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

[Montrovant]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was understandable: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.

I was talking about the people who attacked the car after the crash. You continue to consider driving into a crowd of people understandable, but attacking a car that just injured and possibly killed people the attackers may have known and cared about not understandable.

If a person went into a crowd and started stabbing members of that crowd, would you not understand if some of those crowd members attacked the knife-wielder?

The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.

You are being unclear about whether the crowd was a threat or not. Sometimes you seem to be saying the threat of the crowd plays a part in the drivers reaction, then it changes.

It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.

The car was not moving when the crowd members attacked it after the crash.

The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver at that time. I think you're being obtuse.

Even the motives of the flag guy would have been unknown, but I'll concede this point.

It's not even instinctive (as far as self-protection is concerned). That's the point.

I'm not sure if you are using instinct in the sense of something a person is born with, or if you are including reactions that can be taught. Whatever the case, for some people, retaliation might be their first reaction when they feel they have been attacked.

All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!

Or, you know, people who have had to endure bullying, and learned to stand up to attackers. Or people who work in law enforcement, or fight fires, or have been in the military, or amateur/professional fighters.....the idea that everyone will react the same way in such a situation is just silly. The car had already crashed, the people no longer needed to try to get out of its path, but some of them reaching a point of, "That guy just drove into us! Get that f&*#er!" is not understandable?

So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.

Why are rationally or instinctively the only options? Why couldn't they have acted irrationally? And as I've already mentioned, there is a rational explanation for attacking the car: an attempt to disable the car or the driver before he could once again hit people.

Even if they were "violent pieces of shit," if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd, as you've posited, wouldn't he also be a violent piece of shit?

If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind did). Either way it makes sense.

That you think it makes sense to drive into a crowd because someone hits the back of your car with a hand-held weapon, while you are moving, without doing any noticeable damage or causing any reaction from the car (by which I mean the car is not prevented from continuing to drive as it was, there is no disruption of function), is flabbergasting. It's hard for me to come up with a reason it would make sense to drive into a crowd that was not threatening me. I cannot be certain, but I think it is likely that the law in every state would agree that intentionally driving into a crowd is just not acceptable.

I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).

I'm curious why, if the driver suspected he was moving toward a crowd filled with bad people, he did not attempt to stop. Before you ask, I base that statement on the video evidence, which shows that the brake lights do not come on for a block or so of travel before the crash. They did come on at least momentarily before that, indicating they worked.

How often do people go the wrong way on a road, backwards? Probably almost never. How often do people intentionally drive into a crowd of pedestrians? Now and again, unfortunately, and those are just about all considered terrorist attacks.

Driving against traffic, backwards, certainly may be dangerous. However, so is driving into a crowd of pedestrians, even if not a one of them attacks you, but especially if you suspect it is a crowd "filled with bad people," some of who are carrying weapons.

The driver drove into a crowd that was too thick to see through. Here's a picture of what the driver was heading toward what appears to be about a block away from the collision:

Here is an overhead view of the event, which occurs in the bottom left corner. Again, notice how full the road is:

You are arguing that it is understandable that the driver decided to go forward into that crowd in an attempt to escape. That seems almost as ridiculous as if the driver had turned and tried to escape by driving through the wall of one of the buildings. Considering he ended up rear-ending another vehicle, it was that ridiculous.

On the other hand, you cannot understand how a person might decide to attack the car that just drove into what may have been friends once it has stopped.

The idea of attacking someone who just hurt people you know and perhaps care about doesn't make sense to you, not to disable the vehicle or the driver to prevent further attacks, and not as retribution against someone who potentially just murdered people you know, but driving into a large crowd of innocent bystanders to escape a vague threat does make sense?

Honestly, I would be worried to be in a car with you driving or around you when you are driving.

Maybe. It's certainly reasonable. I see plenty of reasonable doubt. Of course, this doesn't mean this guy isn't a christian holy warrior with a manifesto to kill negroes and their enablers. I'm just saying I'm not convinced without further evidence as there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 17993694

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

Do you think this scene is before or after flag guy took a swipe at his 2 ton weapon?

Click here. This Nazi asshole plowed through fifty to sixty feet of people.

Jamil Smith on Twitter


To escape a stick Jgrouse says.

 

[bgrouse]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was understandable: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.

