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

[bgrouse]

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.

It puts distance between him and the initial attacker. Isn't that obvious?

1. I agree, that's the first violent action seen. Polearm is an odd description, though.
2. That is entirely supposition. Not only that, it is supposition which, in my eyes, is unsupported by the evidence.

So you feel that by driving forward, the driver reduced the distance between him and the guy behind him?

3. I wonder why you skipped the part where the driver ran into multiple people and the back of another vehicle? You make it sound as though the driver was trying to flee from the menacing figure wielding the polearm (was it a halberd? a glaive?), and the crowd then joined in before the driver could escape. Where's the collision?

They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area). If someone's trying to kill you and your only hope is escaping out of a door, and some asshole blocks your path, WTF do you do?

4. I find it easy to believe the driver feared for his life after he ran into the crowd and the vehicle in front of him. However, while at least some of the people describing this have posited a panic reaction, you seem to be claiming the driver made a rational decision that he needed to drive through a crowd of dozens of people to escape the guy who hit his bumper with a flag. He was "insufficiently forceful?" If only he'd driven into the crowd faster, his plan to escape might have worked!

Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.

I'm sure that will go over well at the trial: "Your honor, my client was in fear for his life, so he decided to drive through the people on the street. Unfortunately, he was insufficiently forceful."

Laugh all you want. The protesters caused this one. Since they're liberals, I suspect the driver is going to prison.

 

[bgrouse]

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

That's why you shouldn't stand in the middle of a busy street. If I do that, all the other cars are a "threat" to me and I can attack them to protect myself? What if I stand on railroad tracks and a train comes along? It can't stop in time, so am I justified in attacking it?

when one guy swatted at your Nazi's tailight. The impact with people was already set by the laws of physics.

Your Nazi struck first.

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.

...and still no hard evidence showing that he could not have stopped in time prior to the protester's attack.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

I'm always under attack when I stand in the path of a train or car. Who would have thought that I had the right to kill the driver/conductor to "defend" myself?

 

[bgrouse]

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?

Not at that point.

 

[hadit]

When I see people in the street in front of me, I stop. It's really that simple. This guy did not. That's a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bgrouse]

§ 46.2-928. Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left

Pedestrians shall not use the roadways for travel, except when necessary to do so because of the absence of sidewalks which are reasonably suitable and passable for their use. If they walk on the hard surface, or the main travelled portion of the roadway, they shall keep to the extreme left side or edge thereof, or where the shoulders of the highway are of sufficient width to permit, they may walk on either shoulder thereof.

Looks like they were jaywalking so the driver assumed they would get out of his way, which all of them did until he was forced to speed up to save himself after being attacked.

 

[Montrovant]

bgrouse, post: 17959298 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.

In the context of this incident, particularly in the context of the law, self-defense and running away are not the same thing. Intentionally harming innocent people, as would be the case if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd in order to flee from the guy with the flag, is not self-defense. Self-defense is about using reasonable force to defend oneself against an attacker, not against a bystander.

 

[bgrouse]

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.
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.Backing out of the alley is very difficult in a situation like that. How fucking dumb are you?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.

In the context of this incident, particularly in the context of the law, self-defense and running away are not the same thing. Intentionally harming innocent people, as would be the case if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd in order to flee from the guy with the flag, is not self-defense. Self-defense is about using reasonable force to defend oneself against an attacker, not against a bystander.

Maybe that's how the courts will see it. I suspect this guy is screwed. He should have known to keep far away from violent, rabid liberals. He was pretty much doomed as soon as he got too close to that crowd. His choice then was to go to prison (what I think will happen to him) or die. I don't know if there is a case law that excuses one's actions that result in the unintended death of a jaywalking lawbreaker that is merely associated with a violent, murderous mob that caused the whole thing to happen. Probably not.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

It puts distance between him and the initial attacker. Isn't that obvious?

1. I agree, that's the first violent action seen. Polearm is an odd description, though.
2. That is entirely supposition. Not only that, it is supposition which, in my eyes, is unsupported by the evidence.

So you feel that by driving forward, the driver reduced the distance between him and the guy behind him?

3. I wonder why you skipped the part where the driver ran into multiple people and the back of another vehicle? You make it sound as though the driver was trying to flee from the menacing figure wielding the polearm (was it a halberd? a glaive?), and the crowd then joined in before the driver could escape. Where's the collision?

