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

[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.

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.

I was quoting what he said, stupid. Got a problem with it? Take it up with him.

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.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.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.
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!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?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.That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.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.Yeah, eventually.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.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.I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.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.Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.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.And your point is?But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!No.You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.Do I? Does it matter?I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!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?

Where did the DA say that?

 

[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.

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:

^^^ this video is unavailable

 

[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.

I was quoting what he said, stupid. Got a problem with it? Take it up with him.

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?

Where did the DA say that?

When they charged him with murder.

Now answer my question.... are you claiming this was an accident?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

hadit, post: 18016468

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.

The counter protestors were very peaceful when they were ran over by a freakin (we know now) Nazi. It is one hate group member's violence being discussed here. The counter protestors did not kill anyone with a two ton weapon.

I dont like or condone ANTIFA tactics specifically if they initiate violence. I prefer MLK and Ghandi tactics.

But if fascists strike them first I am not some Pollyanna expecting that all anti fascists who take a stand will react peacefully.

Trouble is it is difficult to determine who started the skirmishes between the two groups on that weekend. Because of that I lend my support to the group that opposes parading fascists, not the fascists themselves.

There is no equating the two in my view.

Anyway the hate group member that killed and wounded peaceful defenseless marchers is entirely separate from the skirmishes that took place during that weekend.

 

[hadit]

hadit, post: 18016468

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.

The counter protestors were very peaceful when they were ran over by a freakin (we know now) Nazi. It is one hate group member's violence being discussed here. The counter protestors did not kill anyone with a two ton weapon.

I dont like or condone ANTIFA tactics specifically if they initiate violence. I prefer MLK and Ghandi tactics.

But if fascists strike them first I am not some Pollyanna expecting that all anti fascists who take a stand will react peacefully.

Trouble is it is difficult to determine who started the skirmishes between the two groups on that weekend. Because of that I lend my support to the group that opposes parading fascists, not the fascists themselves.

There is no equating the two in my view.

Anyway the hate group member that killed and wounded peaceful defenseless marchers is entirely separate from the skirmishes that took place during that weekend.

That's why the authorities need to answer some questions. They knew the groups would clash if they got together, and didn't do much to prevent it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotfooledbyW]

hadit, post: 18018232

That's why the authorities need to answer some questions. They knew the groups would clash if they got together, and didn't do much to prevent it.

Different issue. Different topic. This is about the Nazi that rammed his car into a crowd of peaceful protestors. Protesting against his kind of hate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I've been in an accident once. Just a fender bender. Therefore, anyone whose "accident" involves a fatality is actually a murderer. Can't possibly kill someone unintentionally if I haven't done so!

How would you know if your Nazi's 'accident' was not intentional.

The videos show it was intentional prior to his car being hit with a flag and the odds against the "failed brakes" excuse are so high it's more likely his car was struck with lightning on a sunny day and the poor harmless peace loving guy was disoriented because of that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 17923215

I got startled once when I hit a curb. Accidentally hit the gas instead of brake. If the curb hadn't been that tall, I'd have kept going, maybe hitting someone.

That would be an accident. Not what we see on video in Charlottesville.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

That's what it looks like, anyway. If I were surrounded by a bunch of morons hitting my car like that, I'd be scared for my life, too. Negroes and negro-loving morons are a stupid and dangerous bunch.

We see your racist bias on the tragedy.

But you should know by now that the flag hit was a reaction in anger and helplessness as your negro hating Nazi was already beyond a point of no return of plowing into a crowd of peaceful protestors

 

[Bush92]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see when it goes to trial.

My guess is he will attempt a defense of insanity.

He will plea out to a lesser charge and walk.

 

[Bush92]

Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

That's what it looks like, anyway. If I were surrounded by a bunch of morons hitting my car like that, I'd be scared for my life, too. Negroes and negro-loving morons are a stupid and dangerous bunch.

We see your racist bias on the tragedy.

But you should know by now that the flag hit was a reaction in anger and helplessness as your negro hating Nazi was already beyond a point of no return of plowing into a crowd of peaceful protestors

They were far from peaceful. They were violent antifa pieces of shit.

