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

[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?

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.

what legal right did crowd have to be there without a permit ? Their actions resulted in the tragedy.

 

[Bush92]

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.

If city had set up security and separated the sides like Boston did, this would not have happened.

 

[Montrovant]

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 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.

The driver did not hit the brake or the horn.

How would the crowd have known that?

Here is an example of what I mean:
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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

what legal right did crowd have to be there without a permit ? Their actions resulted in the tragedy.

That still doesn't grant the driver any legal license to drive into a crowd of people.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

If city had set up security and separated the sides like Boston did, this would not have happened.

It was my understanding that at the time and place of this crash, there were no white nationalist protesters, it was just a group of the counter-protesters. Was that not the case?

 

[hadit]

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

If the crowd he runs into is composed of both black and white people, it's hard to say he was motivated by racial animus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

I think it would be easily defended, because no one could make the case that he specifically targeted a protected group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.

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.

The whole point I was arguing re: potential inattentiveness was regarding the crowd's reaction. I don't think him falling asleep behind the wheel was the cause of the crash given what I know and what the crowd did not know.

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.

Without seeing the brake lights (whether they're on or off) they'd have no way of knowing he didn't attempt to brake. Hence the argument re: mechanical failure: they'd have no way of knowing it wasn't the cause.

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.

Which reaction are you 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.

He didn't get hit hard, just knocked over. Got up and ran after the car.

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.

Doesn't matter what his reason is. What matters is he hit the car and likely led to the driver's reaction.

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.

There's no indication he was incapable of avoiding the protesters prior to the crash.

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.

You keep mixing up the apparent intent: self-preservation vs revenge. I didn't say the driver was a good person. I just think he acted strictly to protect himself.

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.

It's HIGHLY presumptuous because it ignores a common car problem (failed brakes) and presumes highly unlikely homicidal tendencies.

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.

You keep repeating your bullshit. I do understand and I do know: it's because the crowd is violent. I said it was unacceptable not incomprehensible.

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.

And if the driver had the mentality of violent members of that crowd, he would have stopped his car, gotten out, and proceeded to bludgeon the man to death with a bat.

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.

So how did they determine the brakes didn't fail?

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.

I was. The rest of the crowd was in a crosswalk.

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 guess we'll never know. All the evidence points to his control of the situation until he was hit.

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.

Going forward still gets him away from the attacker much faster. Let's not split hairs.

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 was probably focused on the polearm wielder at the time, which is hardly surprising. Would have taken his attention away from the front, as well as the other mirrors. As for not honking, maybe he thought it wouldn't work. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck.

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.

Doesn't change the fact that he could have determined it was possible to pass through the crowd without seeing the other cars in front of him.

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.

What do you mean lack of braking? I thought you said he did brake. I don't honk at crowds, either. It's illegal in some areas.

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.

He was doing fine until he hit one of the cars, right?

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?

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 guess when I say "nonviolent" I mean nonviolent except when protecting myself. You must have known what I meant.

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.

I wasn't a liberal either! Yes, totally different situation! You win this one!

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.

Self-preservation against an imminent threat is not what the jury and executioner are about. The latter are about punishment/revenge. The former is about self-preservation.

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).

I do understand it: they were violent, rabid liberals.

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.

You keep saying I haven't been in a crowd of liberals so I can't make a judgment about them.

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?

Just the facts.

 

[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.

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?

Why was crowd there?

 

[hadit]

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

He hated the black people he hit, but not the white people? That's absurd.

It's not a hate crime for the simple reason that he did not target a protected group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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.

True. But the city will face a lawsuit over their inaction.

 

[hadit]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

He may yet be, or perhaps the prosecution doesn't think they could make it stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.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.How would the crowd have known that?That reaction would have been based on the threat level of the polearm attacker, not the crowd in the front.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.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.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?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.The perception would have been without any good evidence of failing to attempt to brake, for example.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!).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.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.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?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.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.I agree the crowd reacted violently, being violent liberals, and it's a different reaction from a nonviolent person like me.They're not the same. The people in Charlottesville who attacked the driver were not personally struck. I was.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.Do you mean because they charged him? That's probably to avoid a negro chimpout.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.

what legal right did crowd have to be there without a permit ? Their actions resulted in the tragedy.

That still doesn't grant the driver any legal license to drive into a crowd of people.

Can you read a man's emotional state from the video? Was he panicked? It was a very violent situation.

 

[Bush92]

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.

If city had set up security and separated the sides like Boston did, this would not have happened.

It was my understanding that at the time and place of this crash, there were no white nationalist protesters, it was just a group of the counter-protesters. Was that not the case?

So he was trying to leave? Makes his case stronger.

