Heather Heyer Did Not Die From Getting Hit By Field's Car, But From A Heart Attack

[BoSoxGal]

The counter protestors had a legal permit TOO! That is totally fucking irrelevant! NOBODY had a permit to MURDER and the only people who are under criminal indictment for murder and malicious assault are the Nazi in the Charger whose name I will not write, and some other Nazis who beat the fuck out of a black counter protestor.

Where are all the dead and seriously wounded Nazis?! Oh wait - there are NONE - because Antifa and other counter protestors are NOT the sick and violent fucks to blame for the stain on Charlottesville!

No, the counter protesters did NOT have a permit. Locals reported seeing four charter buses full of antifa-types arrive the day after the torchlit march. A state of emergency was declared before the unite the right guys had even assembled in the area around the statue and were ordered to disperse. Violence ensued as they made their way through the mob of leftist-types back to their cars. A prominent youtuber by the name of BakedAlaska was bear-maced in the eyes and might suffer permanent damage to his sight, so there goes your no wounded 'nazis' idea. And he wasn't the only one maced that day.

Where do you get your alternative facts, Trump's tweets or Faux News?

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

That's the first I've heard about it although I do remember someone saying the two groups were supposed to be kept separate. I don't watch fox news, I'm not a neoconservative. None of the reporters or anchors there don't want anything to do with the alt-right and parrot basically the same narrative as CNN; calling them white supremacists and neo-nazis. The alt-right might have it's fair share of assholes, trouble makers and bigoted haters but it's explicitly a non-violent pro-white group akin to BLM but for white people. Snopes inaccurately labels them so their reporting is biased and can't be trusted,

I get my information from the many videos posted by independent journalists online, and I've been looking at them all very closely since it happened.

I will not dispute your assertion that LEOs in Charlottesville dropped the ball in a major way. I don't know why and I won't assume anything nefarious - it could be they are just morons, or it could be that they are Nazi sympathizers, as there is credible evidence that white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement across the country - the FBI asserted this years ago.

Boston's handling of the Free Speech Rally/Counterprotest was a textbook example of how such events SHOULD be handled, and I don't see why C'ville couldn't have done the same - had they been willing.

 

[Lewdog]

The counter protestors had a legal permit TOO! That is totally fucking irrelevant! NOBODY had a permit to MURDER and the only people who are under criminal indictment for murder and malicious assault are the Nazi in the Charger whose name I will not write, and some other Nazis who beat the fuck out of a black counter protestor.

Where are all the dead and seriously wounded Nazis?! Oh wait - there are NONE - because Antifa and other counter protestors are NOT the sick and violent fucks to blame for the stain on Charlottesville!

No, the counter protesters did NOT have a permit. Locals reported seeing four charter buses full of antifa-types arrive the day after the torchlit march. A state of emergency was declared before the unite the right guys had even assembled in the area around the statue and were ordered to disperse. Violence ensued as they made their way through the mob of leftist-types back to their cars. A prominent youtuber by the name of BakedAlaska was bear-maced in the eyes and might suffer permanent damage to his sight, so there goes your no wounded 'nazis' idea. And he wasn't the only one maced that day.

Where do you get your alternative facts, Trump's tweets or Faux News?

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

That's the first I've heard about it although I do remember someone saying the two groups were supposed to be kept separate. I don't watch fox news, I'm not a neoconservative. None of the reporters or anchors there don't want anything to do with the alt-right and parrot basically the same narrative as CNN; calling them white supremacists and neo-nazis. The alt-right might have it's fair share of assholes, trouble makers and bigoted haters but it's explicitly a non-violent pro-white group akin to BLM but for white people. Snopes inaccurately labels them so their reporting is biased and can't be trusted,

I get my information from the many videos posted by independent journalists online, and I've been looking at them all very closely since it happened.

I will not dispute your assertion that LEOs in Charlottesville dropped the ball in a major way. I don't know why and I won't assume anything nefarious - it could be they are just morons, or it could be that they are Nazi sympathizers, as there is credible evidence that white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement across the country - the FBI asserted this years ago.

Boston's handling of the Free Speech Rally/Counterprotest was a textbook example of how such events SHOULD be handled, and I don't see why C'ville couldn't have done the same - had they been willing.

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the Charlottesville government that they didn't let it get bat shit out of hand to prove a point to the judge that overturned their decision to have the White Supremacists protest moved away from the statue.

