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

[Kosh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

Yes we know you far left drones will not condemn the far left terrorists that started the violence!

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

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

 

[bgrouse]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

As long as they are not violating the rights of other people, members of those groups have the same rights and protections as any other citizen.

Are you trying to justify suppressing someone's speech because you find it offensive? Are you trying to justify assault against anyone you disagree with strongly enough? Are you opposed to a nation built on the rule of law?

If white supremacists become violent, a person has every right to defend themselves. If they do not, you do not have the legal right to attack a white supremacist because they hold repugnant beliefs.

Our freedom to speak, assemble, and express ourselves is specifically designed to protect disliked or offensive ideas, IMO.

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

Yes, I think the internment of those with Japanese ancestry without due process was wrong. I think the Supreme Court erred badly in allowing it. I don't think it was as bad as the Dredd Scott decision, but I consider it a black mark in US history.

 

[Montrovant]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd. You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into. You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into. In that case, it's not possible that they could have felt their lives might be threatened. A person in a moving car who is hit by a flagpole, however, that is life-or-death time).

You have now tried to say that because the driver did not run anyone over while the road was mostly clear, it is evidence that the crash was caused by the flagpole hitting the car. That is the change in circumstance you consider important, not the difference between a mostly clear road and a road filled with pedestrians.

You have equated the cars which were moving extremely slowly, surrounded by the crowd, with this driver heading into the crowd at an unsafe speed.

You have claimed the driver may have not used the horn because he didn't think it would work, instead just plowing into the crowd intentionally. In your mind, driving over dozens of pedestrians, killing who knows how many of them, would have been a justified action on the part of the driver, because someone hit his bumper with a flagpole. Perhaps there were mothers carrying infants in that crowd, but apparently that's OK; if there is a bump on your car at any time, you can just mow down any innocents unfortunate enough to be in your path.

You are determined to make excuses for any action the driver took, no matter how outlandish. If you honestly believe that someone hitting your bumper while you are moving is such an imminent threat that killing any number of innocents is justified if it might allow you to get away from that oh-so-terrible threat, if you think a driver has no responsibility to avoid pedestrians, if you think that when there is a clear road behind you and a road full of people in front of you, that driving through the people is a justified action, there is really no reason for discussion.

If, on the other hand, you are just trolling, there is still no reason.

Maybe you should just boil this down to blaming a bunch of "rabid liberals" and a "chimpout" in the "negrohood". That would make about as much sense, but would perhaps be a more honest representation of your opinion.

Whatever the case, as has been pointed out, this is getting ridiculously long. I see no reason to continue.

 

[bgrouse]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd. You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into. You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into.

No I didn't, moron. I said that's likely why he did it, not that it gave him a "license." You even quoted and addressed what I said:

Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

I see no reason to continue.

Indeed. You keep going in circles, unable to understand simple concepts like different information being available at different times, and you can't even understand the static articles you're quoting!

 

[Faun]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

He didn't brake a block before hitting the crowd. He tapped his brake as he was about to hit them. That as far as I needed to get into your logorrhea to see you're lying about the events which took place.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[Faun]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd. You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into. You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into.

No I didn't, moron. I said that's likely why he did it, not that it gave him a "license." You even quoted and addressed what I said:

Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

I see no reason to continue.

Indeed. You keep going in circles, unable to understand simple concepts like different information being available at different times, and you can't even understand the static articles you're quoting!

Why won't you answer this question...?

The crowd was right when they assumed it was an intentional attack -- so why are you criticizing them for attacking back?

 

[Montrovant]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd. You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into. You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into.

No I didn't, moron. I said that's likely why he did it, not that it gave him a "license." You even quoted and addressed what I said:

Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

I see no reason to continue.

Indeed. You keep going in circles, unable to understand simple concepts like different information being available at different times, and you can't even understand the static articles you're quoting!

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

 

[charwin95]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

Yes we know you far left drones will not condemn the far left terrorists that started the violence!

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

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

Anyone that fight against these hate groups are heroes. Someone has to stand up against bigotry, racism, hatred, intimidation and violence. We cannot allow these hate groups that are worse than animals spread their hate propaganda that will ruin this country.
Im glad to hear which side you are in. Your link just proved what kind of animals are these people that you supported.

 

[Montrovant]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

He didn't brake a block before hitting the crowd. He tapped his brake as he was about to hit them. That as far as I needed to get into your logorrhea to see you're lying about the events which took place.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Based on the video taken from behind the Dodge, he did brake about a block away from where he hit the crowd. I can't see any brake lights after that.

The still photo of the car with its brake lights on, if accurate, would seem to have been from the very beginning of the behind-the-car video.

 

[charwin95]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

1. As long as they are not violating the rights of other people, members of those groups have the same rights and protections as any other citizen.

Are you trying to justify suppressing someone's speech because you find it offensive? Are you trying to justify assault against anyone you disagree with strongly enough? Are you opposed to a nation built on the rule of law?

If white supremacists become violent, a person has every right to defend themselves. If they do not, you do not have the legal right to attack a white supremacist because they hold repugnant beliefs.

