberate attack on the pedestrians, same as the Muslim guy in NYC did.
> ...


He didn’t “run over” anyone, in the video footage I saw...


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


When he saw the crowd of people in the street, why didn't he brake? By the time he hit the second car, people already had been hit and sent flying. At least the presence of the second car, the car he hit, stopped him from plowing further into the crowd. I have been a driver for decades. When I see someone on foot in the roadway, I stop.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I don't know.  That's why we have trials.  To get answers...


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Racists defend fellow racists and attack the victim.



The victim shouldn't have been there.  Period.  She was engaged in violating the constitutional rights of others, as well as disorderly conduct in the street.  She's a douche.  Because her and her fellow douches got her killed by incitement to violence, we're suppose to ignore that she was a douche?


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Racists defend fellow racists and attack the victim.
> ...


She wasn't "engaged in violating the constitutional rights of others," the assholes she was protesting got their little march. She had every right to protest this filth coming to her community as long as she was not violent. She was a local. The filthy whore who killed her was from Ohio. What the hell was he doing in Charlottesville?  "Disorderly conduct in the street"? Seriously?


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> She wasn't "engaged in violating the constitutional rights of others," the assholes she was protesting got their little march. She had every right to protest this filth coming to her community as long as she was not violent. She was a local. The filthy whore who killed her was from Ohio. What the hell was he doing in Charlottesville?  "Disorderly conduct in the street"? Seriously?



She was part the mob that prevented the protesters with permits from carrying out their protest protected by the First Amendment.  And, fucktard, streets are for cars, not loitering douches.  Fuck her.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


LOL

Well then you should call up his lawyer and volunteer to be a witness for the defense. They need your help.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > She wasn't "engaged in violating the constitutional rights of others," the assholes she was protesting got their little march. She had every right to protest this filth coming to her community as long as she was not violent. She was a local. The filthy whore who killed her was from Ohio. What the hell was he doing in Charlottesville?  "Disorderly conduct in the street"? Seriously?
> ...


Your name-calling indicates that you were raised in the gutter. He was an out-of-towner who should have been his best behavior. She was a local, and was entitled to cross the street. There is no way you can justify how your little whore and his cronies acted while in Charlottesville.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Racists defend fellow racists and attack the victim.
> ...


You ignorant Neanderthal, she had every right to be there herself and she violated no one else’s rights.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

BulletProof said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > She wasn't "engaged in violating the constitutional rights of others," the assholes she was protesting got their little march. She had every right to protest this filth coming to her community as long as she was not violent. She was a local. The filthy whore who killed her was from Ohio. What the hell was he doing in Charlottesville?  "Disorderly conduct in the street"? Seriously?
> ...


LOL

The one who’s fucked now is the racist POS driver who’s going to jail for a very long time. How long do you think it will take for him to be someone’s bitch in jail, servicing all the guys?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 30, 2017)

bodecea said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Fight or Flight?  Is it an instinctive or a learned behavior?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



And again, the fact that his air bags didn't deploy on a serious head-on, indicating they were deliberately disabled before he came down the street, indicates it was premeditated.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


No.  It doesn't.  Does the plaquard next to the air bag cut off read "when about to commit vehicular homicide; turn switch into the off position." No?  I didn't think so either. You better hope the prosecutor brings a much better game than you do...


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 30, 2017)

The videos show that his car was surrounded by screaming leftist protesters beating whatever they could find with baseball bats they brought for the purpose of beating people up. 

Don't be surprised if he walks away.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The videos show that his car was surrounded by screaming leftist protesters beating whatever they could find with baseball bats they brought for the purpose of beating people up.
> 
> Don't be surprised if he walks away.


I would be very surprised since protesters didn’t start beating his car with baseball bats until *after* he ran them over.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Well if the board is any indication of the potential jury pool; I'd wager this case is anything but,  a slam dunk...


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






The airbag did not deploy.

The car IS equipped with airbags which activate upon front impact.
If that airbag deploys when he hits however many people he can crunch, it impairs his ability to drive away

Those airbags CAN be disabled.
The airbag did not deploy.
He was indeed able to drive away, completely off that street, unimpaired by airbag.

Rotsa ruck.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The videos show that his car was surrounded by screaming leftist protesters beating whatever they could find with baseball bats they brought for the purpose of beating people up.
> 
> Don't be surprised if he walks away.



You're actually suggesting that a murderer walks, on account of potential victims in the street trying vainly to stop the murder, are you?

Your abject stupidity is an endless source of amazement.

Presumably those bystanders flailing at an attacking car are to be charged with --- vandalism?  Destruction of property?

You live in your own poison bubble, toots.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Well if the board is any indication of the potential jury pool; I'd wager this case is anything but,  a slam dunk...



It won't be.  Juries are selected from the real world.  And they're screened.  Trust me, you'd get the day off.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Small under-reported fact....there was a police car blocking that street that was moved just prior to the attack....withdrawn.......


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Small under-reported fact....there was a police car blocking that street that was moved just prior to the attack....withdrawn.......


Even if true, that doesn’t offer anyone the right to drive their car into a crowd of people.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 30, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> Fight or Flight?  Is it an instinctive or a learned behavior?



So who is teaching all them thar birds to take flight when my cat comes up?

Birds dont hang around in schools like fish do ya know.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Well if the board is any indication of the potential jury pool; I'd wager this case is anything but,  a slam dunk...


You can never tell what a jury will do, even if you work in the court system and see everything that they do.

But it is still the best way to put people on trial.

The critical fact for me was that the guy shifted into reverse far too fast for anyone who was panicked into flight.

His quickness in changing gears and reversing his car demonstrates to my mind that the whole thing was thought out beforehand, which rules out panic reaction.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Small under-reported fact....there was a police car blocking that street that was moved just prior to the attack....withdrawn.......
> ...


Love how people reply to what they think was said instead of what was posted


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Well if the board is any indication of the potential jury pool; I'd wager this case is anything but,  a slam dunk...
> ...



Exactly.  That and the nondeployed airbag. All looks according to plan.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...



Maybe what was posted made no sense, ya think?

What are you suggesting --- conspiracy between Fields and a cop?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



How do you know the airbag did not deploy?  I don't recall if you mentioned before in the thread; it's been a while.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Isnt this the Police Dept that was just savaged for their response to marches...was this part of their we need more violence agenda....


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...



