Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ANTIFA is against fascism and hatred, they have nothing to do with communism. And no, they are not as evil as Nazis. No one is as evil as Nazis. The fact that you think they are morally equivalent, says a lot about your own moral compass, or lack thereof.Neither is defending communists like Antifa, who are just as evil and nasty as any Nazis.
^ 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.
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.
Why do these communists hide their faces?ANTIFA does not seek out violence. That's just how they react when provoked by white supremacists, who are just like Nazis, who you seem to be defending, who we had fought in WWII.
Why do these communists hide their faces?ANTIFA does not seek out violence. That's just how they react when provoked by white supremacists, who are just like Nazis, who you seem to be defending, who we had fought in WWII.
Like I said, that might be how the courts see it. However, I don't think he had any other options.It puts distance between him and the initial attacker. Isn't that obvious?He was.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.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.That's lots of ifs. Since it's your charge that you brought up, it's up to you to prove it.
You said that he was justified in defending himself.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.That is entirely different than trying to escape. You seem to change the story when some point contradicts your narrative.It's pretty obvious and supported by video/picture evidence.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?
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.So you feel that by driving forward, the driver reduced the distance between him and the guy behind him?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.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?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?Maybe. I suppose the reflex reaction story also makes sense. Don't know for sure.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!Laugh all you want. The protesters caused this one. Since they're liberals, I suspect the driver is going to prison.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."
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.
Listen, if that's how you want to argue it, then no, I didn't read his mind so I don't know precisely what was going on in there. You're right, he may very well have paid the attacker $20,000 to strike his car and later aid his defense in court. That's certainly possible and I don't have any evidence proving that is not what happened. I just don't think it's reasonable.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.
I admit that the driver was not 100% cool, calm, and collected like James Bond and might have made a decision that, with 20/20 hindsight, was not the absolutely ideal and perfect way to handle the situation. But if that's your standard, then legally defending yourself is like winning the lottery.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.
It's not like they were jaywalking and intentionally blocking traffic or anything!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.
Yes, dumbass. Driving down a road is the same as "visible initiates his attack." I "visibly initiate my attack" every time I drive. You win the debate!bgrouse, post: 17969028Not 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.
Except he never killed anyone just because they were in the street. Prior to the driver being attacked, they were doing precisely what you consider a failed defense. He only killed her after being struck and fearing for his life.§ 46.2-928. Pedestrians not to use roadway except when necessary; keeping to left
Code: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.
Can you show me some other American crashes this year that result in this kind of reaction? I just don't think it's reasonable to be so presumptuous, unless the liberals were already violent, irrational, and murderous.Your conclusion that it's perfectly normal for a crowd to attack a driver who just suffered a car collision. That's made up.It's crap you pulled out of your ass.I saw it. I don't see anything indicating a lack of time to stop.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.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.
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 means you're pulling shit out of your ass. Maybe if this happened, if that happened, etc...Unlikely stories? What does that even mean?
My position is grounded in fact. We all saw who struck first. We all know the violent demeanor of the crowd.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.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 maybe he was speeding 5 minutes ago. He might have even smoked a joint 2 weeks before this incident. Who cares?If the driver "thought the crowd would get out of the way" then he would be guilty of reckless driving, at the least.Good thing he was attacked. That IS a valid defense.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.I know when I see a crash, I and all the people around me mob the car and try to murder the driver!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.
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?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.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?Is it reasonable to expect your car to stop if you let it run out of gas? Is there a law that says so?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're being ridiculous once again.It's absolutely important since it establishes the initial cause of the crash. Everything else follows.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.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.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.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.
Listen, I already addressed this. If mind-reading is your standard of self-defense, then nobody can ever use that defense. How do we know anyone who ever killed someone acted in self-defense? We can't read anybody's mind.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.
He was obviously doing pretty well at that until he was attacked.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.
You know what I'm saying. Don't be obtuse. The polearm bearer struck the car, causing the crash.If you shoot a driver in the spine and make him crash and kill an unrelated woman, is it your fault or the driver's fault the woman is dead?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?
Every car crash I've seen involved 99%-100% of the other drivers driving past it.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?
There's no way they can know that this is why he did it, especially with all of the evidence pointing to another cause. That's why it's unreasonable: they think something is a fact that they can't possibly know or reasonably expect to know.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.