 

[impuretrash]

The counter protestors had a legal permit TOO! That is totally fucking irrelevant! NOBODY had a permit to MURDER and the only people who are under criminal indictment for murder and malicious assault are the Nazi in the Charger whose name I will not write, and some other Nazis who beat the fuck out of a black counter protestor.

Where are all the dead and seriously wounded Nazis?! Oh wait - there are NONE - because Antifa and other counter protestors are NOT the sick and violent fucks to blame for the stain on Charlottesville!

No, the counter protesters did NOT have a permit. Locals reported seeing four charter buses full of antifa-types arrive the day after the torchlit march. A state of emergency was declared before the unite the right guys had even assembled in the area around the statue and were ordered to disperse. Violence ensued as they made their way through the mob of leftist-types back to their cars. A prominent youtuber by the name of BakedAlaska was bear-maced in the eyes and might suffer permanent damage to his sight, so there goes your no wounded 'nazis' idea. And he wasn't the only one maced that day.

Where do you get your alternative facts, Trump's tweets or Faux News?

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

That's the first I've heard about it although I do remember someone saying the two groups were supposed to be kept separate. I don't watch fox news, I'm not a neoconservative. None of the reporters or anchors there don't want anything to do with the alt-right and parrot basically the same narrative as CNN; calling them white supremacists and neo-nazis. The alt-right might have it's fair share of assholes, trouble makers and bigoted haters but it's explicitly a non-violent pro-white group akin to BLM but for white people. Snopes inaccurately labels them so their reporting is biased and can't be trusted,

I get my information from the many videos posted by independent journalists online, and I've been looking at them all very closely since it happened.

I will not dispute your assertion that LEOs in Charlottesville dropped the ball in a major way. I don't know why and I won't assume anything nefarious - it could be they are just morons, or it could be that they are Nazi sympathizers, as there is credible evidence that white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement across the country - the FBI asserted this years ago.

Boston's handling of the Free Speech Rally/Counterprotest was a textbook example of how such events SHOULD be handled, and I don't see why C'ville couldn't have done the same - had they been willing.

Well, vice mayor Wes Bellamy has posted some extremely offensive stuff on his twitter, joking about raping women, intimidating shorter than him white men, and literally saying he doesn't like white people. So, there's that. I think Fields (who has a history of mental issues and is only 20 years old) became frightened by an aggressive mob and reacted badly. It wasn't terrorism. If he wanted to kill many people, he easily could have. It's the city and state authorities with blood on their hands.

 

[BoSoxGal]

The counter protestors had a legal permit TOO! That is totally fucking irrelevant! NOBODY had a permit to MURDER and the only people who are under criminal indictment for murder and malicious assault are the Nazi in the Charger whose name I will not write, and some other Nazis who beat the fuck out of a black counter protestor.

Where are all the dead and seriously wounded Nazis?! Oh wait - there are NONE - because Antifa and other counter protestors are NOT the sick and violent fucks to blame for the stain on Charlottesville!

No, the counter protesters did NOT have a permit. Locals reported seeing four charter buses full of antifa-types arrive the day after the torchlit march. A state of emergency was declared before the unite the right guys had even assembled in the area around the statue and were ordered to disperse. Violence ensued as they made their way through the mob of leftist-types back to their cars. A prominent youtuber by the name of BakedAlaska was bear-maced in the eyes and might suffer permanent damage to his sight, so there goes your no wounded 'nazis' idea. And he wasn't the only one maced that day.

Where do you get your alternative facts, Trump's tweets or Faux News?

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

That's the first I've heard about it although I do remember someone saying the two groups were supposed to be kept separate. I don't watch fox news, I'm not a neoconservative. None of the reporters or anchors there don't want anything to do with the alt-right and parrot basically the same narrative as CNN; calling them white supremacists and neo-nazis. The alt-right might have it's fair share of assholes, trouble makers and bigoted haters but it's explicitly a non-violent pro-white group akin to BLM but for white people. Snopes inaccurately labels them so their reporting is biased and can't be trusted,

I get my information from the many videos posted by independent journalists online, and I've been looking at them all very closely since it happened.

I will not dispute your assertion that LEOs in Charlottesville dropped the ball in a major way. I don't know why and I won't assume anything nefarious - it could be they are just morons, or it could be that they are Nazi sympathizers, as there is credible evidence that white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement across the country - the FBI asserted this years ago.

