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

[whutTHEYsay]

.......he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him.

You got it assbackward. Pedestrians were attacked and one was murdered by this driver. Why does the crowd not have the right to protect themselves and others from obvious vehicular homicide. How does the crowd know his intent once he started using his car to injure and kill people.

 

[bgrouse]

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954

I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.

 

[bgrouse]

.......he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him.

You got it assbackward. Pedestrians were attacked and one was murdered by this driver. Why does the crowd not have the right to protect themselves and others from obvious vehicular homicide. How does the crowd know his intent once he started using his car to injure and kill people.

He was attacked before the collision, dumbass. See post #738.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't see any major increase in speed.

The punk killer Nazi is over two blocks from impacting the crowd, no one is on him, trapping him, because his car is traveling my way to fast. He passes an intersection where he could have turned on his way to slaughter. Had he wanted to avoid contact with the crowd he would have at least slowed down to see if the right turn was clear.

Without having this news story in hindsight, why would he have necessarily wanted to avoid all contact with the crowd? Liberals here in America consider themselves peaceful, education individuals and if the driver held them in half as high a regard, he would have assumed he could easily drive through the crowd without having them get in his way or try to murder him. That's where your theory falls apart.

He maintained ram speed the entire two or three blocks.

"Ram speed!"

You're funny!

Do you know how fast he was going and what his speed was throughout this event? Why don't you go ahead and tell us since you seem to know so much that our uneducated observations of the video are worthless?

Be sure to include conclusive evidence regarding how you determined his speed in MPH throughout this event.

We must conclude that you are a few screws loose where your eyeballs are connected to your brain.

Peaceful or not, why would the driver assume he could drive through a crowd already jam packed in the street?

He assumed they weren't less civilized than the average deer. The ones in my part of the world get out of the way when you approach in a car on the road. The people do, too.

If he assumed (or even worried) they were violent, why was he driving into a huge crowd of protesters? If he assumed they were peaceful, why would a single hit from a flag on the car's bumper as he is passing cause fear for his life?

Why would an act of violence shatter someone's presumption of nonviolence? Gee, I wonder...

No, why would a single person hitting the bumper of your car with a flag cause you to immediately, with practically no reaction time, fear for your life and hit the gas in a panic. That's the narrative that has been going on in this thread.

The more important question is, why had the driver not hit his brakes, nor even slowed down seemingly, by the time his car was hit by the flag? From the videos and pictures of the event, when the flag hit the car, the crowd was maybe 15 feet in front of it? You can see that in the picture in Steve McGarrett's post just a couple after the post of yours I am quoting. It's also been posted before in the thread.

Do you really think a deer gets out of the way of a car because it is civilized?

 

[Montrovant]

EverCurious, post: 17956894

So you really think the mob that attacked him after he hit the car would have "gently" detained him for the cops after they smashed in his windows? You're a damned liar...

I said nothing about him being gently detained. That makes you the liar.

Like I said, no one on the scene could know what this mass murdering Nazi was going to do next. He still had control of his weapon. The uninjured had a right to try to subdue him and protect more innocent people from being attacked.

You only seem concerned about the rampaging killer Nazi's right to a safe and legal proceeding following the assault.

Why is that? He could still murder in real time. People were fearing for their own lives and needing to tend to the wounded and dead. Would you be concerned about that or just reserve all your compassion for Nazis types needing to be placed safely into police custody?

Matter of fact the next thing he did after ramming the Mustang and killing Heather Heyer -- was to put the car in reverse and run over MORE people. That's clearly visible in other videos already posted from the right side of the street.

Those "people" were trying to murder him. What would you do if someone swings a bat at you? Sit there and accept your fate?

You liberals are hilarious!

I'm still not sure if he was backing up before his car was attacked or not. It was probably pretty clear that the crowd was going after him, though. Of course, they were attacking him because he just plowed into a crowd of people, so it's hard to muster any sympathy.

They were attacking him before that, too.