I was talking about the people who attacked the car after the crash. You continue to consider driving into a crowd of people understandable, but attacking a car that just injured and possibly killed people the attackers may have known and cared about not understandable.

If a person went into a crowd and started stabbing members of that crowd, would you not understand if some of those crowd members attacked the knife-wielder?

Are knife attacks in public caused, in most cases, by inattention or mechanical failure? Don't be obtuse.

The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.

You are being unclear about whether the crowd was a threat or not. Sometimes you seem to be saying the threat of the crowd plays a part in the drivers reaction, then it changes.

You said it! The visible threat level of the crowd changes throughout the incident, obviously. They become more of a threat after trying to kill this guy. Did it take you this long to figure that out?

It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.

The car was not moving when the crowd members attacked it after the crash.

I can see a few that charge it as it was moving backwards.

The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver at that time. I think you're being obtuse.

Even the motives of the flag guy would have been unknown, but I'll concede this point.

It's not even instinctive (as far as self-protection is concerned). That's the point.

I'm not sure if you are using instinct in the sense of something a person is born with, or if you are including reactions that can be taught. Whatever the case, for some people, retaliation might be their first reaction when they feel they have been attacked.

I say that only a violent scumbag would attack a car that just crashed without knowing anything else, whether it's due to instinct or not.

All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!

Or, you know, people who have had to endure bullying, and learned to stand up to attackers. Or people who work in law enforcement,

I'm certain the vast majority of calls to crashes involve mechanical failure/inattention, not murder.

or fight fires, or have been in the military, or amateur/professional fighters.....the idea that everyone will react the same way in such a situation is just silly. The car had already crashed, the people no longer needed to try to get out of its path, but some of them reaching a point of, "That guy just drove into us! Get that f&*#er!" is not understandable?

Only if they're violent scumbags.

So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.

Why are rationally or instinctively the only options? Why couldn't they have acted irrationally? And as I've already mentioned, there is a rational explanation for attacking the car: an attempt to disable the car or the driver before he could once again hit people.

Use all the adjectives you want. I can't think of why a nonviolent person would react like that.

First of all, smashing a car's rear window will do little to "disable" the car. In fact, if you smash someone's window like that, if there was ever a chance that this was unintentional, guess what? You've now given the person a VERY good reason to run (backwards possibly over more people).

Even if they were "violent pieces of shit," if the driver intentionally drove into the crowd, as you've posited, wouldn't he also be a violent piece of shit?

For trying to avoid harm to himself? Not really.

If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind did). Either way it makes sense.

That you think it makes sense to drive into a crowd because someone hits the back of your car with a hand-held weapon, while you are moving, without doing any noticeable damage or causing any reaction from the car (by which I mean the car is not prevented from continuing to drive as it was, there is no disruption of function), is flabbergasting. It's hard for me to come up with a reason it would make sense to drive into a crowd that was not threatening me. I cannot be certain, but I think it is likely that the law in every state would agree that intentionally driving into a crowd is just not acceptable.

I didn't say it was a great decision, I said it was an understandable one given the split second he had to decide. There is a difference.

I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).

I'm curious why, if the driver suspected he was moving toward a crowd filled with bad people, he did not attempt to stop. Before you ask, I base that statement on the video evidence, which shows that the brake lights do not come on for a block or so of travel before the crash. They did come on at least momentarily before that, indicating they worked.

The same reason I pass through bad neighborhoods: to get to wherever I'm going. I always assume I will not be harmed that day. Once he was there, it looks like his options were go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse.

How often do people go the wrong way on a road, backwards? Probably almost never. How often do people intentionally drive into a crowd of pedestrians? Now and again, unfortunately, and those are just about all considered terrorist attacks.

The decision to drive backwards became relatively safe when those people started attacking.

Driving against traffic, backwards, certainly may be dangerous. However, so is driving into a crowd of pedestrians, even if not a one of them attacks you, but especially if you suspect it is a crowd "filled with bad people," some of who are carrying weapons.

I drive through bad neighborhoods all the time. It's still far safer than making a wrong-way infraction (especially backwards), unless someone hits my car with a crowbar or throws a brick at it.

The driver drove into a crowd that was too thick to see through. Here's a picture of what the driver was heading toward what appears to be about a block away from the collision:

Here is an overhead view of the event, which occurs in the bottom left corner. Again, notice how full the road is:

You are arguing that it is understandable that the driver decided to go forward into that crowd in an attempt to escape. That seems almost as ridiculous as if the driver had turned and tried to escape by driving through the wall of one of the buildings. Considering he ended up rear-ending another vehicle, it was that ridiculous.

