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

[Montrovant]

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."

I'm not going to broad-brush "the right" on this, but to some posters here, apparently you are correct.

Unfortunately, I've heard similar sentiments from some Antifa people; I've read excuses for violence from Antifa members who consider supporting racist, bigoted, or hateful ideas a form of violence, and therefore feel justified in using physical violence against those people.

Too many people, regardless of ideology, seem to consider physical violence a perfectly reasonable way to enforce their own opinion.

Of course, even if the crowd were Antifa and had been violent, they weren't being violent toward the driver when he drove at them.

 

[Faun]

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?

I hear so much noise in that video, who knows what it is?

 

[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.

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.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.

A charge means they're going to go to trial or plea bargain with him. Only a moron like you thinks it means he's definitely guilty. Even your DA knows there's more to the process, and even then there can be a mistake even if he's convicted.

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

No, I'm saying there's reasonable doubt, from the information available, as to his guilt.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Watch the video. Looks like someone hit his car right before he hit the people

Yes. His intent was to hurt peacefully protesting people because he was plowing into the crowd fleeing for their lives before the flag could have made contact with his 2 Ton weapon.

Yet you persist denying reality.

 

[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?

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

 

[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?

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

Are physical violence or ignoring them the only options?

 

[charwin95]

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?

Cry me river. Like wanting to kill all Jews? The antifa and BLM was created and existed only to counter violent hate groups that you are protecting.
Are we supposed to let those hate groups kill Jewish and other minorities?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MikeK, post: 1792320

I'm thinking three or four (or more) incidents I've seen on tv news of someone who accidentally stepped on the gas and drove right through a wall or store window. It happens a lot, and all this fellow's lawyer(s) need to do is collect as many examples as they can find and, provided this fellow hasn't already hung himself by talking, he stands a very good chance of being acquitted of the first degree murder he's charged with. Unless he confesses, or unless there is strong evidence that he planned it, he can walk free.

He is not charged with first degree murder. It is second degree. Not planned. It is intent.

There are no examples of people accidentally stepping on the gas for two blocks.

His constant speed too fast for conditions of pedestrians present, is not accidentally stepping on the gas instead of hitting the brake. When drivers do that they keep pressing on the gas as if it were the brake harder and they accelerate until they crash into something.

This guy's lawyers are not going down that path because only a fool would think of that.

If this was a pure accident somehow, why does your Nazi need to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

Cry me river. Like wanting to kill all Jews? The antifa and BLM was created and existed only to counter violent hate groups that you are protecting.
Are we supposed to let those hate groups kill Jewish and other minorities?

Of course not. I've never advocated allowing any group to kill other people.

Apparently you are an authoritarian who does not believe in the constitutional protections of the first amendment. That amendment is not about protecting only the speech that you like. If someone hates minorities, they have every right to hate minorities. They can spout their hate any time they want to. The rest of us are also free to call them idiots, to point out that their opinion is based on fear and ignorance, and to laugh at and shun those same people.

You appear to want to use the government as thought police, to throw away our freedom of speech and right to assembly. If a group is actually being violent, or making direct threats, they are breaking the law. If they are, instead, simply promoting an unpopular opinion, then I absolutely believe in protecting that right.

 

[charwin95]

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

Are physical violence or ignoring them the only options?

Why are you asking me?

I asked you first. Now answer my 2 questions.

 

[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.

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

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.

A charge means they're going to go to trial or plea bargain with him. Only a moron like you thinks it means he's definitely guilty. Even your DA knows there's more to the process, and even then there can be a mistake even if he's convicted.

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

No, I'm saying there's reasonable doubt, from the information available, as to his guilt.

What doubt?

 

[Montrovant]

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

Are physical violence or ignoring them the only options?

Why are you asking me?

I asked you first. Now answer my 2 questions.

No, you asked hadit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 18020288

No, I'm saying there's reasonable doubt, from the information available, as to his guilt.

Are you saying there is doubt about the clear indication from video and still photos and Google earth location of landmarks that the flag swipe had zero impact on your Nazi's decision to hit those "negroes and negro loving morons" (your words not mine) in the street?

You would make a great witness for the defense .
Just want to know what your lying eyes are telling you.

Probably should send your opinion to the Feds deciding if this was a hate crime or not. According to your hatefilled words - I firmly believe this is indeed a hate crime.

Birds of a feather you and your Nazi.

 

[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?

I hear so much noise in that video, who knows what it is?

It's definitely not the clearest sound ever.

I still hear it as I rewatch the video, but I don't know if it's the kind of thing that would hold up in court. Maybe if the audio were fiddled with and that sound isolated, it could be used as evidence of acceleration prior to the car being struck by the flagpole. Of course, it also might just be evidence that I have poor hearing.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

Are physical violence or ignoring them the only options?