 

[hadit]

I know this will not even penetrate into the minds of our SJWs who just wanna have ANY reason at all to hate some random white guy, but it seems that the driver was hit with a bat and that might have panicked him.

It might be that the driver in Charlottesville was panicked into losing control of his car, and did not intentionally run his car into the crowd.
VIDEO: Protesters Attacked Charlottesville Driver's Car With Baseball Bat

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

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

Because they haven't done anything illegal. It's still legal in this country to hold unpopular opinions, even if they are stupid and ignorant. When they break the law or hurt someone, however...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

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

He will almost certainly be convicted of something. The bottom line is that a driver has the responsibility to avoid hitting people on foot. It's really no more complicated than that. He saw the crowd in the street. He should never have gotten that close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Montrovant]

True. But the city will face a lawsuit over their inaction.

That is entirely possible. I just don't think it's really relevant to a discussion of the driver hitting the crowd.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

If city had set up security and separated the sides like Boston did, this would not have happened.

It was my understanding that at the time and place of this crash, there were no white nationalist protesters, it was just a group of the counter-protesters. Was that not the case?

So he was trying to leave? Makes his case stronger.

I don't see how. If he made a decision to drive into the crowd, and argues that he was merely "trying to leave," I expect the charges would be upheld.

 

[Montrovant]

Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.

That's certainly not the way it looks.

The whole point I was arguing re: potential inattentiveness was regarding the crowd's reaction. I don't think him falling asleep behind the wheel was the cause of the crash given what I know and what the crowd did not know.

Without seeing the brake lights (whether they're on or off) they'd have no way of knowing he didn't attempt to brake. Hence the argument re: mechanical failure: they'd have no way of knowing it wasn't the cause.

Other than full brake failure being rare, from what I can find about the subject, the car not only did not appear to slow down, it did not make any significant movements to avoid the crowd, nor was the horn used. You expect the crowd to wonder if it might have been a guy with total brake failure, a broken horn, and who did not react in any noticeable way to the fact his car was headed toward a large crowd of people with brakes that weren't functioning?

Which reaction are you talking about?

You've seemed to indicate that the driver was cognizant of the crowd posing a threat, and that that played a part in his reaction to the car being hit by the flagpole.

Doesn't matter what his reason is. What matters is he hit the car and likely led to the driver's reaction.

It does matter in the context of whether the action "fits," which you made a point of.

There's no indication he was incapable of avoiding the protesters prior to the crash.

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

You keep mixing up the apparent intent: self-preservation vs revenge. I didn't say the driver was a good person. I just think he acted strictly to protect himself.

One can act violently in attempting to protect oneself. As far as I am concerned, intentionally driving into a street packed with people is a violent act. I don't see how anyone could describe it as not being violent.

It's HIGHLY presumptuous because it ignores a common car problem (failed brakes) and presumes highly unlikely homicidal tendencies.

Again, from what I've been able to gather in a short search, total brake failure is rare. Here are a couple of links that make such an argument; take of it what you will. Brake Failure Analysis Brake Failure Accidents

Partial brake failure is supposed to be more common, but would still allow the car to be slowed with the brakes.

Homicidal tendencies may be unlikely, but how likely is total brake failure and driving a straight line with no use of the horn right into a large crowd of people? There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that some people do, in fact, drive into crowds intentionally. I don't recall ever hearing about a car running into a large crowd because the brakes and horn failed, and the driver did not even attempt to avoid the crowd. A car driving straight at a crowd, not slowing down, not making any indication there is a problem; it's not shocking that members of the crowd came to the conclusion it was intentional.

You keep repeating your bullshit. I do understand and I do know: it's because the crowd is violent. I said it was unacceptable not incomprehensible.

You have described driving into a crowd as understandable on a few occasions, while not being willing to apply the same to the reaction of the crowd, not even if they believed the act was intentional.

And if the driver had the mentality of violent members of that crowd, he would have stopped his car, gotten out, and proceeded to bludgeon the man to death with a bat.

Which, in the end, would have been a less violent decision, sadly enough.

Of course, your statement is ridiculous; the person with the flag had not even done any visible damage to the bumper of the car, while the car had just run over more than a dozen people before members of the crowd attacked it. You continue to draw false equivalencies. A person hitting the back bumper of a moving car with a flagpole is far different from a car plowing into a large crowd.

So how did they determine the brakes didn't fail?

See previous answers in this post.

I was. The rest of the crowd was in a crosswalk.

*Sigh* Still trying to draw a false equivalency. You hitting a single person at 5mph is not the same as a car driving toward a crowd that was clearly blocking the road at what appeared to be at least 20mph, without braking, without using a horn, without any visible attempt to avoid hitting anyone.