Can you give a straight answer, or not?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes I brought it in here months ago.  You can see into the windows in some of the photos/videos, just after impact.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 30, 2017)

The car will be fully examined and whether or not the airbags were disabled will be made abundantly known.   For real, not for message board.

This is just the kind of case where there is hard "evidence" supporting one side which turns out to the nothing at all and the position loses.  What you see, is basically what you want to see, and might be far different from what a jury sees.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

What made no sense......They were in place to prevent this .....until they werent ....the attack occurred just shortly after it left.......btw cop wasnt ordered to leave by her superiors,,,,,,,guess this is new info to you eh


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Rotsa ruck proving OEM feature is indicative of intent to kill...


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Well if the board is any indication of the potential jury pool; I'd wager this case is anything but,  a slam dunk...
> ...


That could just as easily be interpreted as an overwhelming instinct to his flight reaction...


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Only when that’s all you are willing to see...


----------



## Pogo (Dec 30, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The car will be fully examined and whether or not the airbags were disabled will be made abundantly known.   For real, not for message board.



No shit Sherlock.  We pointed all this out months ago.  It was presumably determined the day of or at least the week of.

The original pics/videos showing clearly no air bag deployed are way back in this thread but here's a new angle I hadn't seen before to add:




Just after the impact.  You can clearly see the driver's hands on the wheel at the 10 o'clock/2o'clock position.  You can clearly see the outline of his shirt, and his face.  Had the air bag deployed, we wouldn't see those shirtsleeves. Or the shoulder harness diagonally across his shirt.

Also I understand when the air bag deploys it activates an automatic fuel shut-off switch, which disables the engine, which would have made it impossible to throw it into reverse and tear back up the street.  Obviously that didn't happen either.  Again, if you disable the system beforehand -- it won't.  And if your aim is to ram people with a car and run away, you disable that system.

Although I'm sure the board Nazis will float the idea that it the fuel did shut off and the local police pulled the car back up the street with a giant magnet.  Anything to get the terrorist off the hook............


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > The car will be fully examined and whether or not the airbags were disabled will be made abundantly known.   For real, not for message board.
> ...


No need for conspiratorial theatrics... I have the airbags disabled in my truck right now. Does that mean I’m about to kill someone with it? And please do have the balls to answer....


----------



## OldLady (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I didn't know you could shut off your airbags.  My car doesn't appear to have that switch...


----------



## OldLady (Dec 30, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Why would you disable them?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 30, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Fight or Flight?  Is it an instinctive or a learned behavior?
> ...



The *fight or flight* response refers to a specific biochemical reaction that both humans and animals experience *during* intense stress or fear. The sympathetic nervous system releases hormones that cause changes to occur throughout the body.

Did he run, or did he fight, that is your question.  Mens rea can be determined by facts present before and after the act, and thus determine the actors culpability. 

What We Know About James Alex Fields, Driver Charged in Charlottesville Killing

Common sense of the members of the jury will determine his intent.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > The car will be fully examined and whether or not the airbags were disabled will be made abundantly known.   For real, not for message board.
> ...



Wow!  That picture sure looks like the man is under an intense attack.   No wonder he got out of there in a panic.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 30, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Yeah, it's too bad someone in the crowd immediately after the event didn't counsel the poor fellow and assure him he was the victim of mob violence. I'm sure you agree, tippsy.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 30, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The baseball bat that crushed in his windshield did an excellent job of assuring him that he was the victim of mob violence.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 30, 2017)

OldLady said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


While that is irrelevant in the case at hand; mine are disabled because I need access to the gear I keep in the truck, and cannot afford to have the fuel cut off engage in the event of a collision.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


You implied Fields would get off because a squad car moved away from that street, did you not? What part of that do you think I got wrong?


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Another example......of seeing what you want.......there is a stated fact........and moonbats make up shit to fit their prejudice


----------



## OldLady (Dec 30, 2017)

Wry Catcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


I worry a bit about the first degree murder charge.  It's a lot harder to determine premeditation.  I KNOW they think the airbag thing proves it, but the jury may not buy it.  Like Vastator said, that guy may have disabled his airbags years ago.
I wouldn't want to see him walk.  Is he still charged with second degree murder just in case?


----------



## BulletProof (Dec 30, 2017)

OldLady said:


> I didn't know you could shut off your airbags.  My car doesn't appear to have that switch...



Cars don't have switches to turn off air bags.  You'll gave to forgive the asshole bigot who manufactures evidence to justify his prejudice against the kid.  

If there should have been an airbag discharge, but wasn't one, most likely the car had been in a previous collision and the air bags were never replaced.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Dec 30, 2017)

Sick how conservatives celebrate this murderer


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


That doesn’t absolve him of the multiple felonies, including murder, committed *before* that happened.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


Well I gave you the opportunity to show what I got wrong and you bailed; so clearly, I accurately read your post.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Nothing to show because my post makes no such claim.....except to magicaL THINKERS


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


LOL 

Suuure, you never said this should be withdrawn and how a squad car, blocking that street, was moved just prior to the attack.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He is utterly confused and clearly doesn’t know what he’s saying.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


YEah and how did you leap to that equals acquital.....LLMMAAOOOO


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


I never said anything about an "acquittal." You said, "withdrawn," which I equated to "getting off," as in the case against him withdrawn.

Thanks for throwing in the towel and proving you're just another fruitcake.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

[[/QUOTE]


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Faun said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


yeah officer withdrew.....face it none of your excuses for your leap of insanity fit


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> [[ /QUOTE]


LOL

Smartest post you've made yet.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Dec 30, 2017)

Yeah lol .....obviously officer withdrawing means I meant charges......read much


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 30, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



That windshield was crushed by the impact on the victim, just like the hood got crushed.

I have seen no photo or video showing a bat striking the front right of the vehicle used as a weapon.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 30, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> 
> It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
> VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat


It well documented through video from cell phone cameras and other video equipment that the counter protesters of the alleged white conservatives, attacked with bats, clubs and other weapons. FIRST. 
The mayor of Charlottesville was informed of the potential for a massive fight, ordered the State Police to stand down and leave the area. Antifa showed up spoiling for a riot. And they got one. THEY went in with the intent to start a confrontation with violence.


----------



## Faun (Dec 30, 2017)

thereisnospoon said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...


Yes, it is well documented.

