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

[Kosh]

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'

Your link is a lie. Huge lie.

The vehicular assault was premeditated and deliberate.

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

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

One counterprotester apparently deployed a chemical spray, which affected the eyes of a dozen or so marchers. It left them floundering and seeking medical assistance.

One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash

No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..

Silly far left drone!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..

The crowd mowed down by a Nazi in a two Ton Dodge, was peaceful until they saw they were under attack by a driver heading straight at them.

You link is a lie. It is in slow motion to deceive and it said an African American hit the car with s bat. Not true.

And the hit by the flag had no impact on the decision by the Nazi to plow into a crowd.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh, post: 18003037

No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..

That is a lie. Your second link says this

. Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people. Witnesses said the street was filled with people opposed to the white nationalists who had come to town bearing Confederate flags and anti-Semitic epithets.

'Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people"

That's your Nazi that did that according to the second link you posted.

What does anti Semitic epithets have to do with protesting the removal of Confederate Era statues?

It seems your Nazi's lied about the purpose of their rally.

 

[Kosh]

No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..

The crowd mowed down by a Nazi in a two Ton Dodge, was peaceful until they saw they were under attack by a driver heading straight at them.

You link is a lie. It is in slow motion to deceive and it said an African American hit the car with s bat. Not true.

And the hit by flag had no impact on the decision by the Nazi to plow into a crowd.

And more proof the far left thinks violence started by far left terrorists is "peaceful"..

I love it when these far left drones proves my comments!

 

[Kosh]

No my link shows the far left terrorists started the violence in which you ignore and support as "peaceful"..

That is a lie. Your second link says this

. Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people. Witnesses said the street was filled with people opposed to the white nationalists who had come to town bearing Confederate flags and anti-Semitic epithets.

'Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people"

That's your Nazi that did that according to the second link you posted.

It is funny to see the far left which embraces "Nazism" and fascism, trying to pin that label on anyone..

The far left terrorists start the violence and the far left drones ignore it!

Then again maybe the far left mayor should not have let these two groups be in arms reach of each other in the first place..

See how the far left policies kills people!

The reason why the far left should never be in power of anything!

 

[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.

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?

What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.

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.

I was clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.

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?

No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.

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.

Maybe. It would take a violent, presumptuous person, so I'm not surprised that's how the crowd reacted.

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.

You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.

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 guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!

Come on, don't be silly.

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 looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).

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.

You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.

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.

If it's a car crash you know next to nothing about? Yes!

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.

Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?

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.

Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.

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.

I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.

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.

Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.


Prior to the initial attack, options are:

A. Stop (doesn't solve anything).
B. Go forward to let pedestrians know to get out of the way (most reasonable).
C. Drive backwards/cause dangerous infraction (most dangerous).

After the attack:

A. Stop and suffer the polearm wielder's attack (most dangerous).
B. Go backwards, again towards the attacker (risky, especially since people/drivers don't expect cars to move backwards).
C. Go forward away from the attacker towards people of unknown motives (least dangerous).

After the crash:

A. Stop (certain death).
B. Go forward (stuck, certain death).
C. Go backwards (only option not ending in certain death).

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.

Why was it unreasonable? Weren't there cars who were slowly making their way through the crowd? The ones he ended up hitting? Why does a crowd with uncertain motives equal a brick wall?

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.

Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.

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.

Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."

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?

Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a liberal crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.

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.

They can make whatever assumptions they want. They just shouldn't act on them by trying to kill the driver until they know better. In the meanwhile, they could have just gotten out of the way.

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.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.

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.

I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.

If I get hit with a ball I'll have to make a judgment call regarding what to do. There's no guarantee it will involve driving into a crowd. I've been hit with objects before and there was no such reaction. It's about the totality of the circumstances. Mostly it's because I'm smarter than Fields and don't drive to crowds of rabid liberals: I don't put myself into the situation to begin with.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 18003226

Prior to the initial attack, options are:

The initial attack is your Nazi driving too fast through the pedestrian walkway intersection where the camera persin recirded his attack vehicle going in and coming out.

There is no initial attack after that.

A couple car lengths before flag guy touched his car your Nazi had to brake hard (skid) in order to have options that involved not hitting people. He never touched his brakes. His mind was made up when he initiated his attack when the very first or destroyed had to run from the path of his 2Ton weapon.

It's all right here:

I located the position of your Nazi's four wheeled assault weapon based upon the still shot at 14 seconds into this slo motion video:



The parking sign is the landmark.

This vehicle position (rear wheel at parking sign) happens four seconds after passing the camera in real time.