I posted earlier that under Virginia law, a person is required to remain at the scene of an accident or, if that is not possible, get in touch with either the police or the victims as soon as reasonably possible. I don't think the driver did so, which is a felony. When someone dies during the commission of a felony in Virginia, it is second degree murder. See post #588 if you are interested.

I was under the impression that he got arrested. Before that, it was impossible to get in touch with them, as he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him. Can't alert the police if you're dead due to a hundred baseball bat blows to the head.

Oh, was he arrested immediately after he left the scene? I haven't read that. Do you happen to have a link to a report that his arrest occurred right after he left the scene of the crash? Or are you saying that for some reason he could not have driven to a police station, called the police, etc.?

 

[Muhammed]

bgrouse, post: 17958208

Those "people" were trying to murder him. What would you do if someone swings a bat at you? Sit there and accept your fate?

Those people were intent in defending themselves from more carnage.

You are a liar. The video proves beyond any doubt that he was attacked before the collision. People with weapons were running after him BEFORE the collision. One of the terrorists hit his car with a wooden staff BEFORE the collision!

He hit the brakes BEFORE the collision! In the video the brake lights were on BEFORE the collision! That FACT obviously indicates that he was trying to avoid hitting anything.

Then more terrorists were attacking BEFORE he threw it in reverse and got the hell out of there.

You're a ******* liar.

 

[Montrovant]

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954

I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.

What video evidence has been ignored? I've been watching various videos of the incident and they all seem to point to the driver intentionally hitting the crowd. Even the picture in McGarrett's post indicates the driver was going to hit the crowd regardless of his car being struck by a flag; look at how close the car is to the crowd in that picture, then go watch a video of the incident to see about how fast it was moving. It seems unlikely that the driver could have stopped, if he even attempted to (the brake lights don't come on at any time just before the car is hit by the flag), so blaming the flag wielder for the crash is pretty ridiculous. The car was getting ready to hit the crowd even if there had been no guy with a flag.

There have been numerous videos of the incident linked in the thread. I have linked a few myself, and pointed out the evidence that the car was already going to hit the crowd before being hit by a flag. You can complain about "liberal idiots" (and why must this be based on political ideology?) ignoring video evidence, but there is certainly video evidence to indicate the crash was an attack rather than some sort of panic reaction.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954

I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.

I agree. When you're attacked by a viscous mob, your natural instincts to survive kicks in. If the taillights are lit, You must aquit!

 

[bgrouse]

I don't see any major increase in speed.

The punk killer Nazi is over two blocks from impacting the crowd, no one is on him, trapping him, because his car is traveling my way to fast. He passes an intersection where he could have turned on his way to slaughter. Had he wanted to avoid contact with the crowd he would have at least slowed down to see if the right turn was clear.

Without having this news story in hindsight, why would he have necessarily wanted to avoid all contact with the crowd? Liberals here in America consider themselves peaceful, education individuals and if the driver held them in half as high a regard, he would have assumed he could easily drive through the crowd without having them get in his way or try to murder him. That's where your theory falls apart.

He maintained ram speed the entire two or three blocks.

"Ram speed!"

You're funny!

Do you know how fast he was going and what his speed was throughout this event? Why don't you go ahead and tell us since you seem to know so much that our uneducated observations of the video are worthless?

Be sure to include conclusive evidence regarding how you determined his speed in MPH throughout this event.

We must conclude that you are a few screws loose where your eyeballs are connected to your brain.

Peaceful or not, why would the driver assume he could drive through a crowd already jam packed in the street?

He assumed they weren't less civilized than the average deer. The ones in my part of the world get out of the way when you approach in a car on the road. The people do, too.

If he assumed (or even worried) they were violent, why was he driving into a huge crowd of protesters? If he assumed they were peaceful, why would a single hit from a flag on the car's bumper as he is passing cause fear for his life?

Why would an act of violence shatter someone's presumption of nonviolence? Gee, I wonder...

No, why would a single person hitting the bumper of your car with a flag cause you to immediately, with practically no reaction time, fear for your life and hit the gas in a panic. That's the narrative that has been going on in this thread.

It's an indication of the crowd's demeanor. He was also being surrounded by the crowd. Then, someone attacks.