At the 0:46 mark, you can see no one hits the windshield with a baseball bat...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 31, 2017)

Faun said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


No because the unedited version shows the rioters hitting the GUY with a club....
Antifa is a riotous bunch of violent hoodlums who by the way are a bunch of fucking pussies who put on masks and can't do battle one on one. And notice those cocksuckers have scattered under the baseboard like the cockroaches they are. 
Look, don;t ever defend the indefensible. You won't like the reaction. 
Just do yourself a favor. and take your opinions and bother someone else with them. We're done.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 31, 2017)

thereisnospoon said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



The rear bumper of the car was hit by a flagpole before the car struck the crowd.  Based on the videos of the incident, that's the only thing to hit the car before the car hit the crowd, and at the point the flagpole hit the car it was almost surely too late for the car to have stopped, indicating it was going to run into the crowd before anyone struck it.

The videos I have seen, some of which have been linked into this thread, do not show bats, clubs, and other weapons striking the car before it plowed into the crowd of people.  Just one guy with hitting the bumper with a flagpole.  Call that a bat or club if you want, it was still just the one guy.  Now AFTER the car drove into the crowd, some people definitely hit it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


You're demented. I just showed you the video.

If you _think _there's another video of someone smashing the windshield with a baseball bat -- post it...


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


And he hit the rear bumper of the car after it passed him. Fields was already heading towards the crowd at that point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 31, 2017)

thereisnospoon, post: 18945514 





thereisnospoon said:


> It well documented through video from cell phone cameras and other video equipment that the counter protesters of the alleged white conservatives, attacked with bats, clubs and other weapons. FIRST.



It is not at all, let alone well documented except in the fake reality that has asphyxiated the minds of so many conservatives in the USA. 

That is why first degree murder charges have been filed against your NAZI, 

Your Nazi's purposeful intent to murder was obvious from watching video immediately following the hate crime.


----------



## hadit (Dec 31, 2017)

thereisnospoon said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.
> ...



All of that is true. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the driver. When you are driving a car, it is your responsibility to avoid hitting pedestrians if at all possible. At the first sign of the crowd in the street, it became his responsibility to slow down, stop, or take an alternate route to avoid it. It simply doesn't matter why they're in the street or if they are there illegally.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I don't think even a pro baseball player could make an impact on a windshield like that with a baseball bat.


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


There's video of his windshield upon impact and until he fled. No one is seen hitting his windshield with a baseball bat. The only thing that hit it was the body of the woman who was thrown over the car in front of him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 31, 2017)

Faun said:


> There's video of his windshield upon impact and until he fled. No one is seen hitting his windshield with a baseball bat. The only thing that hit it was the body of the woman who was thrown over the car in front of him.



The Antifa guys were beating on the car at the rear window after the Nazi killed one person. His murder weapon was still running.

It was their civic duty to keep a Nazi from killing more.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 31, 2017)

Don't be surprised if he walks.   Plenty of times these slam dunk political cases don't pass legal tests.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



So it spontaneously shattered?   Really?  You gonna go with that?


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Don't be surprised if he walks.   Plenty of times these slam dunk political cases don't pass legal tests.


On what legal grounds do you imagine he'll walk?


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 31, 2017)

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be surprised if he walks.   Plenty of times these slam dunk political cases don't pass legal tests.
> ...



He was under attack and panicked.  Therefore, there was no intent to kill or even do harm.   How many times do you have to see the best efforts of social justice warriors done to dirt?

I have seen this exact kind of case end just the way I said.


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


That won't hold water because he wasn't "attacked" until he drove towards the crowd of people.

And if someone wants to flee and not hurt others, does one proceed forward where a wall of people block their escape? Or do they back out from where came where the road is clear?

You're grasping at straws.

And try citing similar circumstances where the person walked....


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 31, 2017)

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It was in the early 90s, during one of the massive latino protests.  A man and his wife were trapped when their car was surrounded by mexicans hammering the car with baseball bats.  The old man stepped on the gas and ran over one of the protesters.  No crime.

More recently, remember the man who was trying to escape motorcyclists attacking his car.  He ran right over one of the attackers.   No crime.  

Just don't be surprised.   Liberals always think they have the slam dunk and they never do.   Aside from the bashed in windshield, the hood of this car is buckled.  He had been under attack for some time.


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Not similar circumstances. No one was hammering his car with baseball bats until after he drove into the crowd.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think even a pro baseball player could make an impact on a windshield like that with a baseball bat.
> ...



Not to defend Pogo, but it is not an easy thing to bust a windshield, though a human body at high speed will do it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


In this case though the crowd did not go to the driver, the driver went to them, big diff, methinks


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  He was "under attack" because some guy was walking around with a flagpole in a public street where he had decided on the spur of the moment to hold a one-car drag race with himself.

---- after driving all the way in from the far side of Ohio for a Nazi event.

--- after posing WITH those Nazis earlier in the day.

---- after having been infatuated with Nazis in high school.  And after threatening to kill his own mother.

Poor misunderstood Nazi. 

Always instructive to see who blubbers on and on trying to get Nazis off the hook.  I wish I could say I did Nazi that coming but it was wholly predictable from an asshat who's publicly called for pot smokers to be shot in the face.

Katz, you're a worthless piece of dung.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Dec 31, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Don't be surprised if he walks. Plenty of times these slam dunk political cases don't pass legal tests.



It's not political. It's a Nazi who committed murder while video on cameras where running. 

Proponents of fake reality can't obliterate the video.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 31, 2017)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It's not political. It's a Nazi who committed murder while video on cameras where running.
> Proponents of fake reality can't obliterate the video.


Fake Reality like people can choose their gender or Global Warming is a science FACT?

That Reality?

roflmao

No, this is about a specific case; this dude intentionally rammed his car into the crowd and the politics is irrelevant.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 31, 2017)

His crime was not premeditated


----------



## Faun (Dec 31, 2017)

Dalia said:


> His crime was not premeditated


Seems to me it was. Once he turned onto that street and decided to continue driving towards the crowd, that was premeditation.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > It's not political. It's a Nazi who committed murder while video on cameras where running.
> ...



That's uh, what the poster just said ---"it's not political".  Exact wording.

Jeezm.  Read much?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This thread shoulda been titled, "USMB Partisan Hacks May Have Been Panicked By Own Hackitude Into Defending Terrorism/Murder".

Just as they did earlier in the year with Jeremy Christian.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 31, 2017)

Faun said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > His crime was not premeditated
> ...


They were other car around , it is not like he plan is crime not lile other Car plows Attack


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...