Boston's handling of the Free Speech Rally/Counterprotest was a textbook example of how such events SHOULD be handled, and I don't see why C'ville couldn't have done the same - had they been willing.

Well, vice mayor Wes Bellamy has posted some extremely offensive stuff on his twitter, joking about raping women, intimidating shorter than him white men, and literally saying he doesn't like white people. So, there's that. I think Fields (who has a history of mental issues and is only 20 years old) became frightened by an aggressive mob and reacted badly. It wasn't terrorism. If he wanted to kill many people, he easily could have. It's the city and state authorities with blood on their hands.

Dylan Roof was only @ 20 when he slaughtered 9 people because of his savage racism - I make no allowances for tender years defense. Even IF the Nazi was afraid, his response to that fear was out of all proportion to the 'threat' - and I don't buy it. He had no problem reversing at very high speed to get away from the carnage he'd inflicted, so he should have had no problem reserving away from a situation that gave him fear. He's a toxic murdering piece of shit and I hope the federal government prosecutes him to the fullest extent of the civil rights laws.

 

[impuretrash]

No, the counter protesters did NOT have a permit. Locals reported seeing four charter buses full of antifa-types arrive the day after the torchlit march. A state of emergency was declared before the unite the right guys had even assembled in the area around the statue and were ordered to disperse. Violence ensued as they made their way through the mob of leftist-types back to their cars. A prominent youtuber by the name of BakedAlaska was bear-maced in the eyes and might suffer permanent damage to his sight, so there goes your no wounded 'nazis' idea. And he wasn't the only one maced that day.

Where do you get your alternative facts, Trump's tweets or Faux News?

FACT CHECK: Counter-Demonstrators Didn't Have Permits in Charlottesville?

That's the first I've heard about it although I do remember someone saying the two groups were supposed to be kept separate. I don't watch fox news, I'm not a neoconservative. None of the reporters or anchors there don't want anything to do with the alt-right and parrot basically the same narrative as CNN; calling them white supremacists and neo-nazis. The alt-right might have it's fair share of assholes, trouble makers and bigoted haters but it's explicitly a non-violent pro-white group akin to BLM but for white people. Snopes inaccurately labels them so their reporting is biased and can't be trusted,

I get my information from the many videos posted by independent journalists online, and I've been looking at them all very closely since it happened.

I will not dispute your assertion that LEOs in Charlottesville dropped the ball in a major way. I don't know why and I won't assume anything nefarious - it could be they are just morons, or it could be that they are Nazi sympathizers, as there is credible evidence that white supremacists have infiltrated law enforcement across the country - the FBI asserted this years ago.

Boston's handling of the Free Speech Rally/Counterprotest was a textbook example of how such events SHOULD be handled, and I don't see why C'ville couldn't have done the same - had they been willing.

Well, vice mayor Wes Bellamy has posted some extremely offensive stuff on his twitter, joking about raping women, intimidating shorter than him white men, and literally saying he doesn't like white people. So, there's that. I think Fields (who has a history of mental issues and is only 20 years old) became frightened by an aggressive mob and reacted badly. It wasn't terrorism. If he wanted to kill many people, he easily could have. It's the city and state authorities with blood on their hands.

Dylan Roof was only @ 20 when he slaughtered 9 people because of his savage racism - I make no allowances for tender years defense. Even IF the Nazi was afraid, his response to that fear was out of all proportion to the 'threat' - and I don't buy it. He had no problem reversing at very high speed to get away from the carnage he'd inflicted, so he should have had no problem reserving away from a situation that gave him fear. He's a toxic murdering piece of shit and I hope the federal government prosecutes him to the fullest extent of the civil rights laws.

You're letting your personal biases cloud your judgment. But...whatever.

 

[Montrovant]

§ 18.2-42.1. Acts of violence by mob
Any and every person composing a mob which commits an act of violence as defined in § 19.2-297.1 shall be guilty of that act of violence and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in the section of this title which makes that act of violence unlawful.

What's your point? None of the victims of the Nazi were committing acts of violence.

I believe that law enforcement authorities in Virginia have charged some of the other Nazis who assaulted counter-protestors, and that others are under investigation.