They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area). If someone's trying to kill you and your only hope is escaping out of a door, and some asshole blocks your path, WTF do you do?

4. I find it easy to believe the driver feared for his life after he ran into the crowd and the vehicle in front of him. However, while at least some of the people describing this have posited a panic reaction, you seem to be claiming the driver made a rational decision that he needed to drive through a crowd of dozens of people to escape the guy who hit his bumper with a flag. He was "insufficiently forceful?" If only he'd driven into the crowd faster, his plan to escape might have worked!

Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.

I'm sure that will go over well at the trial: "Your honor, my client was in fear for his life, so he decided to drive through the people on the street. Unfortunately, he was insufficiently forceful."

Laugh all you want. The protesters caused this one. Since they're liberals, I suspect the driver is going to prison.

It puts distance between him and the initial attacker. Isn't that obvious?

As I have stated in a previous post, fleeing and self-defense are different things. Fleeing is avoiding, self-defense is defending against. From a legal standpoint, self-defense is to use a reasonable amount of force against an attacker to protect yourself. Intentionally using force against an innocent bystander is not self-defense.

So you feel that by driving forward, the driver reduced the distance between him and the guy behind him?

No. The supposition is that the driver attempted to put distance between himself and the guy with the flag. The car was already putting distance between itself and the guy who hit it with the flag because it was moving forward the whole time. The videos do not indicate to me that the driver adjusted to get away from the flag wielder. There is little, if any, acceleration, nor change in direction; the car continues on pretty much as it already had been.

They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area). If someone's trying to kill you and your only hope is escaping out of a door, and some asshole blocks your path, WTF do you do?

First, escaping out a door is a far cry from escaping while driving a car. Second, even assuming that the guy with the flag can be said to have been "trying to kill" the driver, speeding into a dense crowd of people is still likely to get you in legal trouble. Third, the driver had another avenue of escape; he could have stopped and backed out. He wouldn't even have had to stop in range of the flag wielder; he could have stopped 10 feet forward, let's say, and then backed down the road. Your suppositions all seem to include intentionally hitting a crowd of pedestrians, and you always seem to see that as perfectly acceptable.

Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.

It would make for a far better legal defense than "driving into a crowd was a reasonable amount of force," I'm pretty certain!

Laugh all you want. The protesters caused this one. Since they're liberals, I suspect the driver is going to prison.

Wonderful, blaming the victims. At most you might say the guy with the flag caused this. I find that ridiculous, but if you operate under the assumption getting hit in the bumper either caused a panic reaction or caused the driver to fear for his life, I can understand blaming him. However, the people hit by the car most certainly did not cause the driver to hit them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 17969028

Not at that point

By your admission then your Nazi was not under any threat as his car passed the person taking this video.

He visibly initiates his attack a split second beyond this moment in time.

There is no case for self defense for the driver. It is the pedestrians trying to get out of the way of a speeding car (traveling at unsafe speed for the conditions) that now have the right of self defense. It is obvious this driver has intent to harm people. That is why the cameras were on him. That is why his car is justifiably being attacked.

If your Nazi tells the judge and jury that he was teaching jaywalkers a lesson / he'll probably get an extra twenty years for that openly expressed disregard for human life.

 

[Montrovant]

§ 46.2-928. Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left

Pedestrians shall not use the roadways for travel, except when necessary to do so because of the absence of sidewalks which are reasonably suitable and passable for their use. If they walk on the hard surface, or the main travelled portion of the roadway, they shall keep to the extreme left side or edge thereof, or where the shoulders of the highway are of sufficient width to permit, they may walk on either shoulder thereof.

Looks like they were jaywalking so the driver assumed they would get out of his way, which all of them did until he was forced to speed up to save himself after being attacked.

And again, I am confident that if a driver hits a pedestrian, even when that pedestrian is in the road illegally, trying a defense of, "Well, I assumed the person would get out of my way" will fail. Just because someone else is doing something wrong, that doesn't mean the law no longer expects a driver to exercise caution and try to avoid hitting a pedestrian if possible.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Your conclusion that it's perfectly normal for a crowd to attack a driver who just suffered a car collision. That's made up.

No, it is my conclusion that it's understandable for a crowd to attack a driver that they believe just intentionally injured and possibly murdered some of their fellows.

So you're going to argue that it's unreasonable to say that driving forward is easier than driving backwards? There's no point in arguing with that. It's just too stupid. You're making no attempt to debate this honestly.