Our freedom to speak, assemble, and express ourselves is specifically designed to protect disliked or offensive ideas, IMO.

Hate groups KKK, White Supremacist, NAZIS, ALT RIGHT and other hate groups do NOT have place in America. These hate groups are and always been violent.

ONLY goal and ONLY goal is to eliminate meaning kill ALL minorities. Because it's the only way they can achieve their goal just like Hitler did with the Jews. That's also the primary reason why they have swastika flag, salutes and idolize Hitler.

That only WHITE POWER should exist here in America. Explain that.

 

[bgrouse]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd. You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into. You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into.

No I didn't, moron. I said that's likely why he did it, not that it gave him a "license." You even quoted and addressed what I said:

Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

I see no reason to continue.

Indeed. You keep going in circles, unable to understand simple concepts like different information being available at different times, and you can't even understand the static articles you're quoting!

Why won't you answer this question...?

The crowd was right when they assumed it was an intentional attack -- so why are you criticizing them for attacking back?

Who said it was an intentional attack?

 

[Faun]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

He didn't brake a block before hitting the crowd. He tapped his brake as he was about to hit them. That as far as I needed to get into your logorrhea to see you're lying about the events which took place.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Based on the video taken from behind the Dodge, he did brake about a block away from where he hit the crowd. I can't see any brake lights after that.

The still photo of the car with its brake lights on, if accurate, would seem to have been from the very beginning of the behind-the-car video.

At what mark in this video do you see brake lights illuminate?

 

[Faun]

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

Other than full brake failure being rare,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

*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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

"Thought it wouldn't work"? Really?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

I find that questionable. I just noticed this gem, as well:Still, perhaps your bigotry isn't influencing your opinion. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

At this point you are equating driving down a mostly clear road to plowing into a dense crowd. You continue to equate a single car hitting a single individual, with no indication of intent, with a crowd being intentionally driven into. You continue to indicate that any perceived threat to your life gives a person license to injure or kill as many innocents as they may feel necessary (unless, of course, it is the crowd who was just driven into.

No I didn't, moron. I said that's likely why he did it, not that it gave him a "license." You even quoted and addressed what I said:

Might even be illegal even if my theory is true.

I see no reason to continue.

Indeed. You keep going in circles, unable to understand simple concepts like different information being available at different times, and you can't even understand the static articles you're quoting!

Why won't you answer this question...?

The crowd was right when they assumed it was an intentional attack -- so why are you criticizing them for attacking back?

Who said it was an intentional attack?

The DA.

Are you claiming it was an accident?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 18015049

Who said it was an intentional attack?

"Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or ... to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder."

Plenty of eyewitnesses said immediately it was intentional.

The Police Chief said it was intentional,

The video captured an intentional act. The videos tell us and the prosecutor a lot.

We know from the video your narrative is entirely false that flag guy panicked the driver and he defended his life by driving through fifty feet of violent pedestrians.

He hit people before flag guy. A couple of car lengths.

Prosecutors and jury will see that even clearer when the videos are turned into evidence and presented in the court room.

His association with Nazi hate group adds to your Nazi's difficult defense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

He didn't brake a block before hitting the crowd. He tapped his brake as he was about to hit them. That as far as I needed to get into your logorrhea to see you're lying about the events which took place.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Based on the video taken from behind the Dodge, he did brake about a block away from where he hit the crowd. I can't see any brake lights after that.

The still photo of the car with its brake lights on, if accurate, would seem to have been from the very beginning of the behind-the-car video.

At what mark in this video do you see brake lights illuminate?

This photo is likely 25 feet rear wheels to rear wheels before the guy with the flag hit the car still going very fast when the car was hit.

So the coward killer Nazi did not apply brakes to avoid hitting anybody.

He did not brake hard but he apparently tapped the brake a second before hitting his first defenseless pedestrians.

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

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

 

[hadit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

The best way to combat hateful rhetoric is not by violence. That's just playing into what they want, victimhood. By attacking them with violence because it's their words, you become worse than they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Montrovant]

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

That's certainly not the way it looks.

According to you, here's what he did:

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.

The result being no crash.

Then he was hit, and there was a crash.

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,

Are you talking about Faun's article? Even that says it's only referring to a certain complete brake failure and not other forms of brake failure which can increase stopping distance.

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,

So what about this?
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.

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?

No, dumbass, I don't! I told you before people are not as used to honking when wanting to brake as they are used to hitting the brake pedal. And you're contradicting yourself with the last line.

Christ! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!

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.

Yes, I think he went from being suspicious of the crowd prior to and during/after the polearm attack and before the crash to being downright panicked that they were about to murder him after the crash. So before he drove forward and crashed, the perceived threat of the crowd in front was less than that of the polearm attacker. After the crash, it was more. How hard is this simple concept to understand?

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.

Whether the polearm wielder yawned and accidentally swung the flag or was trying to kill the driver, all the driver knows is he was hit.

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

I've pointed out multiple times the indications.