Someone can be seen striking the vehicle with a stick of some sort before he hits anyone. That is technically violence. Why would a person do that unless they were already out to get the guy? He's got that hairstyle...surrounded by an angry mob looking for 'nazi' or 'altright' types...what happened before the cameras focused on him? I can venture a guess...

Post a link to that video, please. I've heard right wing morons making this claim repeatedly - most often at this den of alt right scum - but I've not once seen video evidence of this. I'm certainly open to seeing it, if it exists.

You can see and hear the flagpole strike the back of the car at about the point that it changes from 0:03 to 0:04.



However, you can hear what sounds like the car accelerating before that happens.

There has already been a very long thread about the idea that the driver panicked from being hit by the flagpole, and that is what caused the crash. To quickly summarize, the video evidence seems to show that the car was already going to hit the crowd at the time it was impacted by the flagpole. The apparent speed of the car, added to the small distance between the front of the car and pedestrians in the still image, indicate to me that the car was going to hit the crowd even if it had never been struck. There simply wasn't enough time/distance at that point for the driver to stop; and considering the lack of brake lights, the driver wasn't attempting to stop, anyway.

 

[Vastator]

Check this out ... even more evidence that OffensivelyOpenMinded, miketx, and Vastator are complete idiots....

Here is a video recorded by Marissa K Blair. Here's her story --> Here's What You Should Know About Heather Heyer, the Woman Killed at the Charlottesville Rally

Marissa says she was friends with Heather Heyer and was with Heather when she died.

Here is the video ... the thing to note is that they are on the passenger side of the vehicles in the crash, which is also where the woman being resuscitated is seen -- the woman in green ended up on the driver's side.

Firstly nowhere in your video is Heyer positively identified. Secondly, one independent verbal account does not satisfy the requirements of verification. While your "belief" may be strong; that you "know"; you are still unable to bear this out with substantiated, verified facts.

 

[Vastator]

Those girls have entirely different noses AND chins; are you seriously suggesting they're the same person?! Delusional!!

Get new glasses.......

You are insane.

Girl in first video capture has thinner nose, no prominent bump, and substantially shorter chin.

Girl in second video capture has very prominent bump in thicker nose, and much longer chin.

You do realize that with 7 BILLION humans on the planet, over half of them female, there are many, many brunette women who bear a strong resemblance to other brunette women?

You're a perfect example of why eye witness identification is notoriously unreliable and results in many, many false convictions.

The first picture is a straight on shot, the second one she is turned slightly. Anytime someone takes a pic from the side you can see more of their nose, moron

I'm not a moron, I'm a Mensa IQ, Georgetown JD, former prosecutor with hundreds of hours in criminal justice training including identification of witnesses.

However, it takes only common sense and reasonably good vision to see that those two women are not the same person - even with one at an angle. That doesn't effect the length of chin, width of nose or width of face - because Adam Lanza's former classmate has a fatter face than Jim Foley's sister.

I shouldn't have even dignified your insanity with a reply - anyone who denigrates the memories of butchered children, teachers and dedicated journalists is the lowest form of scum and doesn't deserve to suck shit from my asshole. Buh bye, freak!

Cool story...

 

[OldLady]

Glad to see this thread where it belongs.....

Yup. In the lefty safe space...

If the woman in green is Heyer, I'm wondering why the docs would tell her mother she died instantly from a heart attack when you can clearly see she is alive in the FG video, sitting up getting some help from bystanders? Is it even legal to lie to the next of kin about how and when their family member died?

It's possible that she had the heart attack after being struck, but not the moment she was struck; you can see the same woman in green lying on the ground later in the video. Perhaps she died of a heart attack during the 2 minutes or so between seeing her sitting up and seeing her again supine on the road.

It's possible that isn't Heyer.

Perhaps the mother misunderstood the explanation given to her about Heyer's death.

It could be that whoever told the mother that Heyer died instantly of a heart attack was not a medical professional, and misunderstood or misrepresented the facts.

An aunt of mine was in a bad car accident. They brought her into the ER cussing and fussing, and a half hour later she died of a massive heart attack. Doctors said it was the physical shock of the crash; her body just couldn't take it. So it doesn't have to be instantaneous.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Glad to see this thread where it belongs.....

Yup. In the lefty safe space...

If the woman in green is Heyer, I'm wondering why the docs would tell her mother she died instantly from a heart attack when you can clearly see she is alive in the FG video, sitting up getting some help from bystanders? Is it even legal to lie to the next of kin about how and when their family member died?