I can't even see a vehicle in that picture, so how could it have been his consideration?

On the other hand, you cannot understand how a person might decide to attack the car that just drove into what may have been friends once it has stopped.

I've been driven into. I didn't turn violent. I had no idea what the guy's motive was. Funny how that ended without bloodshed.

The idea of attacking someone who just hurt people you know and perhaps care about doesn't make sense to you, not to disable the vehicle or the driver to prevent further attacks, and not as retribution against someone who potentially just murdered people you know, but driving into a large crowd of innocent bystanders to escape a vague threat does make sense?

You keep ignoring the fact that the vast majority of car crashes are not caused by intent to kill, as opposed to something like a knife attack you mentioned. That seems to be the biggest misunderstanding for you. I suspect you're being obtuse.

Honestly, I would be worried to be in a car with you driving or around you when you are driving.

Maybe. It's certainly reasonable. I see plenty of reasonable doubt. Of course, this doesn't mean this guy isn't a christian holy warrior with a manifesto to kill negroes and their enablers. I'm just saying I'm not convinced without further evidence as there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Don't worry. If someone crashes into me, I don't immediately turn murderous. Coincidentally, neither does anybody else I've seen involved in a crash. Ever.

 

[Faun]

If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.

In that atmosphere of hate and violence, it would be lunacy to assume brakes failed over an intentional act of terrorism, especially given the driver made zero attempts to either stop or warn the crowd.

If the brakes failed, they wouldn't notice the attempt to stop the car unless they were looking at his feet.

And again, the point which destroys your point -- the crowd called it right. It was an act of terrorism. And they reacted appropriately.

You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.

The idiom "jump on" would mean to do something before someone else.

They weren't. Not the ones that were attacking, anyway. Those were just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.

Ah, so the people hitting a car that just drove into the crowd they were a part of with bats are just waiting for an excuse to kill someone, but the guy that drives his car into a crowd is making a reasonable decision for how to escape? You don't see the disconnect there?

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was understandable: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.

Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.

You can tell it's some sort of polearm from the way it is used (swinging motion). I missed that it was a "flag" from the initial videos, thinking it was a bat.

Now a bat is a polearm?

So now we have a guy driving a car towards a crowd filled with people with weapons? Let me make sure I am reading this correctly. The driver is in fear for his life because his car was hit by some sort of weapon, and he can see that there are many weapons in the crowd. Because of this, he wants to escape, and attempts to do so by driving through the crowd. You consider this an understandable reaction.

The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.

At the same time, you argue that the first instinct of a person seeing a threat is to move the other way, and therefore don't think people attacking the car is an understandable reaction.

It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.

So the driver chooses to move at the crowded street, apparently knowing it contained many people with weapons, rather than trying to move away from that threat and back down the mostly empty road he just came from. That makes sense. Someone lashing out at a car that just ran over their friends, a car that is at that moment not moving, that can only happen if the people were already looking for a reason to kill someone. Is that about the gist?

The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver at that time. I think you're being obtuse.

In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!

I didn't say coming at the car from behind was smart or rational. That doesn't mean I can't understand the urge to lash out at a car that just ran into a crowd of people, particularly if they were people I knew and cared about.

It's not even instinctive (as far as self-protection is concerned). That's the point.

Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

We're going in circles. You keep ignoring modifiers and the point.

What is the point I am missing?

What I just said in the part you quoted.

The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.

A few of points regarding this quote.

First, everyone does not react the same way. I would guess that for the vast majority of people, yes, the first instinct is to move away from a threat. That may not be true for everyone.

All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!

Second, people overcome instincts all the time. Those members of the crowd that attacked might have had that first instinct to move away, but decided to ignore it and attack the car instead.

So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.

Third, based on what you've said, the driver moved toward danger. If he saw a crowd which had a bunch of people carrying weapons, and that is part of the reason he feared for his life, driving forward as he did was driving toward danger. So he did basically the same thing you think makes no sense for the crowd. Now, perhaps that is because he made a bad decision; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things. That makes sense. However, the same is true of the crowd; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.

If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind did). Either way it makes sense.

