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

[BULLDOG]

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.

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

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?

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.

Where did I make it sound as if it was just an accident? You're snarling at the wrong person.

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]

JimBowie1958, post: 17952911

Neither was Antifa

You said the Nazis were peaceful. I never said Antifa was peaceful.

He didn't say that.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

They were illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare without a permit and then they hit his car with a bat.

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]

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.

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

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?

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.

Where did I make it sound as if it was just an accident? You're snarling at the wrong person.

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.

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]

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.

They were illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare without a permit and then they hit his car with a bat.

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.

But if his intention was to hit people... Why careen into another car first?

 

[Montrovant]

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]

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.

They were illegally blocking a public and open thoroughfare without a permit and then they hit his car with a bat.

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.

But if his intention was to hit people... Why careen into another car first?

First? The driver didn't hit another car until after running into the crowd. What "careen into another car" are you talking about?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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!":

A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi.

 

[dblack]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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!":

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

Not having a permit doesn't carry the penalty of being run over by a car until dead.

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]

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

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?

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.

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.

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!":

A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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!":

A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi.

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.

It doesn't say you can run over them with a car either.

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

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!":

A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi.

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.

It doesn't say you can run over them with a car either.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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!":

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

Not having a permit doesn't carry the penalty of being run over by a car until dead.

Of course not, but they should face charges for their violent actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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]

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.

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.

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!":

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

Not having a permit doesn't carry the penalty of being run over by a car until dead.

Of course not, but they should face charges for their violent actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you speaking in general, or of specific protesters? I wonder which violent actions you mean, if any in particular.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Wait, don't deny constitutional rights to Nazis, but deny them to Antifa?

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie1958, post: 17952911

Neither was Antifa

You said the Nazis were peaceful. I never said Antifa was peaceful.

The majority of both groups were peaceful.

I never said that the fucking Nazis were peaceful, dude.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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

Not having a permit doesn't carry the penalty of being run over by a car until dead.

Ohh but it can. Stupidity can be lethal.

Oh, stop with the display of YOUR stupidity. You know exactly what I meant.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!":

A Nazi with a permit is still a Nazi.

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.

It doesn't say you can run over them with a car either.

He has the right to self defense as well, not to mention the right to freedom of movement and defense of property.