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

[Asclepias]

Go sniff some glue cave monkey. He was following the crowd and accelerated into it then he was attacked.

Liar we have the Antifa and BLM terrorists on tape hitting his car before he hit anyone:

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.

Liar he didn't hit anyone until his car was attacked, self defense.

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.

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.

You keep forgetting the video shows he was attacked after he accelerated towards the crowd. It was murder.

 

[Asclepias]

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]

Sign Chaos, post: 17948480

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?

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]

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."

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.

Im confident that the murder charge will be scaled back. It's going to be very tricky to prove intent, and malice aforethought.

Not really. He was tailing the crowd for sometime. If its not murder 1 its definitely murder 2

How is idling through a crowd tailing anyone? I don't think the footage begins early enough to draw that conclusion.

The video speaks for itself. i cant explain it better than the video. Why was he following the crowd?

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]

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.

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]

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. very 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.

It's the instinctive thing to do.

I did it.

Twice.

Said I was sorry both times.

Once I was arrested.

 

[Vastator]

Sign Chaos, post: 17948480

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?

"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]

bgrouse, post: 17939182

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.

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?

The liberals were the ones being violent? So the white nationalists weren't being violent, then?

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?

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]

Montrovant, post: 17948206

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.

Did you not read or not understand the rest of my post which you quoted a portion of?

 

[Vastator]

Liar we have the Antifa and BLM terrorists on tape hitting his car before he hit anyone:

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.

Liar he didn't hit anyone until his car was attacked, self defense.

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.

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.

You keep forgetting the video shows he was attacked after he accelerated towards the crowd. It was murder.

Also attacked after. That doesn't undo the strikes to his vehicle prior to him driving into the crowd.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Liar he didn't hit anyone until his car was attacked, self defense.

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.

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.

You keep forgetting the video shows he was attacked after he accelerated towards the crowd. It was murder.

Also attacked after. That doesn't undo the strikes to his vehicle prior to him driving into the crowd.

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]

Montrovant, post: 17948714

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]

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.

It can happen and has happened.
Car runs over motorcycle in bizarre road rage incident caught on video ...
fox13now.com

 

[Montrovant]

Go sniff some glue cave monkey. He was following the crowd and accelerated into it then he was attacked.

Liar we have the Antifa and BLM terrorists on tape hitting his car before he hit anyone:

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.

Liar he didn't hit anyone until his car was attacked, self defense.

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.

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.

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]

Liar he didn't hit anyone until his car was attacked, self defense.

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.

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.

You keep forgetting the video shows he was attacked after he accelerated towards the crowd. It was murder.

Also attacked after. That doesn't undo the strikes to his vehicle prior to him driving into the crowd.

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?

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]

Montrovant, post: 17948714

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?

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]

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.

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.

You keep forgetting the video shows he was attacked after he accelerated towards the crowd. It was murder.

Also attacked after. That doesn't undo the strikes to his vehicle prior to him driving into the crowd.

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?

Now now... Don't make me put you on the list for threat 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.

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]

Vastator, post: 17948639

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]

Vastator, post: 17948639

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.

Between the two... I'd have the lot of them shot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Montrovant, post: 17948810

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.