I'm also curious about the timing of events. As I've pointed out before, there is only about a single second between the time the driver is hit by the flagpole and the time the car crashes. I base this on the video evidence, and will repost it should you feel it necessary. At what point do you think the driver realized his car had been attacked, that the crowd was filled with people with weapons, that he should fear for his life? Did the driver already know he was heading toward a crowd filled with weapons before his car was struck?

I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).

Honestly, the most reasonable supposition I can think of that would explain the incident without the driver intentionally hitting the crowd is that he completely froze; there was no decision, no panicked swerve or acceleration or braking, he just could not do anything and so continued the way he was going right into the crowd and vehicles in front of him. That seems like a far better argument than that he drove directly into a crowded street in an attempt to flee.

Maybe. It's certainly reasonable. I see plenty of reasonable doubt. Of course, this doesn't mean this guy isn't a christian holy warrior with a manifesto to kill negroes and their enablers. I'm just saying I'm not convinced without further evidence as there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

But his brakes didn't fail and the crowd suspected it was an intentional act of terrorism since he made no effort to either stop or warn the crowd.

 

[Faun]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 17993694

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was understandable: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf

At 25 MPH Total Stopping Distance = 85 ft.

Flag guy hit your Nazi's car on the rear bumper. If it was hearable by the driver your Nazi had to process 'fear for his life and whether to stop and backup to escape, from a little tap on his car or whether to hit the mass crowd a car length or two in front of him. He also had to be processing what if a body comes through the windshield, would that put him in more danger than backing up.

Your Nazi has traveled 85 ft after
flag guy swiped at the car. (if he applied the brakes while deciding all that) Either way the 85 ft stopping distance at 25 mph would never have given the people in the path of a 2 Ton car going 25 mph a chance to avoid being hit.

Your Nazi is hitting people in a terrorist attack whether or not flag guy took a swing.

People were hit before your Reached the rear end of the parked pickup truck. A woman was knocked into the rear bumper of that truck.

Your Nazi hit people sooner than I originally thought.

 

[bgrouse]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

You'll never know all the facts with total certainty. I'm just telling you what I think happened, what I think is the most likely course of events.

But his brakes didn't fail and the crowd suspected it was an intentional act of terrorism since he made no effort to either stop or warn the crowd.

You keep dragging out this bullshit argument over and over again. For the 10th time:

1. There's no way the crowd would have known his brakes didn't fail or that it wasn't due to inattention.

2. There's no way to know if he even had time to warn them. The times when I was involved in car crashes, there was no yelling, no honking, and only one (out of half a dozen) cases of brakes screeching. I guess all but that one were murder attempts, eh?

3. Even if he did try to warn them, the noise of the crowd together with the way a vehicle can block noise could make it practically impossible for the crowd to determine if he made any attempt to warn them or not even if he did try to warn them.

 

[Faun]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

You'll never know all the facts with total certainty. I'm just telling you what I think happened, what I think is the most likely course of events.

But his brakes didn't fail and the crowd suspected it was an intentional act of terrorism since he made no effort to either stop or warn the crowd.

You keep dragging out this bullshit argument over and over again. For the 10th time:

1. There's no way the crowd would have known his brakes didn't fail or that it wasn't due to inattention.

2. There's no way to know if he even had time to warn them. The times when I was involved in car crashes, there was no yelling, no honking, and only one (out of half a dozen) cases of brakes screeching. I guess all but that one were murder attempts, eh?

3. Even if he did try to warn them, the noise of the crowd together with the way a vehicle can block noise could make it practically impossible for the crowd to determine if he made any attempt to warn them or not even if he did try to warn them.

And you keep ignoring the signals to the crowd that his brakes did not fail.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. There's no way the crowd would have known his brakes didn't fail or that it wasn't due to inattention.

A buck would win you ten million in Vegas iif those anti/fascist crowd members had time to bet that someone's brakes would fail exactly at that moment on a weekend when Nazi's were cane to town to spew their hatred all over the place.

Stop being a dildo. Jesus. Even if the Brakes actually failed and Mr Rogers was there to buy a new sweater the crowd reacts the same with full justification.

The crowd probably all drive and can be very very certain the car coming at them is deliberate because everyone who has driven a car and are decent human beings the know if the primary brakes failed, you try the parking brake and if the parking brake failed you turn off the engine, and if you can do nothing mechanical to stop or slow the car over a two block area you turn on your flashers and blow your horn like crazy and if coincidentally your horn and flashers fail and you see people cannot get out of your way you try to stop your car by hitting something on an angle to slow you down like the side of a building where no people are present.