I guess we'll never know. All the evidence points to his control of the situation until he was hit

All the evidence I've seen points to his control throughout. I did not see any loss of control after the flagpole hit the car.

Going forward still gets him away from the attacker much faster. Let's not split hairs.

For the first bit of distance, sure. Long term, probably not, as the car seems likely to be stopped by hitting that many bodies, even if there were no other vehicles in the way. And, of course, there is the insanity of thinking that plowing through a crowd of bystanders is a reasonable action.

He was probably focused on the polearm wielder at the time, which is hardly surprising. Would have taken his attention away from the front, as well as the other mirrors. As for not honking, maybe he thought it wouldn't work. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck.

"Thought it wouldn't work"? Really?

At the time the flagpole hit the car, there appears to be very little distance between the car and the crowd; perhaps 2 car lengths, if I'm remembering the photo correctly. Even if we assume the driver had time to stop before hitting anyone, at the time the flagpole hit the car, he would have to have known that he needed to stop just about right then to avoid hitting pedestrians.

Doesn't change the fact that he could have determined it was possible to pass through the crowd without seeing the other cars in front of him.

If he thought he could pass through the crowd without hitting anyone, that would be one thing. This crowd was far too dense for anyone to think they would get through other than by hitting people, though. No matter how many times you say it, driving into a bunch of pedestrians is simply not acceptable nor understandable if intentional.

What do you mean lack of braking? I thought you said he did brake. I don't honk at crowds, either. It's illegal in some areas.

Lack of braking for the block before hitting the crowd. In the video that shows the incident from behind, the car brakes at the very beginning, something like a block away, and not again.

He was doing fine until he hit one of the cars, right?

It's hard to say, but I would imagine that hitting that many people had begun slowing down the car and caused some damage.

I guess when I say "nonviolent" I mean nonviolent except when protecting myself. You must have known what I meant.

I'm sorry, but choosing to run over a bunch of innocents to avoid a vague possible threat sounds like a violent person.

I wasn't a liberal either! Yes, totally different situation! You win this one!

Again with false equivalencies. Being part of a crowd that was just run into in what may have appeared an intentional manner is very different from a single person being hit by a vehicle. When you were hit, did you think the person had done so purposely?

Self-preservation against an imminent threat is not what the jury and executioner are about. The latter are about punishment/revenge. The former is about self-preservation.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that you consider killing a bunch of innocents reasonable if you have any sense that there may be a threat to your life.

I do understand it: they were violent, rabid liberals.

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

You keep saying I haven't been in a crowd of liberals so I can't make a judgment about them.

I never said that, actually. I did say that being a part of a crowd which you believe to have just been intentionally driven into is different than your average accident of one vehicle hitting one person.

Just the facts.

I find that questionable. I just noticed this gem, as well:

This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).

Still, perhaps your bigotry isn't influencing your opinion. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting people until he got hit.

That's certainly not the way it looks.

The whole point I was arguing re: potential inattentiveness was regarding the crowd's reaction. I don't think him falling asleep behind the wheel was the cause of the crash given what I know and what the crowd did not know.

Without seeing the brake lights (whether they're on or off) they'd have no way of knowing he didn't attempt to brake. Hence the argument re: mechanical failure: they'd have no way of knowing it wasn't the cause.

Other than full brake failure being rare, from what I can find about the subject, the car not only did not appear to slow down, it did not make any significant movements to avoid the crowd, nor was the horn used. You expect the crowd to wonder if it might have been a guy with total brake failure, a broken horn, and who did not react in any noticeable way to the fact his car was headed toward a large crowd of people with brakes that weren't functioning?

Which reaction are you talking about?

You've seemed to indicate that the driver was cognizant of the crowd posing a threat, and that that played a part in his reaction to the car being hit by the flagpole.

Doesn't matter what his reason is. What matters is he hit the car and likely led to the driver's reaction.

It does matter in the context of whether the action "fits," which you made a point of.

There's no indication he was incapable of avoiding the protesters prior to the crash.

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

You keep mixing up the apparent intent: self-preservation vs revenge. I didn't say the driver was a good person. I just think he acted strictly to protect himself.

One can act violently in attempting to protect oneself. As far as I am concerned, intentionally driving into a street packed with people is a violent act. I don't see how anyone could describe it as not being violent.

It's HIGHLY presumptuous because it ignores a common car problem (failed brakes) and presumes highly unlikely homicidal tendencies.

Again, from what I've been able to gather in a short search, total brake failure is rare. Here are a couple of links that make such an argument; take of it what you will. Brake Failure Analysis Brake Failure Accidents

Partial brake failure is supposed to be more common, but would still allow the car to be slowed with the brakes.