It's EXACTLY like those.

The fact that there were other cars around in no way gets this terrorist off the hook.  It simply means he was on what we call a "street".  That's where cars hang out --- on 'streets'.

Furthermore as noted several times --- cars in the US, including this one, are equipped with air bags and fuel shutoff switches which, upon a front impact, blow up an air bag in the driver's face (to keep him from launching forward into the dashboard or windshield) and to disable the engine in the event the throttle is stuck.  Neither of those happened, indicating he might have disabled them KNOWING he was going to use the car as what we call a "battering ram".

Further furthermore, immediately after he plowed into the car and injured several people he immediately put the car into reverse and took off up the street and drove away at a high rate of speed.  And he ran people over in both directions.  Both of those including leaving the scene of an "accident" -- are illegal.

There is *NO* defense for this terrorist.  ZERO.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Pogo, we don't know if he just wanted to leave and go home , where was he before i mean just before ?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...



He does not have the OPTION to "go home".  He's already run people over -- TWICE.  He's already plowed his car into another one.  He *CANNOT* go home.  He cannot go _anywhere_.

"Just" before, he must have been on another street, getting into position.  A little while before he was posing (standing) with Nazis.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Yes, i know that what was he doing just before it is important


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And "home" was northwestern Ohio, where he came from to be with the Nazis.  That's seven hundred kilometers he came to be there.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


Yes Pogo, the question is did he already plan it or not? i think not


----------



## Pogo (Dec 31, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I do not think he planned it before, or while, driving from Ohio.  He couldn't have known there would be the opportunity.  But when he saw a street with people at the intersection, plus enough room to accelerate toward them, and probably an escape route, I think that's when he plans it.  Part of which may have been disabling the air bag so that it would not get in the way _during _that escape (it should not have been possible to immediately retreat, let alone being illegal).


----------



## Faun (Jan 1, 2018)

Dalia said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


Premeditation doesn’t require planning. It only requires killing with the intent to kill.


----------



## Faun (Jan 1, 2018)

Dalia said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


If he wanted to “just leave,” he would have done so prior to driving the length of two full city blocks, into a crowd of people.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 2, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has over 100 pages going over this, so I won't get into much detail.  To summarize, the sidewalk wasn't particularly more crowded than the street; by the time the car was struck, it was already probably going to hit someone; if there had been no car, it's entirely possible that Fields still wouldn't have been able to pass through, because of how crowded the streets were; it does not require racism for someone to look at the evidence and believe this was an attack rather than some sort of escape attempt.
> ...



Quit following the story much after that last vid became available, since it was obvious by then this was just going to be a grandstanding witchhunt and a political pogrom, not a genuine criminal trial. He is,, however, guilty of ramming that car in the first vid negligently, so he should have to go to trial over that. Any charges over and above reckless driving are of course just racist and discriminatory, more like the Zimmerman case. It's obvious that mob of hired Democratic Party racists and thugs and their fans were there to commit violence from the get go, so any 'participants' in it don't get to claim any special innocence or legal standing, it was a riot, one planned by left wing racists, plain and simple.

If he were deliberately trying to kill anybody, he had plenty of targets walking around to aim for; obviously he rammed a car instead, so we know for a fact he wasn't out to murder anybody, given the dozens and hundreds of potential victims along that street before he reached the traffic jam. If he gets charged with anything, so should the organizers of the rioting left wing racists and their media promoters.

He should lose his driver's license for a while, and have to pay for any medical bills for the occupants of the car he hit.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 2, 2018)

Vastator said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



They certainly are re these political lynchings, true.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 2, 2018)

Picaro said:


> If he were deliberately trying to kill anybody, he had plenty of targets walking around to aim for


Terrorists try to kill and maim as nany possible. That is a weak defense of your Nazi. He targeted the most dense crowd.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 2, 2018)

Picaro said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Who claimed "special" innocence?

The car rammed into the crowd in front of it.  Your argument is that because the driver didn't try to pick off the people on the sidewalks, he must not have been attempting to kill anyone?  Also, if you watch the video and look at the pictures, the driver almost surely could not see the cars that were in the road in the crowd.

But of course, these charges are "just racist and discriminatory"!


----------



## Dalia (Jan 2, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Yes, Nothing was found to prove that he had prepared his act in advance.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2018)

Dalia said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


So? Preparing in advance to kill is not a prerequisite for first degree murder.


----------



## Dalia (Jan 2, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


First-degree murder, or capital murder as it is often called, is the most serious form of murder. In most states, a first degree murder involves elements like deliberate planning, premeditation, or malice. _Deliberate_ means that the defendant makes a clear-headed decision to kill the victim. _Premeditation_ involves showing the defendant actually thought about the killing before it occurred.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2018)

Dalia said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


As stated earlier, all first degree murder requires is the intent to kill. Planning is not required and premeditation can occur in the blink of an eye.


----------



## Dalia (Jan 2, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Did it have a follow up? the media at least at my home did not talk about whether he was jailed and for how many years


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2018)

Dalia said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


Who said he was convicted? He hasn’t gone to trial yet. But he was indicted on first degree murder charges, which requires nothing more than the intent to kill someone with his car as he drove into that crowd.


----------



## Dalia (Jan 2, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I did not said he was convicted i ask about the follow up....Thank for respond.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2018)

Dalia said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


What I gave was the latest info I read. There are no years to serve until he’s convicted — IF he’s convicted.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 2, 2018)

Picaro said:


> Any charges over and above reckless driving are of course just racist and discriminatory



Ummmmmmm..... "racist"?  

You understand that "racist" does not mean "one who races, as a car" do you not?  Or don't you?

How the FUCK do you get "racist" out of this?





Picaro said:


> we know for a fact he wasn't out to murder anybody,



Oh we do, do we.

Oh do go on, please.  Prove this negative for the class.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 2, 2018)

Pogo said:


> You understand that "racist" does not mean "one who races, as a car" do you not?


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 2, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> [Q
> The car rammed into the crowd in front of it.  Your argument is that because the driver didn't try to pick off the people on the sidewalks, he must not have been attempting to kill anyone?  Also, if you watch the video and look at the pictures, the driver almost surely could not see the cars that were in the road in the crowd.
> 
> But of course, these charges are "just racist and discriminatory"!