You are entitled to your opinion that the sun revolves around the earth but this brakes failed in a late model vehicle is even more insane.

I don't know but I'm sure you have to be quite stupid to be Nazi, but normal people protesting the presence of Nazis marching in their diverse community would have any reason they were being attacked due to brake failure.

And the Nazi sure would have mentioned when arrested uhhhhh officer my brakes are not working, have it checked right away, I didn't mean to kill or hurt anybody. It was an accident. My Nazi shirt doesn't mean anything. I love blacks and Jews. I drove all the way from Ohio with perfect brakes just to be with blacks and Jews. And darnn it they just went out six seconds before the crash. Oh going fast before that was because I saw some black people up ahead and was excited to meet them and hang out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2. There's no way to know if he even had time to warn them. The times when I was involved in car crashes, there was no yelling, no honking, and only one (out of half a dozen) cases of brakes screeching. I guess all but that one were murder attempts, eh?

You cannot explain why he was forcing pedestrians to flee in fear for their lives in front of his path as he passed the camera that captured his too fast car going by toward a large crowd. No horn signals, no brake lights on, no fiashers, no attempt to find something else non life threatening to hit. Just a steady unsafe speed for conditions all on the way to impact with the most number of people possible.

We saw his brake lights worked briefly which means he did not have his Goose Stepping boot on the brake which is not natural instinctively for someone barreling into a crowd of fellow hunan beings.

Everything points to intentional terrorist attack, and I mean everything.

The flag hit was way too late to avoid casualties.

The Schizophrenic trust fund Nazi defense is all you got. Or it was a false flag attack and his brakes and mental condition were fine. He's an ANTIFA plant. You'll defend the Nazi movement better with that.

You could try saying some tech savvy negroes planted remote control devices during the night in his car and remotely steered and drove the car into their own crowd to discredit Nazis.

Yeah that's it.

 

[Montrovant]

Wow. A lot of ridiculousness to go through with this one. And the irony of you calling me obtuse is strong.

Are knife attacks in public caused, in most cases, by inattention or mechanical failure? Don't be obtuse.

As we've discussed multiple times, there is plenty of reason to suspect the crowd believed this to be intentional. Whether it was or not, the reaction of the crowd certainly may have been based on the idea that it was.

You said it! The visible threat level of the crowd changes throughout the incident, obviously. They become more of a threat after trying to kill this guy. Did it take you this long to figure that out?

I was talking about the driver's reaction to the flag hitting his car. You've seemed to indicate at some points that his reaction was based, in part, on the threat that the crowd presented. At other times, you seem to indicate the threat of the crowd did not enter into his thinking.

I can see a few that charge it as it was moving backwards.

I'm talking about people actually attacking the car. Moving to the area of the crash might be in preparation for an attack, or it might be to render aid.

I say that only a violent scumbag would attack a car that just crashed without knowing anything else, whether it's due to instinct or not.

Of course you say that. You also say you understand a person driving a car into a crowd so thick they cannot see through it, and cannot see other vehicles that are on the road past it. You also seem to think that, even if a vehicle intentionally drives into a crowd, there is no excuse for attacking that vehicle.

I'm certain the vast majority of calls to crashes involve mechanical failure/inattention, not murder.

That has nothing at all to do with what I was saying.

Only if they're violent scumbags.

I guess you think attacking someone that just injured or murdered people you know is something only violent scumbags do.

Use all the adjectives you want. I can't think of why a nonviolent person would react like that.

First of all, smashing a car's rear window will do little to "disable" the car. In fact, if you smash someone's window like that, if there was ever a chance that this was unintentional, guess what? You've now given the person a VERY good reason to run (backwards possibly over more people).

I did mention possibly disabling the vehicle or the driver. It's a bit hard to get to the driver unless you can get in the car.

For trying to avoid harm to himself? Not really.

Intentionally driving into a crowd of people doesn't make someone a violent piece of shit. Smashing in the window of a car that you think tried to murder people, violent piece of shit. Got it.

I didn't say it was a great decision, I said it was an understandable one given the split second he had to decide. There is a difference.