It's possible that she had the heart attack after being struck, but not the moment she was struck; you can see the same woman in green lying on the ground later in the video. Perhaps she died of a heart attack during the 2 minutes or so between seeing her sitting up and seeing her again supine on the road.

It's possible that isn't Heyer.

Perhaps the mother misunderstood the explanation given to her about Heyer's death.

It could be that whoever told the mother that Heyer died instantly of a heart attack was not a medical professional, and misunderstood or misrepresented the facts.

An aunt of mine was in a bad car accident. They brought her into the ER cussing and fussing, and a half hour later she died of a massive heart attack. Doctors said it was the physical shock of the crash; her body just couldn't take it. So it doesn't have to be instantaneous.

A lot of people on FB are saying the woman in green is not Heyer.

 

[OldLady]

Glad to see this thread where it belongs.....

Yup. In the lefty safe space...

If the woman in green is Heyer, I'm wondering why the docs would tell her mother she died instantly from a heart attack when you can clearly see she is alive in the FG video, sitting up getting some help from bystanders? Is it even legal to lie to the next of kin about how and when their family member died?

It's possible that she had the heart attack after being struck, but not the moment she was struck; you can see the same woman in green lying on the ground later in the video. Perhaps she died of a heart attack during the 2 minutes or so between seeing her sitting up and seeing her again supine on the road.

It's possible that isn't Heyer.

Perhaps the mother misunderstood the explanation given to her about Heyer's death.

It could be that whoever told the mother that Heyer died instantly of a heart attack was not a medical professional, and misunderstood or misrepresented the facts.

An aunt of mine was in a bad car accident. They brought her into the ER cussing and fussing, and a half hour later she died of a massive heart attack. Doctors said it was the physical shock of the crash; her body just couldn't take it. So it doesn't have to be instantaneous.

A lot of people on FB are saying the woman in green is not Heyer.

I'm sure they should know.
What any of us think is not what matters. It's what the cops and the prosecutors say. They know the facts; we apparently don't.

 

[Montrovant]

Glad to see this thread where it belongs.....

Yup. In the lefty safe space...

If the woman in green is Heyer, I'm wondering why the docs would tell her mother she died instantly from a heart attack when you can clearly see she is alive in the FG video, sitting up getting some help from bystanders? Is it even legal to lie to the next of kin about how and when their family member died?

It's possible that she had the heart attack after being struck, but not the moment she was struck; you can see the same woman in green lying on the ground later in the video. Perhaps she died of a heart attack during the 2 minutes or so between seeing her sitting up and seeing her again supine on the road.

It's possible that isn't Heyer.

Perhaps the mother misunderstood the explanation given to her about Heyer's death.

It could be that whoever told the mother that Heyer died instantly of a heart attack was not a medical professional, and misunderstood or misrepresented the facts.

An aunt of mine was in a bad car accident. They brought her into the ER cussing and fussing, and a half hour later she died of a massive heart attack. Doctors said it was the physical shock of the crash; her body just couldn't take it. So it doesn't have to be instantaneous.

A lot of people on FB are saying the woman in green is not Heyer.

It may be that the woman in black in the video Faun poster earlier is Heyer. The woman who made that video, Marissa Blair, supposedly was friends with Heyer. According to the article in the link Faun posted, Blair said Heyer was standing in front of Blair's fiance, Marcus Martin, who was hit and had his leg broken. In the video, a heavyset woman in black is walking in front of Blair and Martin.

 

[Montrovant]

You know what I find very odd? There just happened to be a drone video taping right above when this supposedly happened. Strange.

Someone else brought this up. Why does it seem odd? Remember that the car attack happened after there had already been clashes between groups of protesters and counter-protesters. I don't find it odd at all that someone would be recording with a drone when they know a group of protesters is gathered in what was already a contentious weekend.

 

[Montrovant]

When you see a speeding car heading straight for a large crowd of innocent people? Yeah I can totally understand why someone hit it with a bat. And yes it is true. Show me a video that shows anything different.

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

 

[impuretrash]

When you see a speeding car heading straight for a large crowd of innocent people? Yeah I can totally understand why someone hit it with a bat. And yes it is true. Show me a video that shows anything different.

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?

 

[Montrovant]

When you see a speeding car heading straight for a large crowd of innocent people? Yeah I can totally understand why someone hit it with a bat. And yes it is true. Show me a video that shows anything different.