Why are you asking me?

I asked you first. Now answer my 2 questions.

I asked you because you only seemed to provide two options: violence or ignoring the groups.

I'll answer your poorly put together questions, though.

1. Who says anyone even has to talk to these groups? Talk to people not involved in the groups, and point out how the bigotry and ignorance of supremacism of any stripe is morally repugnant. If you do decide to speak to supremacist groups, speak however you want, outside of direct threats which violate the law.

2. I don't think anyone is saying you must ignore hate groups. However, what hadit seems to be saying (and I agree) is that physically attacking people who have done you no direct harm is illegal, and should be so. Simply saying you think one race is better than others, or one religion, or one ethnicity, or whatever form a person's supremacist opinion might derive from, is not something that the government should be silencing. Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles of our nation, and one that has (thankfully) tended to be increased over time. If we start deciding to suppress speech we don't like, speech which does not directly infringe upon the rights of others, then that freedom becomes meaningless. One day it may be your opinion which becomes unpopular and is suppressed.

If you don't want hate groups to spread their ideology, speak against it. If the hate groups make actionable threats against people, they should be arrested and charged. If the hate groups just offend me with their rhetoric, however, the government should stay out of it.

 

[hadit]

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

Do what is legal and what we have always done with groups that say bad things. Keep an eye on them and when they break the law, prosecute. Until then, mock and ridicule them. They hate that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bgrouse]

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.

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

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.

A charge means they're going to go to trial or plea bargain with him. Only a moron like you thinks it means he's definitely guilty. Even your DA knows there's more to the process, and even then there can be a mistake even if he's convicted.

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

No, I'm saying there's reasonable doubt, from the information available, as to his guilt.

What doubt?

Reasonable doubt from at the very least all of the information discussed by me in this thread.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bgrouse, post: 18024955

Reasonable doubt from at the very least all of the information discussed by me in this thread.

I believe your discussion involves the theory that flag guy affected your Nazi's decision to attack a crowd of negroes and moron negro supporters.

Information discussed by you that is physically and technically impossible from video evidence publically available must be excluded from a discussion about reasonable doubt as to your Nazi's motive.

Your "negro" addition to this discussion verifies that racist bias on your part renders "information discussed by" you to be tainted and obviously worthless.

 

[Faun]

bgrouse, post: 18024955

Reasonable doubt from at the very least all of the information discussed by me in this thread.

I believe your discussion involves the theory that flag guy affected your Nazi's decision to attack a crowd of negroes and moron negro supporters.

Information discussed by you that is physically and technically impossible from video evidence publically available must be excluded from a discussion about reasonable doubt as to your Nazi's motive.

Your "negro" addition to this discussion verifies that racist bias on your part renders "information discussed by" you to be tainted and obviously worthless.

Nothing worth reviewing.

 

[charwin95]

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

Really? How talk to them? Offer them roses or steak and eggs?
If you don't mind. Answer that question. How?

These hate groups are born and bred for violence. We cannot allow these hate groups to spread hatred, bigotry, racism and intimidations. Wanting to eliminate Jews, blacks me other minorities here in America.
Are you saying we just let them go easy and ignore them? Answer this second question.

Are physical violence or ignoring them the only options?

Why are you asking me?

I asked you first. Now answer my 2 questions.

I asked you because you only seemed to provide two options: violence or ignoring the groups.

I'll answer your poorly put together questions, though.

1. Who says anyone even has to talk to these groups? Talk to people not involved in the groups, and point out how the bigotry and ignorance of supremacism of any stripe is morally repugnant. If you do decide to speak to supremacist groups, speak however you want, outside of direct threats which violate the law.

2. I don't think anyone is saying you must ignore hate groups. However, what hadit seems to be saying (and I agree) is that physically attacking people who have done you no direct harm is illegal, and should be so. Simply saying you think one race is better than others, or one religion, or one ethnicity, or whatever form a person's supremacist opinion might derive from, is not something that the government should be silencing. Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles of our nation, and one that has (thankfully) tended to be increased over time. If we start deciding to suppress speech we don't like, speech which does not directly infringe upon the rights of others, then that freedom becomes meaningless. One day it may be your opinion which becomes unpopular and is suppressed.

If you don't want hate groups to spread their ideology, speak against it. If the hate groups make actionable threats against people, they should be arrested and charged. If the hate groups just offend me with their rhetoric, however, the government should stay out of it.

Rubbish. Both of your answers is way way off from my questions. Maybe I was not specific.
1. How? How can I talk to these hate groups about giving up killing Jews and other minorities?
2. Are to saying that we just ignore them and let them spread their violence and hatred against my fellow Americans?
Speaking to them? These hate groups are born and bred for violence. How would you feel if you are Jewish seeing this video?

Racism, bigotry and hatred don't have place in this country. Even your president told you that.