Not all of us are gifted with your racist, ignorant fucktard prejudice.  Because this kid didn't aim at people on the sidewalk, I don't know that he was trying to hurt anyone.  Rear-ending another a car is not the first choice of someone wanting to hurt others.  Even you fucktards don't try to hurt others that way


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 2, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Have you watched video of the incident?  The driver almost surely did not even know there were other cars within/past the crowd.  There were too many people to see that.  I'm also not sure why only people on the sidewalk being hit by a car indicates intent; since when did ramming a car into a crowd indicate someone *not* trying to hurt anyone?   

I'm also extremely curious how a person believing that the evidence indicates intent means racism from that person.  Am I racist against whites because the driver is white?  But wouldn't I be happy he killed a white woman?

Based on your comments so far, I'm sure you're going to reply with wit and eloquence.


----------



## Faun (Jan 2, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...


And then we have reality -- where you're incapable of demonstrating he could see a stopped car beyond the wall of people he drove into.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 2, 2018)

BulletProof, post: 18937290 





BulletProof said:


> If you wanted to kill people, do you aim for the car or the crowd beside the car? Idiot, .....



You are the idiot. In the photo you posted, the crowd is on the sidewalk *AFTER* the rear end crash. How stupid can you NAZI apologists be? You have no sense of the motion of the killer's vehicle and the motion of the pedestrians. Your mind got stuck on a still shot photo when videos showing motion is available.


----------



## MaryL (Jan 2, 2018)

Hurting innocent people that never did anything to you other than disagree is unacceptable. Period.  But it's pretty rare in America, but in  Europe or the Middle East,  Muslims plow cars into people, use truck bombs or otherwise do worse and we defend Muslims because...But this ONE mentally deranged man  in Charlotte has become  a poster boy for ALL things libs don't like about their critics...Well, fair is fair, why not condemn all Muslims everywhere with the same broad brush then...?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 2, 2018)

MaryL, post: 1896781 





MaryL said:


> Well, fair is fair, why not condemn all Muslims everywhere with the same broad brush then...?



All Muslims are not aligned with terrorists. More Muslims are victims of terrorists acting in the name of Islam, than non-Muslims.

Nazis are Nazis are Nazis. They hate people that are not European white enough for them. That is there purpose for being Nazis. Hate!

Your attempt at false equivalency is duly noted. Why did you do it? Do you hate Muslims?

There were *1.8 billion Muslims* in the world as of 2015 – roughly 24% of the global population – according to a Pew Research Center estimate."

If one quarter of the population of the world were terrorist killers we would be in very serious trouble right now. The high and vast majority of Muslims belong to a religion of peace. Just ask George W Bush.

Not all conservatives are bad:

Jan 31, 2017 · Jenna Bush Hager tweets father's 2001 speech: 'Islam is peace' ... just a reminder this am to teach acceptance and love to our kids for all races, all religions..”."

Well maybe Jenna is not a conservative.

And it's notable that your suggestion that a killer Nazi is 'mentally deranged' but terrorists that cite Islam when they terrorize are not given that sympathetic pass.

This attacker is not a poster boy for critics of liberalism as you suggest. He's a visibly seen NAZI white supremacist member who is visibly seen in video deliberately plowing his car into a crowd protesting the visit to their town by a bunch of hate mongering ignorant despicable Nazis.

Your post is weird. What is your true message here?


----------



## MaryL (Jan 2, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> MaryL, post: 1896781
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. That  child was deranged. He was unhinged. Violence is inexcusable in all it's forms and guises. Yes?  I also remember 9/11, where thousands of innocent people were killed by  deranged  people. Accept those people  planned THAT well in advance, they used ruses and hid under religion, and they still do now.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 3, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Not all of us are gifted with your racist, ignorant fucktard prejudice.  Because this kid didn't aim at people on the sidewalk, I don't know that he was trying to hurt anyone.  Rear-ending another a car is not the first choice of someone wanting to hurt others.  Even you fucktards don't try to hurt others that way



Just ignore the diaper wetters and neo-fascist racists here; all they have is a bib bunch of nothing and a fervent need to deflect from the facts. The vid shows a man in a car being attacked by a mob, racing for a block or two and hitting another car in the rear, passing all kinds of targets. How some obese illegal rioter with obvious health issues having a heart attack over a car wreck amounts to first degree murder is anything but political lynching is of course what they can't explain or address, since they would then have to admit the blame lies overwhelmingly with their fellow racist neo-fascist mobsters attacking people driving down a street and terrorizing people during an illegal and criminal riot, complete with armed thugs recruited and paid to create mayhem violence, that's all. He had plenty of opportunity to hit dozens of people, but just hit a car.

And you're wrong about these fucktards not trying to hurt others; there are plenty of vids demonstrating they in fact aim to do just that, all the time, and there are vids from that riot showing this guy was attacked violently just driving down the street by the vermin these apologists and racists here love so dearly. And, I'll add that over-charging people with such nonsense charges tend to backfire on those political hacks who like to grandstand by bringing them. He is bound to get off on appeal, even if the local cherry- picked vermin railroad him on these bogus charges, and the rioters and hired Party thugs come again and assault people and destroy property.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 3, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> MaryL, post: 1896781
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, just a large percentage of them are just fine with terrorism against 'infidels'. Only idiots like yourself are still running around claiming 'only a tiny percentage' are supporters. And of course you run around spreading that rubbish because you support terrorism, too, like your peer group of left wing vermin buddies here in the U.S. do. All of you really suck at trying to appear like you don't.

Muslim Opinion Polls

You and your ilk are just a collection of sicko mentally ill deviants, that's all, and you all prove it every single day here on this board. Running around babbling about 'Natzees N Stuff!' isn't fooling anybody about what you neo-fascist racists are yourselves.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro, post: 18968504 Picaro, post: 18968504 





Picaro said:


> No, just a large percentage of them are just fine with terrorism against 'infidels'.



I didn't see any poll in your anti-Muslim rant link where Muslims say they are aligned with terrorists; meaning they would commit terrorist attacks themselves or participate any way. 

All you can come up with as an answer is "a large number" which actually means nothing. 

Your anti-Muslim and support for racist Islamaphobes  like Daniel Pipes is duly noted. 



> .
> In 1990, Pipes asserted: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."
> 
> Pipes has stated that the views of far-right French racist Jean-Marie Le Pen “represent an important outlook in the national debate over immigration and Islam” and said that he (Pipes) supports racial and religious profiling of Muslims and Arabs.



