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

[bgrouse]

bgrouse, post: 17959741

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.?

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.

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.

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."

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]

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:

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]

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.

"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]

They were attacking him before that, too.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.

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.?

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.

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.

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."

You said that he was justified in defending himself.

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]

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]

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.?

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.

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.

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."

You said that he was justified in defending himself.

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.

​

 

[Montrovant]

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

bgrouse, post: 17959298

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.

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.

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?

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 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]

bgrouse, post: 17968029

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]

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.?

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.

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.

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."

You said that he was justified in defending himself.

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.

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]

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]

bgrouse, post: 17968067

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:

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]

bgrouse, post: 17968067

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]

bgrouse, post: 17968029

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:

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I see. So when you disagree with a conclusion, it must be made up?

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]

bgrouse, post: 17959298

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.

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.

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?

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 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."

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]

bgrouse, post: 17968029

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.

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]

bgrouse, post: 17968029

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:

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.

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?