That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.

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.

OK, but I was referring to people's nature. One's being violent to get revenge (violence for the sake of violence) and those doing whatever they can survive.

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.

Yeah, eventually.

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.

Strawman. If he were trying to slow the car down using alternative braking procedures, I can see how he might forget to use the horn or neglect it in favor of managing the damaged brakes.

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.

So what exactly did I say? That I couldn't comprehend why the crowd would do what it did?

I searched through the thread and the first time I mentioned the crowd's violence was here:

He must have been going somewhere. Then he encountered the violent crowd. (#210)

then I said this:

It's obvious that this liberal mob was extremely violent and intolerant and to think that they were calmly minding their own business, standing around on a road where traffic was not allowed thanks to their protest permit, until this guy rammed them is highly unreasonable. (#283)

I don't see where I said I can't possibly understand why the crowd would react the way they did.

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.

I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.

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.

Self-protection is not about an eye for an eye, which is your approach here. If someone points a gun at you and you kill him, he did 0 damage to you and you killed him (utterly incomparable levels of harm), but it would be generally perfectly acceptable as self-defense (and justifiable to most reasonable people) in a court of law. Again, self-defense is not about an eye for an eye.

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

See previous answers in this post.

Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!

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.

We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.

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.

Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!

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.

That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.

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?

Sure! How long was it from the polearm attack until the hit? A horn is hardly a striking sound in an environment like that. By the time someone hears it, looks, decides what to do, and acts, would it really have mattered? He could have been focusing on managing his potentially damaged brakes.

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.

And your point is?

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.

But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!

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.

Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.

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.

Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!

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.

Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!

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?

No.

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.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

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

Again, do you think only liberals seek vengeance?

Do I? Does it matter?

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.

I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!

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.

Brake failure is not common.

Brake Failure Analysis

What is not well understood about brake failures is that true catastrophic brake failures are rare. Brake systems on modern vehicles are required to have various fail-safe mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of complete failure. Generally speaking, vehicles have two separate braking systems, whereby, in the event of a component failure, only part of the vehicle's brake system will fail to operate (partial failure). This allows the driver to stop, but requires a greater distance to do so in a panic situation.​

No, the document says "true catastrophic brake failure" (as interpreted by the writer), as opposed to "brake failure," is rare.

As usual, the dumbass liberals see one thing, but think and say another.

He didn't brake a block before hitting the crowd. He tapped his brake as he was about to hit them. That as far as I needed to get into your logorrhea to see you're lying about the events which took place.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Based on the video taken from behind the Dodge, he did brake about a block away from where he hit the crowd. I can't see any brake lights after that.

The still photo of the car with its brake lights on, if accurate, would seem to have been from the very beginning of the behind-the-car video.

At what mark in this video do you see brake lights illuminate?

Never.

In this video, however, the brake lights are on for a moment at the very beginning:

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you think Japanese encampment was wrong? I know couple Japanese that was rounded up then threw them in to these camps. As soon Japan started the war in Asia---- hatred against Japanese here in US lit up like someone throw a bottle of gasoline. They are so scared going to grocery or walk to the streets etc etc etc. At the beginning they hated (naturally) it but as the war goes on in Asia and American body bags are coming home. They realized it was impossible for them to live outside the camp.


Bottom line. Are you trying to justify that KKK, WHITE SUPREMACIST, NAZIS or other hate groups are peace loving people and they should be dealt with peace? These people are born to hate.

I hate violence but I don't think these hate groups are capable of peace. So we just have to keep quiet and go on with our lives leave them alone while they spread hatred, racism bigotry, scaring and intimidating people?

1. As long as they are not violating the rights of other people, members of those groups have the same rights and protections as any other citizen.

Are you trying to justify suppressing someone's speech because you find it offensive? Are you trying to justify assault against anyone you disagree with strongly enough? Are you opposed to a nation built on the rule of law?

If white supremacists become violent, a person has every right to defend themselves. If they do not, you do not have the legal right to attack a white supremacist because they hold repugnant beliefs.

Our freedom to speak, assemble, and express ourselves is specifically designed to protect disliked or offensive ideas, IMO.

Hate groups KKK, White Supremacist, NAZIS, ALT RIGHT and other hate groups do NOT have place in America. These hate groups are and always been violent.

ONLY goal and ONLY goal is to eliminate meaning kill ALL minorities. Because it's the only way they can achieve their goal just like Hitler did with the Jews. That's also the primary reason why they have swastika flag, salutes and idolize Hitler.

That only WHITE POWER should exist here in America. Explain that.

Someone might make the same argument that Antifa and Black Lives Matter are violent groups and should not be allowed. The argument would be the same there: if members of a group make threats or attack another person, they should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. If you just don't like their philosophy, beliefs, or message, don't listen.

I'd be happier if people did not subscribe to the ideas of white supremacy. However, I am unwilling to subvert the freedoms we enjoy, to go against the principles of things like the first amendment, to make that happen through force of law.

Do you think freedom of speech should only apply to those who espouse views you agree with?