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

[MaryL]

I love statues, Bernini and Michelangelo were great sculptors. People destroyed their works over political grounds. They melted down Da Vinci's greatest equestrian statue into bronze cannons.

 

[Bush92]

His legal team will bring up the lack of preparation by City of Charlottesville, and the appropriate response a week later by City of Boston. He will get about 24 months on vehicular homicide and victims family will win a buttload of $$$$ from a City of Charlottesville in a civil suit.

 

[Bush92]

I love statues, Bernini and Michelangelo were great sculptors. People destroyed their works over political grounds. They melted down Da Vinci's greatest equestrian statue into bronze cannons.

My favorite

 

[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.

Yes...their actions make them culpable and they are open to a civil suit.

 

[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.

How do you know? We're you in the car? What evidence do you have? Prosecutors have a tough case to prove if they go for second degree murder. First degree is out of the question.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

 

[Bush92]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

 

[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

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.

What legitimate point will his lawyers have because of Antifa? The driver had no more right to drive into a crowd of Antifa than an Antifa driver would have had to drive into a crowd of white nationalists.

Just because a crowd is made up of ass-holes doesn't mean you get a lesser sentence for running into them.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

 

[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.

What legitimate point will his lawyers have because of Antifa? The driver had no more right to drive into a crowd of Antifa than an Antifa driver would have had to drive into a crowd of white nationalists.

Just because a crowd is made up of ass-holes doesn't mean you get a lesser sentence for running into them.

Show me film inside the car when he used racial epithet and floored it? Antifa were the instigators of the violence. Skinheads had a permit. They have legal high ground. If she had stayed home she would be alive. But she made a conscious choice to violate the law and other people's free speech rights.

 

[Bush92]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

That it is not an open shut case. DA will not pursue murder in the first.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

That it is not an open shut case. DA will not pursue murder in the first.

They haven't charged him with first degree murder, but with second degree.

 

[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.

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?

These look like brake lights to me:

What do you think?

 

[Bush92]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

The "panicked defense " will work with a jury when they are shown video of the lunatic behavior of both sides. Skinheads had legal standing to be there. City did not provide proper security or traffic control. Her family will settle out of court with city in civil suit...he will get vehicular man slaughter. Couple years and out.

 

[Bush92]

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?

These look like brake lights to me:

What do you think?

DA will not go for murder in the first. Have flimsy case.

 

[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

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.

What legitimate point will his lawyers have because of Antifa? The driver had no more right to drive into a crowd of Antifa than an Antifa driver would have had to drive into a crowd of white nationalists.

Just because a crowd is made up of ass-holes doesn't mean you get a lesser sentence for running into them.

Show me film inside the car when he used racial epithet and floored it? Antifa were the instigators of the violence. Skinheads had a permit. They have legal high ground. If she had stayed home she would be alive. But she made a conscious choice to violate the law and other people's free speech rights.

I never claimed he used any racial epithet. I have, in fact, said that I think any racially-based hate crime charge could be difficult to prove.

What do permits have to do with it being illegal to intentionally drive a car into a crowd of people? How were Antifa "the instigators of violence" when we're talking about the car driving into the crowd? Was the driver actually an Antifa member?

What legal high ground do skinheads need in this case? We are talking about one man driving a car into a crowd, not the entire protest/counter-protest scenario.

That a person would live if they aren't in the place a car crashes into a crowd does not make it OK for that car to plow into a crowd.

How was the woman who died violating anyone's free speech rights?

 

[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.

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?

These look like brake lights to me:

What do you think?

Yeah, based on the video, that looked to be about a block away from the crash, not two blocks. Still plenty of time for the crowd to see the car head toward them without stopping from that point, though.

 

[Bush92]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

That it is not an open shut case. DA will not pursue murder in the first.

They haven't charged him with first degree murder, but with second degree.

Will not get it. Too much stupidity on all sides. Including the city.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

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.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

How would the crowd have known that?

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

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

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

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.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

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.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

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?

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

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.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

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

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

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!).

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

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.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

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.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

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?

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

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.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

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.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

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

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

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

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

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.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

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

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

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.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

The "panicked defense " will work with a jury when they are shown video of the lunatic behavior of both sides. Skinheads had legal standing to be there. City did not provide proper security or traffic control. Her family will settle out of court with city in civil suit...he will get vehicular man slaughter. Couple years and out.

I don't think it will. I think the evidence shows that the driver was already going to hit the crowd before his car was hit by the flagpole. That assumes the defense uses such an argument, of course.

We'll see when it goes to trial.

 

[Montrovant]

The driver would have had to be inattentive for quite a distance not to realize he was heading toward a crowd of people filling the road. That would mean he got pretty lucky that his car was pointed straight down the road and not slightly to either side. Also, there seems to be some adjustments going on: braking a block or so from the crowd (at the beginning of the video which shows the crash from behind), and a bit of a swerve before being hit by the flag guy.

Let's just skip past the idea of inattentiveness being at fault, then.