Homicidal tendencies may be unlikely, but how likely is total brake failure and driving a straight line with no use of the horn right into a large crowd of people? There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that some people do, in fact, drive into crowds intentionally. I don't recall ever hearing about a car running into a large crowd because the brakes and horn failed, and the driver did not even attempt to avoid the crowd. A car driving straight at a crowd, not slowing down, not making any indication there is a problem; it's not shocking that members of the crowd came to the conclusion it was intentional.

You keep repeating your bullshit. I do understand and I do know: it's because the crowd is violent. I said it was unacceptable not incomprehensible.

You have described driving into a crowd as understandable on a few occasions, while not being willing to apply the same to the reaction of the crowd, not even if they believed the act was intentional.

And if the driver had the mentality of violent members of that crowd, he would have stopped his car, gotten out, and proceeded to bludgeon the man to death with a bat.

Which, in the end, would have been a less violent decision, sadly enough.

Of course, your statement is ridiculous; the person with the flag had not even done any visible damage to the bumper of the car, while the car had just run over more than a dozen people before members of the crowd attacked it. You continue to draw false equivalencies. A person hitting the back bumper of a moving car with a flagpole is far different from a car plowing into a large crowd.

So how did they determine the brakes didn't fail?

See previous answers in this post.

I was. The rest of the crowd was in a crosswalk.

*Sigh* Still trying to draw a false equivalency. You hitting a single person at 5mph is not the same as a car driving toward a crowd that was clearly blocking the road at what appeared to be at least 20mph, without braking, without using a horn, without any visible attempt to avoid hitting anyone.

I guess we'll never know. All the evidence points to his control of the situation until he was hit

All the evidence I've seen points to his control throughout. I did not see any loss of control after the flagpole hit the car.

Going forward still gets him away from the attacker much faster. Let's not split hairs.

For the first bit of distance, sure. Long term, probably not, as the car seems likely to be stopped by hitting that many bodies, even if there were no other vehicles in the way. And, of course, there is the insanity of thinking that plowing through a crowd of bystanders is a reasonable action.

He was probably focused on the polearm wielder at the time, which is hardly surprising. Would have taken his attention away from the front, as well as the other mirrors. As for not honking, maybe he thought it wouldn't work. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't hit anyone prior to being struck.

"Thought it wouldn't work"? Really?

At the time the flagpole hit the car, there appears to be very little distance between the car and the crowd; perhaps 2 car lengths, if I'm remembering the photo correctly. Even if we assume the driver had time to stop before hitting anyone, at the time the flagpole hit the car, he would have to have known that he needed to stop just about right then to avoid hitting pedestrians.

Doesn't change the fact that he could have determined it was possible to pass through the crowd without seeing the other cars in front of him.

If he thought he could pass through the crowd without hitting anyone, that would be one thing. This crowd was far too dense for anyone to think they would get through other than by hitting people, though. No matter how many times you say it, driving into a bunch of pedestrians is simply not acceptable nor understandable if intentional.

What do you mean lack of braking? I thought you said he did brake. I don't honk at crowds, either. It's illegal in some areas.

Lack of braking for the block before hitting the crowd. In the video that shows the incident from behind, the car brakes at the very beginning, something like a block away, and not again.

He was doing fine until he hit one of the cars, right?

It's hard to say, but I would imagine that hitting that many people had begun slowing down the car and caused some damage.

I guess when I say "nonviolent" I mean nonviolent except when protecting myself. You must have known what I meant.

I'm sorry, but choosing to run over a bunch of innocents to avoid a vague possible threat sounds like a violent person.

I wasn't a liberal either! Yes, totally different situation! You win this one!

Again with false equivalencies. Being part of a crowd that was just run into in what may have appeared an intentional manner is very different from a single person being hit by a vehicle. When you were hit, did you think the person had done so purposely?

Self-preservation against an imminent threat is not what the jury and executioner are about. The latter are about punishment/revenge. The former is about self-preservation.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that you consider killing a bunch of innocents reasonable if you have any sense that there may be a threat to your life.

I do understand it: they were violent, rabid liberals.

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

You keep saying I haven't been in a crowd of liberals so I can't make a judgment about them.

I never said that, actually. I did say that being a part of a crowd which you believe to have just been intentionally driven into is different than your average accident of one vehicle hitting one person.

Just the facts.

I find that questionable. I just noticed this gem, as well:

This was in a negrohood (what a surprise!).

Still, perhaps your bigotry isn't influencing your opinion. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

I think that is the longest post I have ever seen on this MB, lol.

 

[Faun]

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

Plus charges filed by the federal government, should they decide to prosecute him.