I know where the black pickup truck was parked thanks to the utility pole and the parking space markings on the pavement. The parking space closest to the intersection was empty on the day of the Nazi attack.

The location of the rear bumper on the pickup is critical because one girl's leg is visible lying under the bumper of that truck. Bodies are seen flying before the Dodge passes the truck.

Your Nazi hit people before passing the truck.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 18003226

They always got out of the way when I approached

You need to have your license revoked.

 

[hadit]

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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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?

What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.

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.

I was clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.

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?

No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.

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.

Maybe. It would take a violent, presumptuous person, so I'm not surprised that's how the crowd reacted.

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.

You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.

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 guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!

Come on, don't be silly.

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 looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).

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.

You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.

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.

If it's a car crash you know next to nothing about? Yes!

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.

Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?

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.

Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.

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.

I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.

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.

Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.


Prior to the initial attack, options are:

A. Stop (doesn't solve anything).
B. Go forward to let pedestrians know to get out of the way (most reasonable).
C. Drive backwards/cause dangerous infraction (most dangerous).

After the attack:

A. Stop and suffer the polearm wielder's attack (most dangerous).
B. Go backwards, again towards the attacker (risky, especially since people/drivers don't expect cars to move backwards).
C. Go forward away from the attacker towards people of unknown motives (least dangerous).

After the crash:

A. Stop (certain death).
B. Go forward (stuck, certain death).
C. Go backwards (only option not ending in certain death).

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.

Why was it unreasonable? Weren't there cars who were slowly making their way through the crowd? The ones he ended up hitting? Why does a crowd with uncertain motives equal a brick wall?

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.

Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.

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.

Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."

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?

Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a liberal crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.

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.

They can make whatever assumptions they want. They just shouldn't act on them by trying to kill the driver until they know better. In the meanwhile, they could have just gotten out of the way.

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.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.

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.

I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.

If I get hit with a ball I'll have to make a judgment call regarding what to do. There's no guarantee it will involve driving into a crowd. I've been hit with objects before and there was no such reaction. It's about the totality of the circumstances. Mostly it's because I'm smarter than Fields and don't drive to crowds of rabid liberals: I don't put myself into the situation to begin with.

As you can see, at no time in this video did Fields even attempt to apply his brakes as he drove down the street and towards the crowd. The crowd knew it was intentional.

 

[Montrovant]

What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.

I wasn't talking about a lack of pull so much as the way the car was so well pointed down a somewhat narrow road, and the slight adjustments that look to have been made while the car was traveling in that last block. I understand why it would seem I meant the car should pull one way or the other, I apologize.

I was clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.

I wasn't speaking about the "value" of any victims. I was trying to point out the difference in hitting a single individual vs a crowd that fills a street. A single individual is far easier to miss than a crowd filling the road from one side to the other. If you cannot see how a crowd that completely fills a road is different, and much harder to miss, than a single individual, you probably shouldn't drive OR walk near roads.

No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.

The driver did not hit the brake or the horn.

You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.

Here is an example of what I mean:

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.

This indicates the driver's reaction was based, at least in part, on the threat the crowd represented.

I guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!

Come on, don't be silly.

If you mean the person with the umbrella that got pinched between the Dodge and the parked car, that person ran toward the Dodge, but gave no real indication of intent. All you see is him running forward, then putting his hands forward because the car began backing up. He was not one of the people clearly attacking the car.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).

I absolutely agree that the crowd acting in retaliation is a better argument than self-defense. I absolutely disagree that the driver acting in self-preservation is a better argument than premeditation.

You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.

I mentioned law enforcement as one in a list of examples of people who might move toward danger rather than away from it based on training/experience.

If it's a car crash you know next to nothing about? Yes!

And here we once again reach a disconnect. You are willing to accept that the driver of the car instantly was able to determine that his life was threatened by the person that hit the rear bumper with a flagpole, but a crowd of people coming to the conclusion that the driver intentionally ran into them makes no sense to you. You are willing to assume the driver saw the flagpole hitting his car (otherwise the driver simply reacted to an unknown impact on the rear bumper), but you are unwilling to assume some of the members of the crowd may have seen the car drive down the road without braking or using the horn at an unsafe speed. Why is that?

Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?

First, we've been talking about the fact that attacking the car was not necessarily the most rational action. Second, sure, you can get into a car by smashing the rear window. Maybe the rear window was just the first thing in range, or the attacker hadn't thought things through completely......you know, as you've been saying about the driver?

Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.

It doesn't matter if it is a cut and dry case of terrorism. What matters in this context is the perception of the crowd. You continue to think the crowd had no reason to think the act was intentional, for some reason.

I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.

So you have not been in the situation the driver was in Charlottesville.