Daniel Pipes

If one third of young adult Muslims are wannabe terrorists then western infidel society in order to servive, would have to ban the practice of Islam and exterminate anyone that does . Is that what you are pushing for? Concentration camps with gas chambers? 



What percentage of Muslims are terrorists is your Islamaphobic assessment?


----------



## Picaro (Jan 3, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Picaro, post: 18968504 Picaro, post: 18968504
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol posting insane rubbish again. You can't really back up your idiotic nonsense re Muslims support of terrorism, so why keep trying? This ludicrous attempt doesn't work, either. That's because you can't think for yourself and keep sucking up to your mentally ill peer group, as if repeating their sociopathic lunacy like a chant will make the evil spirits go away n stuff. lol

The Peanut Gallery can note whose polls are being cited, and they aren't Pipes polls, they are all noted pollsters, despite you lack of ability to even look at the links and the polls. Not that you can even dispute anything Pipes has to say, either. that's because you're a frothing loon who hates anybody Democrats and 'progressives tell you to, no matter what.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro, post: 18968682 





Picaro said:


> make the evil spirits go away n stuff. lol



What's your plan to make 1.8 billion Muslims go away? Bitch and hate on a message board?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Not all of us are gifted with your racist, ignorant fucktard prejudice.  Because this kid didn't aim at people on the sidewalk, I don't know that he was trying to hurt anyone.  Rear-ending another a car is not the first choice of someone wanting to hurt others.  Even you fucktards don't try to hurt others that way
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Not all of us are gifted with your racist, ignorant fucktard prejudice.  Because this kid didn't aim at people on the sidewalk, I don't know that he was trying to hurt anyone.  Rear-ending another a car is not the first choice of someone wanting to hurt others.  Even you fucktards don't try to hurt others that way
> ...



Is that what you think the video shows?


----------



## Picaro (Jan 3, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Picaro, post: 18968682
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah , so you think 'Posting Last' works ... lol it doesn't, you still look like an idiot trying to defend murdering vermin.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



You think it doesn't? I don't see where he ran over the alleged 'victim' in it. Do you claim to see it? I don't see him hitting anybody, except a car in front of him. Maybe you're just magical, but mostly you just seem to get off on using the government to screw over people you don't like, like all the other 'social justice' types, and think it's okay. More than a little ironic for people who are supposed to be ' anti-establishment radicals n stuff'.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL, post: 1896781
> ...



lmao:  ^^ tries to come off as "informed", complete with link -------


---------------- link goes to TROP.  

Can't make it up.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


He didn't have to run her over -- he committed a felony during which, she died. Virginia law defines that as murder.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 3, 2018)

Picaro said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



You don't see him hitting anybody?






Nobody being hit there....


Nope, can't see anyone being hit there....there's no slow motion showing people being tossed aside by the car....

Are you trolling, or just so supportive of the idea of running over protesters that you're happy to lie about it?  Even the various people who have defended the driver by claiming he was just trying to escape have admitted he hit people with the car.  You're the first person I've seen claim that the driver did not hit anyone.

But I must be just "using the government to screw over people I don't like."  I suppose that's true, if you count people who drive their cars into crowds as "people I don't like."


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Nope, can't see anyone being hit there....there's no slow motion showing people being tossed aside by the car....
> 
> Are you trolling, or just so supportive of the idea of running over protesters that you're happy to lie about it?  Even the various people who have defended the driver by claiming he was just trying to escape have admitted he hit people with the car.  You're the first person I've seen claim that the driver did not hit anyone.
> 
> But I must be just "using the government to screw over people I don't like."  I suppose that's true, if you count people who drive their cars into crowds as "people I don't like."



Sorry, faggot, I don't have the blind, prejudiced eyes you have. Your video shows him passing hordes of disorderly fascists without so much as trying to clip them.  He's driving right down the middle of the road until he hits the car in front of him.  And, fucktard faggot, rear-ending a car is no one's plan to hurt others, because anyone would figure that's how to make yourself the first casualty.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 3, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, can't see anyone being hit there....there's no slow motion showing people being tossed aside by the car....
> ...



Troll it is.


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, can't see anyone being hit there....there's no slow motion showing people being tossed aside by the car....
> ...


Dumbfuck... he hit hordes of people before blindly hitting the car which [thankfully] stopped him in his tracks from hitting even more people.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck... he hit hordes of people before blindly hitting the car which [thankfully] stopped him in his tracks from hitting even more people.



Uh, the fucktard is calling me a dumbfunk.  What a fucktard!   Hey, shit-for-brains, at which point did the driver deviate from the middle of the road and hit someone?   By what evidence, shithead, do you rule out that he was just panicked and trying to zoom away?


----------



## Faun (Jan 3, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck... he hit hordes of people before blindly hitting the car which [thankfully] stopped him in his tracks from hitting even more people.
> ...


Dayam, you're one dumbfucking dumbfuck. 

Dumbfuck, there were barricades, motorcycles and electric poles off to the sides while the bulk of the crowd was in the middle of the street directly in front of him.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That doesn't even mention the buildings lining the sides, whereas the street ahead, the driver could only see people.  

In a choice between sidewalks lined with buildings, containing street signs, barricades, motorcycles, and who knows what obstacles, and a road in which the only thing visible is a crowd of people, BulletProof thinks that only trying to hit the people on the sidewalks makes sense for someone who is out to hurt people.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, there were barricades, motorcycles and electric poles off to the sides while the bulk of the crowd was in the middle of the street directly in front of him.



Faun, you are an embarrassing dumb-fuck.  There are no obstacles on the left, not until far down the street where there's a poll.  The posts on the right are only about one car length, dumbfuck faggat.  If this guy were willing to rear-end a car to hurt people, he wouldn't have hesitated to clip motorcycles and send them spinning in to fascist fags on the sidewalk, you stupid, prejudiced shit.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, there were barricades, motorcycles and electric poles off to the sides while the bulk of the crowd was in the middle of the street directly in front of him.
> ...



I wonder, can you see a car past the crowd in the road in this picture?





How about in this one?





What about here?  (The black truck on the right is parked and was not the one the driver hit)





When you watch the videos of the event, can you see the cars surrounded by the crowd before the impact?

Why do you assume the driver could see those vehicles through the crowd?


----------



## Faun (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, there were barricades, motorcycles and electric poles off to the sides while the bulk of the crowd was in the middle of the street directly in front of him.
> ...