Sounds pretty scary to me.

The more important question is, why had the driver not hit his brakes, nor even slowed down seemingly, by the time his car was hit by the flag?

I thought he was moving quite slowly and showing restrain while being surrounded by those animals.

From the videos and pictures of the event, when the flag hit the car, the crowd was maybe 15 feet in front of it? You can see that in the picture in Steve McGarrett's post just a couple after the post of yours I am quoting. It's also been posted before in the thread.

Do you really think a deer gets out of the way of a car because it is civilized?

Or maybe they're somewhat intelligent. Unlike liberals.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bgrouse, post: 17959298

The crowd can't do it the instigator of an attack generally does not have the "right" to "defend" himself.

Guess you cannot understand the concept of the use of deadly force in a confrontation.

Only one person controlled a weapon that was used to apply deadly force. Sensing fear is no excuse for applying deadly force. The Nazi is the only instigator here. His weapon went forward for least two blocks toward the crowd with no threat to his vehicle or person visable appearing in any of the videos during that period of time.

He ended up backing up and got away from the crowd. That option was available prior to running into and over people. He chose not to escape. He killed first.

No excuse. The Nazi is the instigator and a killer.

You are such a fool that you actually believe people instigated an attack by throwing their flesh and bones in front of a hard steel fast moving 2 Ton vehicle.

 

[bgrouse]

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954

I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.

What video evidence has been ignored? I've been watching various videos of the incident and they all seem to point to the driver intentionally hitting the crowd. Even the picture in McGarrett's post indicates the driver was going to hit the crowd regardless of his car being struck by a flag; look at how close the car is to the crowd in that picture, then go watch a video of the incident to see about how fast it was moving.

I saw it. I don't see anything indicating a lack of time to stop.

It seems unlikely that the driver could have stopped, if he even attempted to (the brake lights don't come on at any time just before the car is hit by the flag), so blaming the flag wielder for the crash is pretty ridiculous. The car was getting ready to hit the crowd even if there had been no guy with a flag.

Or he thought the crowd would get out of the way, as you see some of them that are in front of the car doing. That's where the evidence points.

But when the crowd in the rear/sides attacked, all bets were off.

There have been numerous videos of the incident linked in the thread. I have linked a few myself, and pointed out the evidence that the car was already going to hit the crowd before being hit by a flag.

I don't see that as a given at all. Can you prove this? How far away was he just before being struck? How far away were the protesters? How fast was he moving? At that speed, how much time did that car need to come to a complete stop? You're the one bringing up these unlikely stories instead of accepting the evidence that does exist: who attacked first.

You can complain about "liberal idiots" (and why must this be based on political ideology?) ignoring video evidence, but there is certainly video evidence to indicate the crash was an attack rather than some sort of panic reaction.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I thought he was moving quite slowly and showing restrain while being surrounded by those animals.

You are not thinking. He backed out of there. Did you not see that? He was never surrounded in any view. He smashed into bodies and a car and he still backed out and got away unharmed.

If you think he showed restraint - he backed out before running over people.

This is not even close.

If you fear a crowd you drive away from a crowd not two or three car lengths into that.

Storm Trooper's version of events can't change what is seen on video.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954

I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.

What video evidence has been ignored? I've been watching various videos of the incident and they all seem to point to the driver intentionally hitting the crowd. Even the picture in McGarrett's post indicates the driver was going to hit the crowd regardless of his car being struck by a flag; look at how close the car is to the crowd in that picture, then go watch a video of the incident to see about how fast it was moving.

I saw it. I don't see anything indicating a lack of time to stop.

It seems unlikely that the driver could have stopped, if he even attempted to (the brake lights don't come on at any time just before the car is hit by the flag), so blaming the flag wielder for the crash is pretty ridiculous. The car was getting ready to hit the crowd even if there had been no guy with a flag.

Or he thought the crowd would get out of the way, as you see some of them that are in front of the car doing. That's where the evidence points.

But when the crowd in the rear/sides attacked, all bets were off.