Let's just ignore the polearm attack, dumbass! Why do I even respond to you?bgrouse, post: 17969119Maybe 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.
So did this guy, until he was physically attacked. Keep ignoring that!bgrouse, post: 17969010They 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.
ke I said, that might be how the courts see it. However, I don't think he had any other options.
Yes, dumbass. Driving down a road is the same as "visible initiates his attack." I "visibly initiate my attack" every time I drive. You win the debate!
Listen, if that's how you want to argue it, then no, I didn't read his mind so I don't know precisely what was going on in there. You're right, he may very well have paid the attacker $20,000 to strike his car and later aid his defense in court. That's certainly possible and I don't have any evidence proving that is not what happened. I just don't think it's reasonable.
I admit that the driver was not 100% cool, calm, and collected like James Bond and might have made a decision that, with 20/20 hindsight, was not the absolutely ideal and perfect way to handle the situation. But if that's your standard, then legally defending yourself is like winning the lottery.
It's not like they were jaywalking and intentionally blocking traffic or anything!
Except he never killed anyone just because they were in the street. Prior to the driver being attacked, they were doing precisely what you consider a failed defense. He only killed her after being struck and fearing for his life.
Can you show me some other American crashes this year that result in this kind of reaction? I just don't think it's reasonable to be so presumptuous, unless the liberals were already violent, irrational, and murderous.
Listen, I already addressed this. If mind-reading is your standard of self-defense, then nobody can ever use that defense. How do we know anyone who ever killed someone acted in self-defense? We can't read anybody's mind.
He was obviously doing pretty well at that until he was attacked.
You know what I'm saying. Don't be obtuse. The polearm bearer struck the car, causing the crash.If you shoot a driver in the spine and make him crash and kill an unrelated woman, is it your fault or the driver's fault the woman is dead?
Every car crash I've seen involved 99%-100% of the other drivers driving past it.
There's no way they can know that this is why he did it, especially with all of the evidence pointing to another cause. That's why it's unreasonable: they think something is a fact that they can't possibly know or reasonably expect to know.
There's just too much evidence pointing to self-defense/escaping and none pointing to some nefarious plan to kill people. Yes, it's possible he didn't fear for his life. It's also possible a person being shot at doesn't fear for his life.Listen, if that's how you want to argue it, then no, I didn't read his mind so I don't know precisely what was going on in there. You're right, he may very well have paid the attacker $20,000 to strike his car and later aid his defense in court. That's certainly possible and I don't have any evidence proving that is not what happened. I just don't think it's reasonable.
You love to use ridiculous extremes. The point is that claiming he was fleeing, or drove into the crowd in self-defense, is supposition because there is little to no evidence, from the driver's actions, that either of those suppositions is true. The only evidence I've seen that the driver was in fear for his life, or was trying to flee, is that a person struck the back bumper of the car with a flag on a pole. The fact that the car was struck does not mean that the driver was in fear for his life. It does not mean he was trying to flee from the man with the flag. Considering there is only about 1 second between the time the flag hits the car and the time the car hits the crowd (and yes, I've posted a video with evidence of this), the driver may not have even had time to realize what had happened, or to react to it in any way.
Why would you think the only reasonable possibilities are that the driver knew that he was being attacked by someone and reacted to it almost instantly, or some completely hyperbolic scenario involving paying the attacker to hit the car? Do you not see it as a reasonable possibility that the driver either didn't realize he was attacked in the second between that attack and the collision, or that a second may not have been enough time for the driver to make a decision about how to react?
He was attacked from behind and you expect him to make a split-second decision to back out of an alley, moving towards the attacker, while under attack.I admit that the driver was not 100% cool, calm, and collected like James Bond and might have made a decision that, with 20/20 hindsight, was not the absolutely ideal and perfect way to handle the situation. But if that's your standard, then legally defending yourself is like winning the lottery.
Again with the hyperbole. I don't expect the driver to be James Bond, or handle things perfectly. That is in no way my standard. Not intentionally driving into a crowd of people is an extremely LOW standard to have. It's just about the minimum one should expect from a driver.
I never said the guy was a genius. In fact, he stupidly assumed dumbass bloodthirsty liberals would follow the law. Doesn't nullify the claim of protecting himself.It's not like they were jaywalking and intentionally blocking traffic or anything!