LOLOLOL

You double down on dumbfuckery. There’s a barricade on the left (not visible in that photo), newspaper machines, and an electric poll (circled). And while there’s only a few people on the sidewalk, there was a thick crowd straight in front of him that he was salivating running over.

And speaking of thick (you), he wasn’t willing to rear ended a car. There’s no way to see stopped cars in the middle of the road because of all the people in front of him.

You’re truly fucked in the head. Rear ending a car served no purpose.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I know I'm nit-picking, but you both mean *pole*, not poll.


----------



## Faun (Jan 4, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...


Don’t be that guy.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If had just been one, I might have let it go.....but you both did it!


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Defense will say that the kid was driving in the middle of the road, never once swerving to hit anyone or anything, as far away from the people on the sides as he could get. Demonstrating no intent to hurt anyone.   The slimeball prosecution  will say he was just avoiding the barricade NOT VISIBLE on the left and the pole (ty) on the far away on the left. The Defense will point out the fascist fag who did swerve, swerve into the street to club the car.  The slimeball prosecution will whine that the kid is white male and therefor it should be presumed that he had intent to harm others -- because fucktard, prejudice is all you have.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...



Or the prosecution might point out that the driver drove his car directly into a crowd of people without appearing to slow or otherwise attempt to avoid hitting any of them. 

I don't think that the argument, "The driver didn't try to run over *these *people, so he must not have been trying to run over *those* people" is going to be effective.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 4, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Or the prosecution might point out that the driver drove his car directly into a crowd of people without appearing to slow or otherwise attempt to avoid hitting any of them.
> 
> I don't think that the argument, "The driver didn't try to run over *these *people, so he must not have been trying to run over *those* people" is going to be effective.



The driver rear-ended a car blocking his escape path.  For anyone not a prejudiced shithead, that won't remove reasonable doubt that he was trying to hurt people, rather than flee.  Only a real shithead, that's you, fucktard, find it compelling to believe that he intended to hurt people by proxy of another car, rather than smashing into those soft targets directly.


----------



## Faun (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof said:
> ...


LOLOL

Upping the dumbfuckedness, are you?

An unabashed racist rams his car into a crowd of counter-protesters and you're ignorant enough to think I'm the prejudiced one.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Or the prosecution might point out that the driver drove his car directly into a crowd of people without appearing to slow or otherwise attempt to avoid hitting any of them.
> ...



Go back a few posts, to #1370.  In which of those pictures can you see the car that was eventually rear ended?  I can't see it at all.  Nor do I see it in any of the video footage from behind Fields's car.

Do you have a picture, or point in any video footage, in which the cars in the crowd can be seen from the point of view of Fields's car?  I'd love to see that.

I'll put in another way: The driver rear-ending a car is the only reason more people were not hurt.  The driver would not have rear-ended the car could he have seen it.  If he could see the car in front of him, why didn't he try to avoid it?  Your argument is that because he rear-ended the car, he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, but instead was trying to flee....meaning he must have seen the car in front of him.  But if he saw the car in front of him, and wanted to flee, and was willing to go through the pedestrians in order to do so, why did he not turn to avoid rear-ending that car?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof, post: 18985128 





BulletProof said:


> The slimeball prosecution will say he was just avoiding the barricade NOT VISIBLE on the left and the pole (ty) on the far away on the left.



They won't bother with your nonsense. They don't have to. They will just present the numerous videos as evidence, showing a deliberate attack on a large crowd of pedestrians at the intersection.

In other words; 

ut ipsa loquitur

Let the facts (VIDEO) speak for themselves.


----------



## Faun (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Or the prosecution might point out that the driver drove his car directly into a crowd of people without appearing to slow or otherwise attempt to avoid hitting any of them.
> ...


LOLOL

Even according to you -- his escape route takes him through a mob of people when an actual escape route, behind him, had no one in the street. And according to you, he chooses the route so full of pedestrians, he can't even see the car stopped in the middle of the road

Do you have any idea at all how stupid you sound?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 4, 2018)

BulletProof, post: 18985128 





BulletProof said:


> The Defense will say that the kid was driving in the middle of the road, never once swerving to hit anyone or anything, as far away from the people on the sides as he could get.



No they won't. You are stupid. There is no other excuse for your post. The defense lawyers presumably are not stupid meaning they are not going to present stupid arguments. Not swerving to hit a few pedestrians has to be right up there as the stupidest argument of all in defense of a wannabe NAZI mass murderer deliberately accelerating his vehicle in a straight line toward the most dense crowd of pedestrians on the road.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 5, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No they won't. You are stupid. There is no other excuse for your post. The defense lawyers presumably are not stupid meaning they are not going to present stupid arguments. Not swerving to hit a few pedestrians has to be right up there as the stupidest argument of all in defense of a wannabe NAZI mass murderer deliberately accelerating his vehicle in a straight line toward the most dense crowd of pedestrians on the road.



It's the job the defense to keep prejudiced fucktards like you off the jury.  Someone who wants to hurt other people with a car is going to aim at other people, not aim at another car, where the greatest risk of injury is to himself, not just from the collision, but from the fascist fucktard mob.  Too bad you're too stupid to understand.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 5, 2018)

BulletProof, post: 18993759 





BulletProof said:


> Someone who wants to hurt other people with a car is going to aim at other people, not aim at another car.....



He did not aim at another car. He aimed at people. The most people. The densest mass of people within his sight. Your defense of your NAZI makes a solid case that his intent was to be a mass murderer - a terrorist. A NAZI terrorist.


----------



## hadit (Jan 5, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> BulletProof, post: 18993759
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't need inflammatory names for him. The fact that he not only didn't avoid the crowd but deliberately drove into it means he doesn't walk. Vehicular homicide at the least.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > No they won't. You are stupid. There is no other excuse for your post. The defense lawyers presumably are not stupid meaning they are not going to present stupid arguments. Not swerving to hit a few pedestrians has to be right up there as the stupidest argument of all in defense of a wannabe NAZI mass murderer deliberately accelerating his vehicle in a straight line toward the most dense crowd of pedestrians on the road.
> ...


You’re deranged. 

Forget for a moment that he couldn’t even see the car he hit until he hit it... why the fuck would he want to hit a car??


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 6, 2018)

hadit said:


> You don't need inflammatory names for him. T



I have no problem with calling a self identified white nationalist, supremist, hater a NAZI.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Forget for a moment that he couldn’t even see the car he hit until he hit it... why the fuck would he want to hit a car??