There have been numerous videos of the incident linked in the thread. I have linked a few myself, and pointed out the evidence that the car was already going to hit the crowd before being hit by a flag.

I don't see that as a given at all. Can you prove this? How far away was he just before being struck? How far away were the protesters? How fast was he moving? At that speed, how much time did that car need to come to a complete stop? You're the one bringing up these unlikely stories instead of accepting the evidence that does exist: who attacked first.

You can complain about "liberal idiots" (and why must this be based on political ideology?) ignoring video evidence, but there is certainly video evidence to indicate the crash was an attack rather than some sort of panic reaction.

Breaking Update!

The driver was a Hillary supporter.

 

[bgrouse]

EverCurious, post: 17956894 I said nothing about him being gently detained. That makes you the liar.

Like I said, no one on the scene could know what this mass murdering Nazi was going to do next. He still had control of his weapon. The uninjured had a right to try to subdue him and protect more innocent people from being attacked.

You only seem concerned about the rampaging killer Nazi's right to a safe and legal proceeding following the assault.

Why is that? He could still murder in real time. People were fearing for their own lives and needing to tend to the wounded and dead. Would you be concerned about that or just reserve all your compassion for Nazis types needing to be placed safely into police custody?

Matter of fact the next thing he did after ramming the Mustang and killing Heather Heyer -- was to put the car in reverse and run over MORE people. That's clearly visible in other videos already posted from the right side of the street.

Those "people" were trying to murder him. What would you do if someone swings a bat at you? Sit there and accept your fate?

You liberals are hilarious!

I'm still not sure if he was backing up before his car was attacked or not. It was probably pretty clear that the crowd was going after him, though. Of course, they were attacking him because he just plowed into a crowd of people, so it's hard to muster any sympathy.

They were attacking him before that, too.

I posted earlier that under Virginia law, a person is required to remain at the scene of an accident or, if that is not possible, get in touch with either the police or the victims as soon as reasonably possible. I don't think the driver did so, which is a felony. When someone dies during the commission of a felony in Virginia, it is second degree murder. See post #588 if you are interested.

I was under the impression that he got arrested. Before that, it was impossible to get in touch with them, as he was under threat of being murdered by people who were chasing him. Can't alert the police if you're dead due to a hundred baseball bat blows to the head.

Oh, was he arrested immediately after he left the scene? I haven't read that. Do you happen to have a link to a report that his arrest occurred right after he left the scene of the crash? Or are you saying that for some reason he could not have driven to a police station, called the police, etc.?

Here's how it works: the person who brings up the charge is the one who has to prove it. Liberals brought up murder for hitting the woman, we showed concrete evidence he was attacked first and was justified in defending himself.

If you want to bring up a new charge, you are the one who needs to at least bring in some preliminary evidence supporting your position. Here's an example:

Victim recounts Charlottesville car attack that killed 1, injured 19
1:42 pm August 12: time of incident.

Police Arrest 20-Year-Old Man on Suspicion of Murder After Car Plows Into Demonstrators in Virginia, Killing 1 and Injuring 19

That article was posted at 6:05 PM on the same day, meaning the suspect was likely arrested inside no more than a few hours of the incident. Other reports indicate he was arrested "shortly" after the event.

In any case, felony murder, which is what you appear to be implying, has to do with someone trying to commit a felony and having a death occur during the event. The woman was already dead by the time the crash was over (the crash being what caused her injuries), and the time when Fields escaped, so it wouldn't apply. What COULD apply is the protester(s) who attacked fields. If they committed a felony which led to the woman's death, they could be held accountable for it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Steve_McGarrett, post: 17958954 I'll ask again. Why can't pedestrians try to defend themselves from a Nazi driver who is attacking them with his car.

Why can't you answer that?

The Bolsheviks are attacking the innocent white identitarian forcing him to fear for his life.

It's hopeless. The liberal idiots will ignore even video evidence. Morons like them make it hard to argue for cops to wear body cameras.

What video evidence has been ignored? I've been watching various videos of the incident and they all seem to point to the driver intentionally hitting the crowd. Even the picture in McGarrett's post indicates the driver was going to hit the crowd regardless of his car being struck by a flag; look at how close the car is to the crowd in that picture, then go watch a video of the incident to see about how fast it was moving.