Jaywalking does not provide a license to hit someone. If the people had jumped in front of the car, absolutely it would be their fault if they were hit. However, in the situation which actually obtained, the crowd was in the street long before the car arrived, and the driver had more than sufficient time to see the crowd and realize that driving down the road was not a viable option.
Except he never killed anyone just because they were in the street. Prior to the driver being attacked, they were doing precisely what you consider a failed defense. He only killed her after being struck and fearing for his life.
I find it unreasonable to think the driver feared for his life.
OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack. Being struck by a polearm and then being surrounded by other people from that group is not scary. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time debating someone who holds those positions.
There's just too much evidence pointing to self-defense/escaping and none pointing to some nefarious plan to kill people. Yes, it's possible he didn't fear for his life.
OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack.
He was attacked from behind and you expect him to make a split-second decision to back out of an alley, moving towards the attacker, while under attack.
OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack. Being struck by a polearm and then being surrounded by other people from that group is not scary. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time debating someone who holds those positions.
No. Driving at people standing in the street without slowing down or attempting to avoid them may be initiating an attack; particularly, intentionally driving into such a crowd is an attack.
Being struck by a flag on a stick (this wasn't a damn halberd, your use of the word polearm is funny) is the kind of thing that would generally lead to anger, IMO. "That asshole just hit my car!" or something to that effect. I'm sure the driver was frightened after the collision, because at that point, certainly, the crowd was coming at him with violent intent. That is after he drove into the crowd, however, and a different circumstance than simply being hit by the flag.
If you think you are wasting your time debating, but you think it is reasonable for a person to decide to run through that crowd to escape someone who hit their car with a flag on a pole.......goodbye then.
bgrouse, post: 17972056There's just too much evidence pointing to self-defense/escaping and none pointing to some nefarious plan to kill people. Yes, it's possible he didn't fear for his life.
Fool, you have admitted your Nazi had no reason to fear for his life about five seconds prior to the impact with the convertible. Within a split second of that moment on video there are pedestrians not protesters diving out of the path of his vehicle. Just because he may not have harmed any of those pedestrians does not erase his obvious intent to harm them.
You fool every single one of those people who had to scramble to avoid being hit by an angry NAZI are witnesses and will be in court to say that Nazi tried to hit them. Intent is proven and the cameras back it up.?
The flag hit was maybe 4 seconds into the attack. It is irrelevant to proving that his speed and reckless driving from the start was intentional.
Thats why I am reasonsbly certain your Nazi will be tried for committing a hate crime.
The mire rediculous your points get the more I am convinced of that.
Holy shit! They DID safely move out of the way prior to him being attacked!bgrouse, post: 17972077OK, folks. So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack.
We are not saying that.
Driving down a small side street where pedestrians are present (normal day in New Orleans) at a speed unsafe for conditions and at a speed that forces pedestrians to fear for their lives and take evasive action to avoid being hit - equals initiating an attack.
Of course you left all that detail out.
So driving down a street where someone is standing equals initiating an attack if you do not slow down or stop (If you have time) to allow the 'standing person' to safely move out of your way.
He could have also stayed home. I guess anyone who goes outside and gets murdered is totally at fault for it. After all, had they stayed home.Your Nazi would reasonably never have been hit by a flag had he done that. He would not have maimed and killed people either. He had all the time and visibility he needed to slow down and stop when encountering the first pedestrians in his way. That was six seconds before he got near the large crowd.
You have no consideration for the pedestrians fear for their lives seeing a two ton car coming at them a high rate of speed.
You only have concern for the Nazi fearing for his life. I see something there and it is quite ugly.
He was moving forward when his car was hit. There was no one behind him when the flag hit the car.
Prove it!His speed and momentum made impact with people and the car inevitable.
The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.
I still see no facts from you about the speed.The only fact we know is that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck so the entire discussion of the supposed lack of safety is pointless.
Lack of concern by your Nazi for the safety for pedestrians is the major point showing intent to harm at the point by your admission that he had no reason to fear for his life.
Like I said every pedestrian that had to jump or flee from the path of your Nazi's car is a witness in court. The lack of regard for their safety by your Nazi paints a great big guilty sign on his forehead.
You cant brush aside safety concerns for pedestrians just because it destroys your entire convoluted argument.
There's nothing unreasonable about exercising your right to travel down a road