So, dumbshit bigot Democrat, you think he was trying to hit people in the road on the other side of the car he couldn't see?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 6, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> So, dumbshit bigot Democrat, you think he was trying to hit people in the road on the other side of the car he couldn't see?




You must be a Russian troll. Are you trying to make us intelligent reasonable Americans give up hope by convincing us that about one third of Americans (Trump's hate base) have lost the ability to think and rely on facts and rational  thinking. 

My God, you have lost your mind. He could not see stopped cars. He only saw people. The video evidence is so clear.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Forget for a moment that he couldn’t even see the car he hit until he hit it... why the fuck would he want to hit a car??
> ...


LOLOL 

Instead of asking me questions, dumbfuck, why don’t you just answer mine? Or can’t you without sounding even more retarded than you already do?

*why the fuck would he want to hit a car??*

Oh, and the answer to your question is ... yes.


----------



## gtopa1 (Jan 7, 2018)

NotfooledbyW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need inflammatory names for him. T
> ...



Except he's not a German and so not a Nazi. Fucktard? Maybe, but NOT a Nazi.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Jan 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > BulletProof, post: 18993759
> ...



"Deliberate"...isn't that for the COURT to decide? If he's guilty then by all means; LIFE BEHIND BARS at least. But please; no lynchings; not everyone is a  DemoKKKrat supporter. 

Greg


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



I say it's deliberate because he had plenty of room and time to stop and avoid the crowd. He did not.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 7, 2018)

hadit said:


> I say it's deliberate because he had plenty of room and time to stop and avoid the crowd. He did not.



The issue is whether he intended to hurt or kill people.  The fact that he rear-ended a car and made no attempt to directly hit anyone shows that he had no intent to hurt anyone.  But, in the minds of shithead bigots on the Left, the fact that he's a "racist" white male who hurt someone, that proves that he intended to hurt someone.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > I say it's deliberate because he had plenty of room and time to stop and avoid the crowd. He did not.
> ...


Why are you so afraid to answer a question? Why would he want to read end a car?


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Why are you so afraid to answer a question? Why would he want to read end a car?



Racist shitheads on the Left think that he rear-ended a car as superior choice to running directly into the crowd of fascists, to hurt the fascists.  He ran into the car because he was panicked and the car was blocking his get-away path.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so afraid to answer a question? Why would he want to read end a car?
> ...


You said he could see the stopped car. If his intent was to escape, why would he drive into a car? You’re not making any sense at all, dumbfuck. That’s what makes you a dumbfuck.


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> You said he could see the stopped car. If his intent was to escape, why would he drive into a car? You’re not making any sense at all, dumbfuck. That’s what makes you a dumbfuck.



My guess is he either didn't think about the car being there because of his panicked state, or he hoped the driver of the other car would decide to move if pushed.

Would you like to explain why he made no attempt to directly hit any of the many people along the road?    Some shithead explained that he didn't want to hit the NOT VISIBLE barricade far down the street.  Really, you're on the side shitheads, shithead.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You said he could see the stopped car. If his intent was to escape, why would he drive into a car? You’re not making any sense at all, dumbfuck. That’s what makes you a dumbfuck.
> ...


Dayam, you’re fucked in the head. This has already been explained. There were too many obstacles on the sides of the road and he set his sights on the bulk of the crowd, which was directly ahead of him.


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > I say it's deliberate because he had plenty of room and time to stop and avoid the crowd. He did not.
> ...



The simplest way to avoid hurting anyone is:

Stop the car.
Back the car up.
Turn the car around.
Go a different way.

That's not what he did. Stop pretending the event started when he was 10 feet from the crowd. He made a decision to drive into a situation in which people got hurt. You can argue motivation until the cows come home, but he made the decisions that got those people hurt.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > I say it's deliberate because he had plenty of room and time to stop and avoid the crowd. He did not.
> ...



The fact that he rear-ended a car he couldn't see, after driving directly into a crowd of people, shows he had no intent to hurt anyone?


----------



## BulletProof (Jan 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> The fact that he rear-ended a car he couldn't see, after driving directly into a crowd of people, shows he had no intent to hurt anyone?



If I hadn't see people as stupid as you, I'd think it was impossible, impossible to be dumber than a rock. If he didn't' see the car, why would he have seen the jaywalking fascists on the other side of the car?


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that he rear-ended a car he couldn't see, after driving directly into a crowd of people, shows he had no intent to hurt anyone?
> ...



What are you talking about?  Who said he saw the people on the other side of the car he rear ended?  

The people he saw were the ones between him and the car he rear-ended, as you can clearly see in the photo and video of the event.  You know, the various people he ran into, which lead to his being charged with murder?  

Or are you now trying to claim that the car the driver rear ended was between him and the crowd in the road?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jan 7, 2018)

BulletProof, post: 19006643 





BulletProof said:


> The fact that he rear-ended a car and made no attempt to directly hit anyone shows that he had no intent to hurt anyone



He killed a woman and injured many before he hit the car.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


His argument is so stupid and so devoid of reasoning, even he can’t maintain it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2018)

BulletProof, post: 1898512 





BulletProof said:


> The Defense will say that the kid was driving in the middle of the road, never once swerving to hit anyone or anything, as far away from the people on the sides as he could get. Demonstrating no intent to hurt anyone. The slimeball prosecution will say he was just avoiding the barricade NOT VISIBLE on the left and the pole (ty) on the far away on the left. The Defense will point out the fascist fag who did swerve, swerve into the street to club the car. The slimeball prosecution will whine that the kid is white male and therefor it should be presumed that he had intent to harm others -- because fucktard, prejudice is all you have.




Guess what? Hate crime and first degree murder among thirty other hate crimes for the people he did not kill. 


*Charlottesville driver faces federal hate crime charges*

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


06/27/2018 01:09 PM EDT


(WASHINGTON — Federal hate crime charges have been filed against a man accused of plowing a car into a crowd of people protesting a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing a woman and injuring dozens more.

The Department of Justice announced that an indictment returned Wednesday charges 21-year-old James Alex Fields of Ohio with 30 crimes, including one count of a hate crime resulting in the death of Heather Heyer, and 28 other hate crimes involving an attempt to kill other people who were injured.)

Charlottesville driver faces federal hate crime charges

Do you still believe, “the kid was driving in the middle of the road, never once swerving to hit anyone or anything, as far away from the people on the sides”?


----------