I wonder, did you drive toward those crowds at a speed which forced them to run or leap to get out of the way of your vehicle?

Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.

When you said "once he got there" I thought you meant once he got to the place he was struck by the flagpole. That is why I switched, sorry.

Prior to the initial attack, options are:

A. Stop (doesn't solve anything).
B. Go forward to let pedestrians know to get out of the way (most reasonable).
C. Drive backwards/cause dangerous infraction (most dangerous).

After the attack:

A. Stop and suffer the polearm wielder's attack (most dangerous).
B. Go backwards, again towards the attacker (risky, especially since people/drivers don't expect cars to move backwards).
C. Go forward away from the attacker towards people of unknown motives (least dangerous).

After the crash:

A. Stop (certain death).
B. Go forward (stuck, certain death).
C. Go backwards (only option not ending in certain death).

I can accept your choices for before the attack, except for the fact the driver appears to have been moving at an unsafe speed when the flagpole attack occurred.

After the flagpole attack, I disagree entirely. I'll give you option A, but going backward down a mostly empty road is much less dangerous than trying to drive through pedestrians. And let's be clear, since you seem to want to try and make this sound like less than it was: the driver was driving into, through, and over pedestrians, not moving forward to let those pedestrians know they should move out of the way. The driver had no idea how far the crowd continued in the road, did not seem to notice the cars not too far ahead of him, so all he saw would seem to be a large amount of people in his path and very close. Intentionally moving forward at them in an attempt to escape would be intentionally running into an unknown number of them. You are saying that intentionally running into, hitting, an unknown number of people was a safer option than backing down a mostly empty road, with the only known threat a pedestrian that hit the rear bumper with something.

After the crash, while death wasn't certain, I accept the basic premise.

Why was it unreasonable? Weren't there cars who were slowly making their way through the crowd? The ones he ended up hitting? Why does a crowd with uncertain motives equal a brick wall?

Yes, there appear to have been cars slowly making their way through the crowd. The driver of the Challenger was not driving particularly slowly before or after being hit by the flagpole. Also, I thought we had pretty much agreed that the Challenger driver did not actually see the cars in the crowd, based on his running into them.

Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.

The Challenger driver was not approaching slowly to allow the crowd to get out of the way. The car did not brake for a good block of travel before hitting the crowd. And if pedestrians are running and jumping to avoid your car, as indicated by the photo and video evidence, that is not a person trying to "approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way." That is a driver leaving it up to pedestrians to get out of the way, or not.

I find the argument that Fields panicked pretty thin. The argument that Fields intentionally drove into the crowd to escape flag guy is thinner, and pretty terrible even if true. The idea that Fields was approaching the crowd and waiting for them to get out of the way is ludicrous.

Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."

There was a thick crowd at the 4 way intersection, and heading a bit down each of those ways, based on overhead images. I haven't seen any evidence that Fields drove through that sort of crowd prior to the crash. Based on the video evidence, the block or so of road before the crowd was pretty clear. Are you now arguing that Fields drove through a crowd as dense as that at the crash site in another place?

Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a liberal crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.

It matters because you have been talking about the reaction of the crowd as though you have a particular insight into what a person experiences in that situation. More, you've been describing things as though everyone would react in the same way.

Also, you compared having been hit in an accident with the incident in Charlottesville, as though they are equivalent. Do you think any accident you've been a part of is the equivalent of, say, the Nice attack, as well? Are all accidents and attacks where a driver hits a pedestrian the same?

I don't give a crap if the crowd is liberal, conservative, or any other political affiliation.

They can make whatever assumptions they want. They just shouldn't act on them by trying to kill the driver until they know better. In the meanwhile, they could have just gotten out of the way.

Yes, the crowd could have just gotten out of the way. The driver could have just backed up instead of intentionally running a bunch of people over. Strangely, you seem to give the driver a pass for hitting people who had done him no harm, but blame the crowd for attacking the driver who had done them or people they were with harm. Why do you find it more acceptable for someone to hurt people innocent of any wrongdoing (in the context of the event) than someone to hurt a person not innocent of wrongdoing (in the context of the event)? Keep in mind that, even if Fields panicked or was trying to escape, running into a crowd of pedestrians is still wrong.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.

The crux of this disagreement. I think the evidence points in the opposite direction. So far, it appears that law enforcement, up to the Attorney General of the US, also think the evidence points in the opposite direction. We'll see if that changes as this goes forward.

I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.

If I get hit with a ball I'll have to make a judgment call regarding what to do. There's no guarantee it will involve driving into a crowd. I've been hit with objects before and there was no such reaction. It's about the totality of the circumstances. Mostly it's because I'm smarter than Fields and don't drive to crowds of rabid liberals: I don't put myself into the situation to begin with.