 

[Bush92]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see when it goes to trial.

My guess is he will attempt a defense of insanity.

Why? Show video of alt-left crowd and the hatred they spew. Prosecutors will not want a jury to see it. Plea...he walks.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see when it goes to trial.

My guess is he will attempt a defense of insanity.

He will plea out to a lesser charge and walk.

Wishful thinking. The state has since doubled the number of felony charges against him...

James Alex Fields charged with five additional felonies - CNN

And the federal government is still considering charging him independently of state charges.

 

[Bush92]

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

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

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

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

We'll see when it goes to trial.

My guess is he will attempt a defense of insanity.

He will plea out to a lesser charge and walk.

Wishful thinking. The state has since doubled the number of felony charges against him...

James Alex Fields charged with five additional felonies - CNN

And the federal government is still considering charging him independently of state charges.

Because they need more chips to bargain away in order to preserve original charges after plea is reached. Defense should force a jury trial.

 

[Faun]

Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

That's what it looks like, anyway. If I were surrounded by a bunch of morons hitting my car like that, I'd be scared for my life, too. Negroes and negro-loving morons are a stupid and dangerous bunch.

We see your racist bias on the tragedy.

But you should know by now that the flag hit was a reaction in anger and helplessness as your negro hating Nazi was already beyond a point of no return of plowing into a crowd of peaceful protestors

They were far from peaceful. They were violent antifa pieces of shit.

You have zero evidence anyone in that crowd where Fields drove into was with Antifa.

 

[Montrovant]

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.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.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.
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!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?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.That's funny since he always avoided them (until the attack), even, according to you, by braking and swerving.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.Yeah, eventually.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.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.I bet fewer people would have been hurt then.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.Yes, I saw your strawman. Thanks!We've discussed this already. It doesn't matter.Except going from not hitting anyone to seriously injuring a bunch of people and killing at least one. Let's just ignore that!That doesn't seem likely at all, especially given what happened.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.And your point is?But the cars ahead of him DID get through without hitting people and DID think they could do so! Dumbass!Lack of braking and honking has been explained to you, brick wall. You're going in circles.Not enough damage. He hit a damned CAR and was still able to escape through the back!Right! Everyone who doesn't sit there and allow himself to be murdered is violent!No.You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.Do I? Does it matter?I wouldn't think he hit me intentionally! You treat that as a given!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:

^^^ this video is unavailable

Well crap, it was fine when I posted the link. Sorry.

Here, this video shows the same thing. At the very beginning, you can see the brake lights on the car, but after that, as the car travels down the block, nothing.

 

[12icer]

I am going to be on the grand jury and he will never see a courtroom because antifa was completely responsible for the womans death, and her decision to attend an assault against America, and the Constitution cost her her life.

 

[Bush92]

I am going to be on the grand jury and he will never see a courtroom because antifa was completely responsible for the womans death, and her decision to attend an assault against America, and the Constitution cost her her life.

"Thank's O.J. You made my jury duty easy!" Lol.

 

[Faun]

Assuming this is the video of the event, you can actually see someone hitting the car in this one:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

That's what it looks like, anyway. If I were surrounded by a bunch of morons hitting my car like that, I'd be scared for my life, too. Negroes and negro-loving morons are a stupid and dangerous bunch.

We see your racist bias on the tragedy.

But you should know by now that the flag hit was a reaction in anger and helplessness as your negro hating Nazi was already beyond a point of no return of plowing into a crowd of peaceful protestors

They were far from peaceful. They were violent antifa pieces of shit.

To the brain-dead right, chanting, "whose streets? Our streets," is violent and "far from peaceful."

 

[Montrovant]

I've been watching the video again, and I can't be certain, but I think you may be able to hear the car accelerating before being hit by the flag. It sounds like you hear acceleration at 2 seconds, while the flag hits the car at 3 seconds.

As I said, I'm not at all sure about this. Does anyone else hear it, or am I just crazy?