That you think it is understandable to intentionally drive into a crowd of people that have done nothing to you in order to escape the threat of someone that just hit the bumper of your moving car with some sort of hand-held weapon is amazing.

The same reason I pass through bad neighborhoods: to get to wherever I'm going. I always assume I will not be harmed that day. Once he was there, it looks like his options were go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse.

How many times have you driven into a bad neighborhood, seen a crowd completely filling the road, and continued toward it anyway? You are making false equivalencies in an attempt to make this incident seem like something it was not.

It's hilarious the way you describe the driver's option. He could "go forward, stop, or make a bunch of dangerous infractions by going in reverse"? So going forward, driving into a street filled with pedestrians, would not be any sort of dangerous infraction? Driving into a crowd of pedestrians is a far more dangerous infraction than backing down a road that is pretty much empty.

The decision to drive backwards became relatively safe when those people started attacking.

The decision to drive backwards always made more sense if the driver wanted to get away. Moving forward through a crowd so thick that you cannot see past them is not only morally reprehensible, it is nonsensical. The odds of driving into and through that many people are going to be far, far worse than backing down a mostly empty street. The guy was driving a Challenger, not a bulldozer.

I drive through bad neighborhoods all the time. It's still far safer than making a wrong-way infraction (especially backwards), unless someone hits my car with a crowbar or throws a brick at it.

Do you drive through pedestrians in bad neighborhoods all the time? You are talking as though Fields was driving down an empty street in a bad area. He drove into a crowd of people. Driving through a bad neighborhood may be safer than a wrong-way infraction, but that has nothing to do with the incident that actually happened. He wasn't driving through a bad neighborhood, he was driving into a crowd of people. Once again you are trying to create a false equivalency.

I can't even see a vehicle in that picture, so how could it have been his consideration?

I didn't say he should consider it. I said that driving into the crowd turned out to be as bad a decision as driving into a wall would have been. Of course, the fact that he couldn't see through the crowd well enough to notice the car that was there should be an indication of the unsafe nature of trying to drive through that crowd.

I've been driven into. I didn't turn violent. I had no idea what the guy's motive was. Funny how that ended without bloodshed.

Have you been part of a crowd and seen a car drive into that crowd?

You keep ignoring the fact that the vast majority of car crashes are not caused by intent to kill, as opposed to something like a knife attack you mentioned. That seems to be the biggest misunderstanding for you. I suspect you're being obtuse.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm well aware that the vast majority of crashes are accidental. You, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring the possibility that the crowd had reason to think this incident was intentional. As far as you are concerned, there is absolutely no reason for the crowd members to think this was anything but an accident. I've brought up the increasing number of terrorist attacks carried out by someone driving through a crowd as an example of why the crowd might have thought this was intentional. There is also the fact that the driver appears to have been headed down that road with little regard for the people on it, as evidenced by the pictures of people running and jumping to get out of the way of the car before the crash occurred.

On the other hand, you seem to think there was every reason for the driver to fear for his life and intentionally drive through pedestrians, injuring or killing innocent bystanders, because someone hit his bumper.

Don't worry. If someone crashes into me, I don't immediately turn murderous. Coincidentally, neither does anybody else I've seen involved in a crash. Ever.

Have you ever seen a car crash into a crowd of people? Particularly after it was forcing people to flee from its path before the crash occurs? I'm going to guess the answer is no.

I'm not worried about what happens if someone crashes into you. What would worry me would be that you might plow through some innocent pedestrians if you were driving through what you consider a bad neighborhood and some kid accidentally hits your car with a ball. According to everything you've posted here, you consider that a perfectly reasonable reaction.

 

[Montrovant]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

You can hear what sounds like the flagpole hitting the car.

 

[Montrovant]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

You'll never know all the facts with total certainty. I'm just telling you what I think happened, what I think is the most likely course of events.

But his brakes didn't fail and the crowd suspected it was an intentional act of terrorism since he made no effort to either stop or warn the crowd.

You keep dragging out this bullshit argument over and over again. For the 10th time:

1. There's no way the crowd would have known his brakes didn't fail or that it wasn't due to inattention.

2. There's no way to know if he even had time to warn them. The times when I was involved in car crashes, there was no yelling, no honking, and only one (out of half a dozen) cases of brakes screeching. I guess all but that one were murder attempts, eh?