I haven't brought up the question of if you've been in a crowd struck by a car to question who you care more about. I have done so in an attempt to point out that if you haven't been in a similar situation, and never seen a similar situation, you might not know how you or someone else would react. I have been hit by a car as well, but I don't equate it to this Charlottesville incident. I was alone; I was hit, rather than someone I was with being hit; I didn't see a car moving toward a street which was so filled with people as to be unpassable; I didn't see a car heading toward me, with nowhere it might be able to turn away or go around me, at an unsafe speed and without braking; I didn't have a recent history of terrorist attacks that were similar in nature to compare it to; I understand the very different nature of the situations.

If you have to make a judgement call about running innocent people over because the bumper of you car is struck with a ball, you should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?

 

[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?

What does driving straight necessarily have to do with attentiveness? Most modern cars are aligned and built to drive straight (or mostly straight) even if you take your hands off the wheel. The steering wheel shouldn't "pull" to the side unless the wheels aren't aligned or a tire is flat. One crash I was involved in had a driver who wasn't paying attention. Car was in good working order. He hit me going perfectly straight. Even crappy cars shouldn't "pull" to the sides unless there's something really wrong with them.

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.

I was clearly visible when I was involved in crashes. No, they didn't involve large crowds of people. What does the value of the victim have to do with attentiveness? If you're not paying attention, you can hit a car, a person, or a utility pole. Are you saying if there are 2 utility poles or 2 people instead of 1 of either of those, that driver inattentiveness is not going to result in a crash? That's silly.

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?

No, I think it's far more likely that he didn't have time to think to honk. People are trained to hit the brake pedal to avoid an imminent crash, not honk the horn.

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.

Maybe. It would take a violent, presumptuous person, so I'm not surprised that's how the crowd reacted.

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.

You'll have to quote exactly what you mean. I suspect it's because the crowd's threat level (especially its relative threat level) changes based on information that becomes available to the driver throughout the event.

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 guess at least one person was REALLY interested in helping the driver, since he charged at the car, was knocked down, and then chased after the car!

Come on, don't be silly.

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 looking at the totality of the circumstances. The argument that the crowd acted in revenge/violence (vs self preservation) is good and so is the argument that the driver acted in self-preservation (vs premeditated murder).

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.

You were taking about a cop. I suspect a cop would be much less violent given his experience related to such incidents.

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.

If it's a car crash you know next to nothing about? Yes!

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.

Through the rear window? Do you think before you post?

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.

Don't be an idiot. We've been discussing the circumstances surrounding this event for days and now you want to be cute and pretend those circumstances don't exist and it's a cut and dry case of terrorism.

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.

I see crowds occasionally, though not often since cops usually seal those areas off (were those liberals protesting without a license?). They always got out of the way when I approached.

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.

Again it's an issue of timing, which you stupidly ignore. You were talking about the events prior to the polearm attack. Now you switch to events after the polearm attack.


Prior to the initial attack, options are:

A. Stop (doesn't solve anything).
B. Go forward to let pedestrians know to get out of the way (most reasonable).
C. Drive backwards/cause dangerous infraction (most dangerous).

After the attack:

A. Stop and suffer the polearm wielder's attack (most dangerous).
B. Go backwards, again towards the attacker (risky, especially since people/drivers don't expect cars to move backwards).
C. Go forward away from the attacker towards people of unknown motives (least dangerous).

After the crash:

A. Stop (certain death).
B. Go forward (stuck, certain death).
C. Go backwards (only option not ending in certain death).

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.

Why was it unreasonable? Weren't there cars who were slowly making their way through the crowd? The ones he ended up hitting? Why does a crowd with uncertain motives equal a brick wall?

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.

Most bad neighborhoods I visit are overpopulated and have people on the street all the time. Don't be stupid. You can approach a crowd and wait for them to get out of the way. I do it all the time. The other cars in front of Fields obviously made it farther. The pedestrians were getting out of Fields's way just fine until he was attacked. Don't pretend it's impossible.

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.

Nobody got hurt and Fields's vehicle was intact until Fields was attacked despite him driving through your "wall."

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?

Not sure why this matters. I care about myself more than the crowd. If I told you "yes," would you proceed to ask another dumb question like if it was a liberal crowd? You're twisting in the air grasping at straws.

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.

They can make whatever assumptions they want. They just shouldn't act on them by trying to kill the driver until they know better. In the meanwhile, they could have just gotten out of the way.

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.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances. I don't know either of those for certain. That's just the way the evidence points.

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.