The lack of a horn would be pretty obvious if you didn't hear a horn. As far as knowing the car didn't brake, a number of people were watching the car progress down the road. Perhaps it was because of the people who were having to run and jump to avoid being hit, as indicated by some of the still photos. This picture shows quite a few people looking at the car, and because the brake lights are on, that would mean they were looking quite a bit before the car hit the crowd.

The attackers may well have turned to see the car and seen that it did not brake.

You talked about "all those weapons," not just the flag guy. That is what I was talking about.

In that case, I'm not sure who you mean. I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone did as you say, though. It doesn't sound hard to believe.

Or, perhaps, the guy with the flag saw a car driving dangerously down the road, scattering protesters in front of it, and decided to hit the car.

First, the driver would have had only a split second to react because he was driving at an unsafe speed toward a crowd in the road in front of him. If you only have a split second to react before you plow into a crowd of pedestrians, you are driving like a maniac.

You have, in multiple posts, described the driver as being violent and presumptuous. Presumptuous for assuming that the rear bumper being hit by a flagpole (or being hit by some unknown object) is a threat to his life that must be escaped immediately, and violent for deciding that plowing into a group of pedestrians is an acceptable course of action.

I've already explained how members of the crowd could have determined the car had not braked. If you don't see the car slow down, don't hear a squeal of brakes, it's a pretty good indication even without being able to see the rear lights. I'll grant there is some presumption involved; I've never claimed the crowd could know for certain that the act was intentional.

I don't have a problem with opposing the crowd attacking the car. I just find it odd to not understand why someone might do so in that situation, to not understand a violent response to a perceived attack against one's self or one's companions. Attacking the car from behind was pretty bad judgement.

Speaking of for all you knows, for all the driver knew the guy had hit his car with a wiffle bat. You don't seem to care about what the driver could or could not have known, only the crowd.

Unless, as I've said, those who attacked saw the car come down the road without slowing. Or the fact that the car plowed through a bunch of people and slammed into the back of another vehicle. The crowd probably had a pretty good idea that the car didn't just go into the crowd slowly.

This car was clearly going well beyond 5 mph. And the situation you are describing does not sound like you were driving toward a crowd.

There certainly is an indication he could not have stopped: his apparent speed and the distance between the car and the crowd.

Coming to a stop would be a bad idea if you fear for your life and that is the entirety of what you do. Coming to a stop and then going backwards is not just coming to a stop.

So now the driver can see there is someone who hit his car behind him, but doesn't notice anything else? He's speeding up to disperse the crowd (when did I miss that driving lesson: hitting the gas to make pedestrians move), but not using his horn? Talk about things that don't fit!

Certainly. However, those other drivers apparently slowed down rather than driving at unsafe speeds, scattering people in front of them, and eventually plowing into the crowd.

All the pieces do not fit with the idea that this was self-defense or some sort of panic reaction. The lack of braking, the car's speed and distance from the crowd when the flagpole hits the car, the lack of horn use, none of those things fit your narrative.

"Might" be illegal to intentionally plow through a street full of pedestrians?

A car is obviously much bigger than a person, and can generate a lot of momentum, but I seriously doubt that car would have been able to drive through a blocks worth of crowd and drive away on the other side.

Ah, so conservatives or libertarians or anarchists or people with other political affiliations don't ever react violently, is that it?

And considering how you've repeatedly condoned the idea of driving into a street crowded with people, calling yourself non-violent is a silly.

I don't actually know if any of the people who attacked the car were personally struck. Some could have been, although it would probably have had to be glancing blows. Regardless, that doesn't make a single person being hit by a car the same as a crowd completely blocking a street being hit by a car, nor the reactions of people in those situations the same.

You kind of do seem to think the street should be the jury and execution room, if you think driving through a crowd of people is acceptable. Doing that has a good chance of leaving someone dead.

Hey, I have no problem with you respecting self-protection more than vengeance. I'm just not sure why you seem incapable of understanding vengeance in this instance (ignoring the possibility of self-preservation on the part of the car attackers).

"Negro chimpout"....added to blaming "violent liberals" earlier, I get the feeling your argument is based on ideology more than evidence. I've tried to assume everyone in the thread is just arguing their opinion based on the facts available, but that kind of description makes it hard to do.

I don't know what this line has to do with what I posted.

Now I'm wondering how much of your opinion is based on a dislike of "rabid liberal protesters" or thinking there would be a "negro chimpout." Is this just sympathy for a white supremacist?

Bingo! So it is in doubt. He will be charged with vehicular homicide. Nothing more. Do not forget the victims were in violation of the law. They had no permit.

The victims being in violation of the law doesn't not grant anyone license to plow into them with a car.

That was a long post, I'm not sure just what your "Bingo!" is in reference to.

That it is not an open shut case. DA will not pursue murder in the first.

They haven't charged him with first degree murder, but with second degree.

Will not get it. Too much stupidity on all sides. Including the city.

How does stupidity on the part of the city change the illegality of driving into a crowd of people? You seem to be trying to connect separate actions.