I am not arguing anything of the sort. I am saying it is supposition that the driver was acting in self-defense, and it is supposition that the driver was attempting to flee. Those are both accurate statements. I am debating honestly, you are simply reading things into my posts that I am not saying.

Is it reasonable to expect your car to stop if you let it run out of gas? Is there a law that says so?

You're being ridiculous once again.

It is reasonable to say that drivers must pay attention to pedestrians in the road and attempt to avoid them rather than simply moving forward and assuming the pedestrian will get out of the way. The default action when seeing a pedestrian in the roadway is not to ignore them, assuming they will be out of the way by the time you reach them.

It's absolutely important since it establishes the initial cause of the crash. Everything else follows.

How does a group of people attacking the car AFTER the crash establish the initial cause of the crash? The only one to attack the car before the crash was the guy with the flag. Did the initial crash occur because people were going to attack the car after it crashed?

I can see how. If they're a bunch of violent liberal animals with existing violent intentions. Normal people would either ignore it, worry about themselves, call 911, or rush to help. That's the only thing I've ever seen following a crash.

Normal people would ignore a car running into a crowd of people right next to them? And you say I'm not honestly debating?

I didn't ask what you've seen following car crashes. I asked if you have seen many car crashes in which a crowd believes that the car intentionally ran into the crowd.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 17969119

Maybe that's how the courts will see it. I suspect this guy is screwed. He should have known to keep far away from violent, rabid liberals.

This guy is not being screwed. He killed one and injured or disabled 19 others.

There were no violent people on this street and intersection until your Nazi attacked flesh and bones with his two ton steel weapon.

The minivan and convertible were slowly making their way through the crowd all peacefully prior to the hit and run by an avowed Nazi.

Glad you finally realize this Nazi is as you say screwed.

This is about as classic a hate crime as hate crimes get, the more I studied the videos and read the police reports and know he is being held without bail.

 

[Issa]

So did the guys in Barcelona huh?
Terrorists come in all colors , and recently white terrorists are competing with Isis to who kills more.

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

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

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 17969010

They were in the way of his escape route (I suspect they were jaywalking, though I'm not familiar with the pedestrian road crossing laws in that area).

Idiot. There were two cars in the road blocking his path. Drivers that apparently knew how to get through a crowded street without hurting anyone. Until your Nazi rear ended them at a high rate of speed. A high rate of speed while encountering multiple pedestrians for over two blocks shows the driver's disregard for human life.

A normal safety minded driver on a side street such as that seeing a crowd of people two blocks ahead, not wanting to get stuck would stop and turn around and try to drive around it.

There is no normal driver who would speed toward the crowd scaring the shit out of them and expecting them all to get out of the way.

 

[EverCurious]

^ I doubt he saw the vehicles in front of him, there was a large crowd between his car and the other vehicles so that's not going to fly in court.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JimBowie1958, post: 17923043,

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

It might be????? A member of the superior race would not panic would he?

Doesn't look like the Prosecutor is biting on your BS might be.

Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Slapped With New Felony Charges | HuffPost

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'd like to give a big "Fuck you" to all the un-American pricks defending these white supremacists. These are the assholes we fought in WWII and now you're trying to bring that garbage to our shores.

Defending Nazi sympathizers is not what a real American does.

Neither is defending communists like Antifa, who are just as evil and nasty as any Nazis.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie1958, post: 1795468

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

Self defense is justified they reacted to the violence inistigated by the commies, I don't care what their ideology they had the right to peaceably assemble.

You rated the above post "agree" so you must agree with CSC that Nazis came to Charlottesville to peaceably assemble.

You can't have it both ways when you agree with that RWNJ CSC.

Do you agree or not agree with CSC that Nazis Gathered in Charlottesville to peacefully demonstrate?

Most of the people who assembled at Charlottesville to protest the removal of Lees statue were not Nazis, you stupid shit4brains.

Those were the peaceful people, not the Nazis who went there to fight with Antifa.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie1958, post: 17923043,

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

It might be????? A member of the superior race would not panic would he?

Doesn't look like the Prosecutor is biting on your BS might be.

Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Slapped With New Felony Charges | HuffPost

After seeing a video that showed how quickly the driver reversed and pulled himself and his vehicle out, I have changed my mind and I think it was deliberate and thus murder.

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