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

[ricechickie]

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

Irrelevant he had a legal right to traverse that open and public thoroughfare.

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

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.

Do you really believe that?

I have it on fucking video bud.

I saw the video, too. At regular speed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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]

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.

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

Irrelevant he had a legal right to traverse that open and public thoroughfare.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

How? That was the fastest most direct way out. Even the cops who arrested him stated that they thought he panicked.

 

[hadit]

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?

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.

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

So it's mob rule then?

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

So it's mob rule then?

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

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.

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

And what law does driving on a public and open thoroughfare violate?

 

[Montrovant]

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

Irrelevant he had a legal right to traverse that open and public thoroughfare.

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

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.

Do you really believe that?

I have it on fucking video bud.

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]

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.

Yeah, nothing has altered that video!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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

Have fun trying to argue that the group of people in the street were kidnapping the man in the car by standing there.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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.

How? That was the fastest most direct way out. Even the cops who arrested him stated that they thought he panicked.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

How? That was the fastest most direct way out. Even the cops who arrested him stated that they thought he panicked.

Link?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JimBowie1958, post: 17954688

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

You chimed in on my response to CSC:

Call Sign Chaos, post: 17951308

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]

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.

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]

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.

Did someone scare the shit out of them?

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.

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?