I told you I care more about myself than the "crowd" so stop with your bullshit questions about if I've ever been in a crowd during a crash. If I don't get violent after being struck, I certainly won't when some piece of shit liberal gets struck.

If I get hit with a ball I'll have to make a judgment call regarding what to do. There's no guarantee it will involve driving into a crowd. I've been hit with objects before and there was no such reaction. It's about the totality of the circumstances. Mostly it's because I'm smarter than Fields and don't drive to crowds of rabid liberals: I don't put myself into the situation to begin with.

As you can see, at no time in this video did Fields even attempt to apply his brakes as he drove down the street and towards the crowd. The crowd knew it was intentional.

I doubt the whole crowd knew it was intentional, but at least some of them certainly seemed to think it was.

 

[hadit]

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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?

Either one. I see demands that this be treated as a hate crime, but I don't really think that applies here, since it cannot be clear that the driver targeted the crowd because it was composed of protected minority groups. Typically, hate crime legislation applies in cases where the peep expressed hatred toward the protected group to which the victim belonged, for example,a white supremacist ranting on FB about black people, then killing a black man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?

Either one. I see demands that this be treated as a hate crime, but I don't really think that applies here, since it cannot be clear that the driver targeted the crowd because it was composed of protected minority groups. Typically, hate crime legislation applies in cases where the peep expressed hatred toward the protected group to which the victim belonged, for example,a white supremacist ranting on FB about black people, then killing a black man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd have to see the specific law involved, but I understand your question now, thanks.

Off the top of my head, they might prosecute it if the hate crime law applies to crimes against people based on political ideology.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Montrovant, post: 18005344

I doubt the whole crowd knew it was intentional, but at least some of them certainly seemed to think it was.

Being there as part of a counter demonstration against white supremacists and anti Semitic Nazi-like hate groups - and under the circumstances of the crowd on a narrow side street plus the speed at which the vehicle was approaching them - it is difficult to believe that anyone close to the carnage would immediately believe this was just an unfortunate accident.

Survivors and friends of those injured in an incident like this are going to naturally be angry at a driver that plows his car into a crowd like that.

First thought these days is terrorist act not mechanical failure or driver inattention.

It's the world we live in.

If the driver was Muslim and victims were beating the shit out of him jgrouse would be calling the ones doing the beating on his car heroes.

Since it's a Nazi he gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?

Either one. I see demands that this be treated as a hate crime, but I don't really think that applies here, since it cannot be clear that the driver targeted the crowd because it was composed of protected minority groups. Typically, hate crime legislation applies in cases where the peep expressed hatred toward the protected group to which the victim belonged, for example,a white supremacist ranting on FB about black people, then killing a black man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd have to see the specific law involved, but I understand your question now, thanks.

Off the top of my head, they might prosecute it if the hate crime law applies to crimes against people based on political ideology.

Since the underlying basis for the entire weekend events was proponents of white supremacy vs opposition to hate based on race, this in my view this very easily is a hate crime based on the driver's association and participation with the racist hate groups.

His acts leading up to the attack and being at that location at the time of the attack make it deliberate and a hate crime.

It looks like one of the first guys he hit was black. Dead center in front of his car right before impact.

 

[EverCurious]

I don't agree with your assessment of the "underlying basis" here. Are we saying that historical societies are automatically white supremacists if they protest the tearing down of a historical monument?

 

[Faun]

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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?

Either one. I see demands that this be treated as a hate crime, but I don't really think that applies here, since it cannot be clear that the driver targeted the crowd because it was composed of protected minority groups. Typically, hate crime legislation applies in cases where the peep expressed hatred toward the protected group to which the victim belonged, for example,a white supremacist ranting on FB about black people, then killing a black man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So a guy from one of these alt-right hate-filled groups who runs over black folks, does not qualify as hatred for the black folks he ran over?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Can you really have a hate crime based on perceived ideology?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you mean the perceived ideology of the driver or the crowd?

Either one. I see demands that this be treated as a hate crime, but I don't really think that applies here, since it cannot be clear that the driver targeted the crowd because it was composed of protected minority groups. Typically, hate crime legislation applies in cases where the peep expressed hatred toward the protected group to which the victim belonged, for example,a white supremacist ranting on FB about black people, then killing a black man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So a guy from one of these alt-right hate-filled groups who runs over black folks, does not qualify as hatred for the black folks he ran over?

He did not just run over black folks. It would be easier to call it a racially-based hate crime if the crowd had been all black or minorities.

I am not a fan of hate crime legislation anyway, and I would have no trouble with this being prosecuted as just murder, the associated driving infractions, and perhaps terrorism.