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?

The crowd "violently intimidated" the driver of the car, and that provided justification to run them down? Really? How does that work, exactly? The driver saw someone looking at him with a dangerous glint in their eye, so he's now justified in driving his car into that person?

The one person who actually did anything to the car before it crashed into the crowd wasn't one of the people the car ran into. That's the only person you might reasonably claim intimidated the driver in such a way as to merit being driven into. Even with that person, it is only barely reasonable to make such a claim; the rest of the crowd did nothing at all to the driver to justify his running into them.

 

[Lewdog]

When you see a speeding car heading straight for a large crowd of innocent people? Yeah I can totally understand why someone hit it with a bat. And yes it is true. Show me a video that shows anything different.

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?

The crowd "violently intimidated" the driver of the car, and that provided justification to run them down? Really? How does that work, exactly? The driver saw someone looking at him with a dangerous glint in their eye, so he's now justified in driving his car into that person?

The one person who actually did anything to the car before it crashed into the crowd wasn't one of the people the car ran into. That's the only person you might reasonably claim intimidated the driver in such a way as to merit being driven into. Even with that person, it is only barely reasonable to make such a claim; the rest of the crowd did nothing at all to the driver to justify his running into them.

I think the main point that needed to be made, you already said. If he was scared for his safety, he would have just slammed his car into reverse like he did after running into the crowd... he wouldn't have driven into more danger.

 

[Montrovant]

When you see a speeding car heading straight for a large crowd of innocent people? Yeah I can totally understand why someone hit it with a bat. And yes it is true. Show me a video that shows anything different.

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?

The crowd "violently intimidated" the driver of the car, and that provided justification to run them down? Really? How does that work, exactly? The driver saw someone looking at him with a dangerous glint in their eye, so he's now justified in driving his car into that person?

The one person who actually did anything to the car before it crashed into the crowd wasn't one of the people the car ran into. That's the only person you might reasonably claim intimidated the driver in such a way as to merit being driven into. Even with that person, it is only barely reasonable to make such a claim; the rest of the crowd did nothing at all to the driver to justify his running into them.

I think the main point that needed to be made, you already said. If he was scared for his safety, he would have just slammed his car into reverse like he did after running into the crowd... he wouldn't have driven into more danger.

Yeah, I haven't been able to figure out the idea that the crowd scared the driver, so he decided to drive right into them.

 

[impuretrash]

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?

The crowd "violently intimidated" the driver of the car, and that provided justification to run them down? Really? How does that work, exactly? The driver saw someone looking at him with a dangerous glint in their eye, so he's now justified in driving his car into that person?

The one person who actually did anything to the car before it crashed into the crowd wasn't one of the people the car ran into. That's the only person you might reasonably claim intimidated the driver in such a way as to merit being driven into. Even with that person, it is only barely reasonable to make such a claim; the rest of the crowd did nothing at all to the driver to justify his running into them.

I think the main point that needed to be made, you already said. If he was scared for his safety, he would have just slammed his car into reverse like he did after running into the crowd... he wouldn't have driven into more danger.

Yeah, I haven't been able to figure out the idea that the crowd scared the driver, so he decided to drive right into them.

Because fear doesn't compel people to behave irrationally

 

[impuretrash]

When you see a speeding car heading straight for a large crowd of innocent people? Yeah I can totally understand why someone hit it with a bat. And yes it is true. Show me a video that shows anything different.

Sorry but the crowd was not innocent, they were very angry and hostile towards anyone who seemed out of place.

The crowd was innocent of anything that would justify someone running into them with their car.

How 'bout violent intimidation for starters?

The crowd "violently intimidated" the driver of the car, and that provided justification to run them down? Really? How does that work, exactly? The driver saw someone looking at him with a dangerous glint in their eye, so he's now justified in driving his car into that person?

The one person who actually did anything to the car before it crashed into the crowd wasn't one of the people the car ran into. That's the only person you might reasonably claim intimidated the driver in such a way as to merit being driven into. Even with that person, it is only barely reasonable to make such a claim; the rest of the crowd did nothing at all to the driver to justify his running into them.

I think the main point that needed to be made, you already said. If he was scared for his safety, he would have just slammed his car into reverse like he did after running into the crowd... he wouldn't have driven into more danger.

Why can't you people just admit you're wrong and I am right? Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.