3. Even if he did try to warn them, the noise of the crowd together with the way a vehicle can block noise could make it practically impossible for the crowd to determine if he made any attempt to warn them or not even if he did try to warn them.

1. That degree of inattention is almost as bad as intention. He was paying enough attention to brake a block or so away from the crowd, but not paying enough attention to notice the people running to get out of his path or to realize he was driving toward that large crowd in front of him? Oh, and he was that inattentive, but still able to drive a nice, straight path down the road?

2. I'm going to guess that none of the times you were involved in car crashes included a car driving into a crowd that had been in the road since well before the car ever arrived, and were clearly visible well before the car got to them.

3. The driver did not honk the horn. You can hear what seems to be the flagpole hitting the bumper of the car in the video taken from behind the car, a car horn would be much louder than that. I wonder, should the crowd have considered that the car's horn and brakes might both have gone out?

 

[Faun]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

You can hear what sounds like the flagpole hitting the car.

It could be. But there is so much noise at that point, that sound could be anything. There's no way anyone can say conclusively that the flag struck the car based on that video. Bear in mind, I'm not saying the flag didn't touch the car.... just that it's not possible to make that determination from that video.

It's a red-herring anyway since the flag was swung at the back of the Dodge, meaning it had already passed the guy swinging the flag and already on the way to running people over.

 

[Montrovant]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

If you're talking about the guy with the flag, it is impossible from the video to determine he actually struck Fields' vehicle.

You can hear what sounds like the flagpole hitting the car.

It could be. But there is so much noise at that point, that sound could be anything. There's no way anyone can say conclusively that the flag struck the car based on that video. Bear in mind, I'm not saying the flag didn't touch the car.... just that it's not possible to make that determination from that video.

It's a red-herring anyway since the flag was swung at the back of the Dodge, meaning it had already passed the guy swinging the flag and already on the way to running people over.

I think the sound is pretty convincingly the flagpole hitting the car. However, I agree that it doesn't really matter because of the overall circumstances. Flag or no flag, it looks as though the car was going into the crowd.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Montrovant, post: 17999584

I think the sound is pretty convincingly the flagpole hitting the car. However, I agree that it doesn't really matter because of the overall circumstances. Flag or no flag, it looks as though the car was going into the crowd.

There is no doubt that jgrouse's Nazi was on a collision course with people in front of him before the flag touched his car.

The parking sign is a perfect landmark to locate the car when the flag touched it.

THe black pickup was parked where the 2nd car is parked in this Google street view.

jgrouse's Nazi started hitting people about a car length before arriving at the black pickup's rear bumper.

THe video shows one woman shoved by impact under the bumper of the truck.

Prosecutors can do what I did but much better.

This was intentional. Flag guy changed nothing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's a red-herring anyway since the flag was swung at the back of the Dodge, meaning it had already passed the guy swinging the flag and already on the way to running people over.

Your assessment is confirmed by the location of the car when flag guy hit it.

It's a Federal Hate crime. There should be no doubt.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 1799639

You'll never know all the facts with total certainty. I'm just telling you what I think happened, what I think is the most likely course of events.

Montrovant, post: 17999584

I think the sound is pretty convincingly the flagpole hitting the car. However, I agree that it doesn't really matter because of the overall circumstances. Flag or no flag, it looks as though the car was going into the crowd.

There is no doubt that jgrouse's Nazi was on a collision course with people in front of him before the flag touched his car.

The parking sign is a perfect landmark to locate the car when the flag touched it.

THe black pickup was parked where the 2nd car is parked in this Google street view.

jgrouse's Nazi started hitting people about a car length before arriving at the black pickup's rear bumper.

THe video shows one woman shoved by impact under the bumper of the truck.

Prosecutors can do what I did but much better.

This was intentional. Flag guy changed nothing.

You pay attention to zero facts. You don't need all the facts to know your Nazi had every intention of harming and killing anti-Nazi marchers.

 

[Kosh]

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

Yes after the far left terrorists started the violence, they attacked anyone that disagreed with them..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes after the far left terrorists started the violence, they attacked anyone that disagreed with them..

We are dealing with facts about the Nazi killer's intent.

Your bumped link is a lie. Huge lie.

The vehicular assault was premeditated and deliberate.

No hate filled Nazi white supremacists were killed or injured seriously in Charlottesville Va last weekend.

A car hit by a flag - its all you haters got? How pathetic.