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

[Faun]

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.

He obviously didn't run over only black folks -- Heather Heyer was white. But he did run over blacks at a protest for bigots who hate blacks (among others) -- charging him with a hate crime is not a stretch.

 

[Faun]

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.

Also, I'm not clear why he was charged with murder but not attempted murder for all the others who were more fortunate to survive his rampage?

 

[EverCurious]

Second Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw

 

[Montrovant]

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.

He obviously didn't run over only black folks -- Heather Heyer was white. But he did run over blacks at a protest for bigots who hate blacks (among others) -- charging him with a hate crime is not a stretch.

Sustaining it might be difficult because of the diversity in the crowd. He could have been running them over for being Antifa, or just for opposing the white nationalist protesters. I think it's hard to prove that the reason he ran into the multiracial crowd is a hatred of blacks or minorities, even if that's the only reason he actually did it.

I could be wrong, but I would think hate crime convictions are most commonly tied to more explicit evidence: yelling racial epithets, scrawling bigoted slogans at the scene of a crime, things of that nature.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Also, I'm not clear why he was charged with murder but not attempted murder for all the others who were more fortunate to survive his rampage?

That's a good question. It might have to do with how they are attempting to prosecute this, or how second degree murder is defined in Virginia. I can find definitions for capital murder, first-degree murder, and second-degree murder in Virginia criminal code, but I have had a harder time finding just a definition of the word murder in Virginia law. That could be a factor.

 

[charwin95]

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..

Yes. Anyone that disagrees and beat racist hatred groups like KKK, NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACIST, ALT RIGHT ----- Are heroes and noble thing to do. I admired those people.
Someone has to stand up against these bastards. We fought 2 wars because of hatred and bigotry. Why should we stop now?

 

[Montrovant]

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..

Yes. Anyone that disagrees and beat racist hatred groups like KKK, NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACIST, ALT RIGHT ----- Are heroes and noble thing to do. I admired those people.
Someone has to stand up against these bastards. We fought 2 wars because of hatred and bigotry. Why should we stop now?

Well, as I understand it, we fought WWII because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We also treated the Japanese with fear and bigotry, putting many in internment camps. Let's not try to simplify history and make it seem as though the US went to war in WWII just to stop the bigotry of the Nazis.

Also, physically attacking someone, white supremacist or not, is illegal.

 

[charwin95]

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..

Yes. Anyone that disagrees and beat racist hatred groups like KKK, NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACIST, ALT RIGHT ----- Are heroes and noble thing to do. I admired those people.
Someone has to stand up against these bastards. We fought 2 wars because of hatred and bigotry. Why should we stop now?

Well, as I understand it, we fought WWII because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We also treated the Japanese with fear and bigotry, putting many in internment camps. Let's not try to simplify history and make it seem as though the US went to war in WWII just to stop the bigotry of the Nazis.

Also, physically attacking someone, white supremacist or not, is illegal.

Attacking someone? You purposely ignored who they attack. The KKK, White Supremacist, NAZIS, Alt right groups hate groups. These are not good people. We ( we means not you ) cannot allow these groups spreading hate, racism, intimidation, bigotry and most especially violence.
So tell me. How should we fight these bastards?

Japanese encampment was the right thing to do during that time. That's for their own safety. Just imagine if they are out in the public. They could all get killed. Don't you think? Don't get confused.

We went to 2 wars because of racism, hatred and bigotry. Period.

 

[Montrovant]

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..

Yes. Anyone that disagrees and beat racist hatred groups like KKK, NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACIST, ALT RIGHT ----- Are heroes and noble thing to do. I admired those people.
Someone has to stand up against these bastards. We fought 2 wars because of hatred and bigotry. Why should we stop now?

Well, as I understand it, we fought WWII because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We also treated the Japanese with fear and bigotry, putting many in internment camps. Let's not try to simplify history and make it seem as though the US went to war in WWII just to stop the bigotry of the Nazis.

Also, physically attacking someone, white supremacist or not, is illegal.

Attacking someone? You purposely ignored who they attack. The KKK, White Supremacist, NAZIS, Alt right groups hate groups. These are not good people. We ( we means not you ) cannot allow these groups spreading hate, racism, intimidation, bigotry and most especially violence.
So tell me. How should we fight these bastards?

Japanese encampment was the right thing to do during that time. That's for their own safety. Just imagine if they are out in the public. They could all get killed. Don't you think? Don't get confused.

We went to 2 wars because of racism, hatred and bigotry. Period.

You are right, I do purposely ignore who they attack, because it is not relevant to the law. Perhaps you believe in a country in which there is no rule of law.

Japanese internment was the right thing to do, huh? For the safety of the Japanese. Got it.

The US did not go to war in WWII until after the Pearl Harbor attack. That is was caused us to finally get involved. It was not just a noble struggle to fight against racism and bigotry, although those were certainly positive effects of the war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh, post: 18003104

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

There has been no evidence of any violence directed at the Nazi in a 2 Ton Dodge prior to him initiatiating a deadly assault against people marching peacefully in the street in his full view for two blocks.