I saw it. I don't see anything indicating a lack of time to stop.

It seems unlikely that the driver could have stopped, if he even attempted to (the brake lights don't come on at any time just before the car is hit by the flag), so blaming the flag wielder for the crash is pretty ridiculous. The car was getting ready to hit the crowd even if there had been no guy with a flag.

Or he thought the crowd would get out of the way, as you see some of them that are in front of the car doing. That's where the evidence points.

But when the crowd in the rear/sides attacked, all bets were off.

There have been numerous videos of the incident linked in the thread. I have linked a few myself, and pointed out the evidence that the car was already going to hit the crowd before being hit by a flag.

I don't see that as a given at all. Can you prove this? How far away was he just before being struck? How far away were the protesters? How fast was he moving? At that speed, how much time did that car need to come to a complete stop? You're the one bringing up these unlikely stories instead of accepting the evidence that does exist: who attacked first.

You can complain about "liberal idiots" (and why must this be based on political ideology?) ignoring video evidence, but there is certainly video evidence to indicate the crash was an attack rather than some sort of panic reaction.

Breaking Update!

The driver was a Hillary supporter.

Jesus Christ!!!!

I hope Trump tweets this one. David Duke says.

 

[bgrouse]

bgrouse, post: 17959298

The crowd can't do it the instigator of an attack generally does not have the "right" to "defend" himself.

Guess you cannot understand the concept of the use of deadly force in a confrontation.

Only one person controlled a weapon that was used to apply deadly force. Sensing fear is no excuse for applying deadly force.

Reasonable fear for one's life is enough, dumbass.
Virginia's Self Defense Laws: What You Need To Know

"The reasonable appearance that the use of force was justified is assessed from the subjective viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted."

You don't have to wait for the crowd to beat your brains in before you can act. It's too late by then.

The Nazi is the only instigator here. His weapon went forward for least two blocks toward the crowd with no threat to his vehicle or person visable appearing in any of the videos during that period of time.

He has the right to travel on the road. Exercising your right to drive on a road does not equal being an instigator. Attacking someone for no reason is NOT a right. Quit being a moron.

He ended up backing up and got away from the crowd. That option was available prior to running into and over people. He chose not to escape. He killed first.

Backing out of the alley is very difficult in a situation like that. How ******* dumb are you?

No excuse. The Nazi is the instigator and a killer.

You are such a fool that you actually believe people instigated an attack by throwing their flesh and bones in front of a hard steel fast moving 2 Ton vehicle.

He tried to get out going forward, which is much easier than going backward, if you've ever driven before. Did you pass the driving test?

Obviously, the force he applied to get out by going forward was insufficient, so it was definitely not more force than was reasonable given the circumstances. Then the only way left to get out was by going backwards, and judging by the damage to his car, he barely made it out alive. He used pretty much the minimum amount of force needed to get himself out of there in one piece. In fact, it could be argued that he tried to escape from the guy who struck him from behind (by going forward) first, until that proved to be impossible.

 

[BulletProof]

A prosecutor who knows that a crowd of people under attack are allowed to defend themselves.

Nice try to defend an ahole prosecutor. The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car, rather than charging up to it and getting hit when the boy put the car in reverse and fled.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nice try to defend an ahole prosecutor. The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car, rather than charging up to it and getting hit when the boy put the car in reverse and fled.

Considering what he did, he had better get the **** out of there. He should have never made it to the comfort and protection of the police. He should have been dragged out of his car Reginald Denny style and executed right then and there.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'd like to give a big "**** you" to all the un-American pricks defending these white supremacists. These are the assholes we fought in WWII and now you're trying to bring that garbage to our shores.

Defending Nazi sympathizers is not what a real American does.

 

[BulletProof]

Defending Nazi sympathizers is not what a real American does.

Most whites are very much the opposite of Nazi sympathizers, but most blacks are very much thug sympathizers. That's not what a real American does. They haven't earned being called African-"American".