I keep hearing RWNJs complaining that victims of this assault reacted violently to being attacked and that is so horrible. I brought up self defense by the victims as a right to subdue their attacker after he splattered bodies all over the scene.

Nothing but crickets.

Recent vehicle attacks around the world have made awareness that terrorists drive into crowds and then start shooting or knifing more people to add to their score.

It is not one bit unreasonable for victims at this scene to assume more weapons could be involved.

No one in a life or death situation like that horrendous scene of carnage had time or an obligation to assess whether this attack was over.

It's unreasonable to expect human beings in shock and in tremendous fear to concern themselves with restraint and being perfect law abiding citizens.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

So what is your point? Yes, a car will usually go quite straight if it's a modern car with no problems, even without steering input from the driver.

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.

I doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.

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.

How would the crowd have known that?

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.

That reaction would have been based on the threat level of the polearm attacker, not the crowd in the front.

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.

No, I didn't mean the guy with the umbrella. I thought he was incapacitated by the hit. I'm talking about the one who ran after the car after getting up.

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.

Which would mean the polearm attacker was a coincidence or planted by the driver. I find the theory where all the pieces fit to be more likely.

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?

No, you're being obtuse again. He had a split second to react so it could easily have been a natural inclination to move away from an imminent threat.

And no, it does make sense to me: if the crowd is violent and presumptuous, willing to act violent on the presumption. And again, how would the crowd have been certain he hadn't braked? Did they see his rear lights?

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?

I find it unacceptable to decide (meaning NOT a split second reaction to a moving imminent threat) to attack violently without thinking a driver of a car crash that, for all you know, was most likely an accident and presenting no imminent threat to you, and especially when doing so obviously puts you in greater danger.

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.

The perception would have been without any good evidence of failing to attempt to brake, for example.

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?

I did, one time. It was at about 5 mph. The moron was jaywalking like he was the last man on earth and I didn't see him. This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).

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.

Maybe. He might have been moving in an attempt to disperse the crowd. There was no indication at that time that he couldn't have stopped if he needed to.

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.

I doubt the driver had much knowledge about what was behind him, other than the polearm attacker who forced him to look. Following the idea that the driver was trying to make the crowd disperse by driving a little faster, he would have been totally focused ahead.

But even if he did know, driving backwards requires manipulation of the transmission, which probably required him to come to a complete stop first (option A), which even you thought was a bad idea.

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.

He didn't have to. The point is those other drivers saw the same crowd and determined it was possible to pass, and apparently it was. Couldn't Fields have made the same assessment having seen the same crowd?

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.

And yet it was working until he was attacked. Listen, your theory might be the true one, but until we know more, I prefer the theory where all the pieces fit.

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?

Are you talking before the polearm attack or after? Before the attack the crowd was not as dense, correct. After the attack it might have been reflex action or a self-preserving decision. After the attack, the "wall" of people went flying quite easily so if he thought there were only people there, he might have made it through like he was until he hit a car. Not saying it was the best idea with hindsight available. Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

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.

I agree the crowd reacted violently, being violent liberals, and it's a different reaction from a nonviolent person like me.

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?

They're not the same. The people in Charlottesville who attacked the driver were not personally struck. I was.

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.

Because I don't think the street should be the jury and execution room. As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.

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.

Do you mean because they charged him? That's probably to avoid a negro chimpout.

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.

I don't have to be a murderer or rapist to judge one like I don't have to be a rabid liberal protester to do the same.

 

[Faun]

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.

So what is your point? Yes, a car will usually go quite straight if it's a modern car with no problems, even without steering input from the driver.

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.

I doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.

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.

How would the crowd have known that?

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.

That reaction would have been based on the threat level of the polearm attacker, not the crowd in the front.

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.

No, I didn't mean the guy with the umbrella. I thought he was incapacitated by the hit. I'm talking about the one who ran after the car after getting up.

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.

Which would mean the polearm attacker was a coincidence or planted by the driver. I find the theory where all the pieces fit to be more likely.

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?

No, you're being obtuse again. He had a split second to react so it could easily have been a natural inclination to move away from an imminent threat.

And no, it does make sense to me: if the crowd is violent and presumptuous, willing to act violent on the presumption. And again, how would the crowd have been certain he hadn't braked? Did they see his rear lights?

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?

I find it unacceptable to decide (meaning NOT a split second reaction to a moving imminent threat) to attack violently without thinking a driver of a car crash that, for all you know, was most likely an accident and presenting no imminent threat to you, and especially when doing so obviously puts you in greater danger.

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.

The perception would have been without any good evidence of failing to attempt to brake, for example.

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?

I did, one time. It was at about 5 mph. The moron was jaywalking like he was the last man on earth and I didn't see him. This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).

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.

Maybe. He might have been moving in an attempt to disperse the crowd. There was no indication at that time that he couldn't have stopped if he needed to.

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.

I doubt the driver had much knowledge about what was behind him, other than the polearm attacker who forced him to look. Following the idea that the driver was trying to make the crowd disperse by driving a little faster, he would have been totally focused ahead.

But even if he did know, driving backwards requires manipulation of the transmission, which probably required him to come to a complete stop first (option A), which even you thought was a bad idea.

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.

He didn't have to. The point is those other drivers saw the same crowd and determined it was possible to pass, and apparently it was. Couldn't Fields have made the same assessment having seen the same crowd?

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.

And yet it was working until he was attacked. Listen, your theory might be the true one, but until we know more, I prefer the theory where all the pieces fit.

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?

Are you talking before the polearm attack or after? Before the attack the crowd was not as dense, correct. After the attack it might have been reflex action or a self-preserving decision. After the attack, the "wall" of people went flying quite easily so if he thought there were only people there, he might have made it through like he was until he hit a car. Not saying it was the best idea with hindsight available. Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

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.

I agree the crowd reacted violently, being violent liberals, and it's a different reaction from a nonviolent person like me.

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?

They're not the same. The people in Charlottesville who attacked the driver were not personally struck. I was.

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.

Because I don't think the street should be the jury and execution room. As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.

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.

Do you mean because they charged him? That's probably to avoid a negro chimpout.

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.

I don't have to be a murderer or rapist to judge one like I don't have to be a rabid liberal protester to do the same.

Since Fields drove for at least 2 blocks before hitting the crowd and they (the ones he passed) would had neither seen his brake lights nor heard his horn nor observe his car slow down in any appreciative degree, that's how the crowd would know.

And again, the salient part you ignore -- the crowd was right, it was an intentional attack. Why are you questioning the motives of the crowd when they were right?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 18008745,

As such, out of the hurtful actions people could inflict on others, I respect the self-protective ones more than the vengeful ones.

Totally ignoring the hurtful violence that your Nazi initiated and inflicted on his target,

Go drive thirty mph through a busy pedestrian laden parking lot with no regard for the safety of pedestrians and other drivers and see what reaction you get,

If a baseball were handy you would deserve a good snack on your windshield by someone you damn near ran over.

That's real life. Not your Nazi pampering that you have engaged in for almost a week.


Here's real life too:

You may ignore it, but the prosecution won't:

The pedestrians had no time to get out of his way - they were hemmed in. You attack the victims that had a split second devoid to make about whether your Nazi was finished killing or not. He could have been armed with an assault weapon as well.

Being run over by his car you must assume the worst.

As you can see there is nowhere to run if hecststred spraying off a few hundred rounds.

Your Nazi had all day to decide to drive down a little more than an alley and confront this crowd. The crowd had seconds to react with their lives in the balance

And you think a self defense reaction is wrong on their part. But not your Nazi?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

doubt this crash had as much to do with "missing" the crowd than it did with reacting, either consciously or subconsciously, to the initial polearm attacker.

You have to stop lying that your Nazi reacted to the flag brushing against his car.

This photo shows the bent over parking sign to be at least two car lengths ahead of your Nazis rear wheels . The flag guy hit the car when the rear wheels were lined up with that sign.

The black guy appears to be bracing for impact in this photo.

Your Nazi hit at least one person before the guy with the flag was alongside the car.

Your fantasy was always dead in a court of law. This is proof now.

When do you quit?

 

[Bush92]

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

His lawyers will have a legitimate point because of Antifa presence. Nazi's had a permit to march...and were represented by the ACLU in obtaining said permit. His case is strong in light of leftist intolerance toward the Constitution of the United States of America , and racism against any White American. Antifa is no better than neo-skinheads.

 

[MaryL]

News date 8/24/17. We had this break in the news that something new happened in Charoltesville. Then, a whole lot of nothing. So like, why the hoopla as if it's the second coming, then...NOTHING? The media likes it's games.

 

[Bush92]

News date 8/24/17. We had this break in the news that something new happened in Charoltesville. Then, a whole lot of nothing. So like, why the hoopla as if it's the second coming, then...NOTHING? The media likes it's games.

Especially liberal media.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush92, post: 18009507

His lawyers will have a legitimate point because of Antifa presence.

No he won't. Antifa is not responsible for his act of violence. Even jgrouse has admitted Fields was not in danger at least 6 to 8 seconds before plowing into the crowd. Plenty of time to stop and back out. No one was after him at that poiht.

The killer has a huge problem. His assault is on video. He was not acting in any way in self defense.

 

[Bush92]

Bush92, post: 18009507

His lawyers will have a legitimate point because of Antifa presence.

No he won't. Antifa is not responsible for his act of violence. Even jgrouse has admitted Fields was not in danger at least 6 to 8 seconds before plowing into the crowd. Plenty of time to stop and back out. No one was after him at that poiht.

The killer has a huge problem. His assault is on video. He was not acting in any way in self defense.

Let it play out in court. Show film of Antifa terrorist and their culpability in what happened there. He has strong case in court.

 

[Bush92]

He will get vehicular homicide...most likely on a plea agreement.