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

[Billo_Really]

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".

Real Americans don't broadstroke and entire group of people. You don't have a clue as to what most blacks think, so why even make such a dumbass comment?

 

[bgrouse]

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".

Real Americans don't broadstroke and entire group of people. You don't have a clue as to what most blacks think, so why even make such a dumbass comment?

Stop broadstroking "real Americans," you Nazi Sympathizer!

 

[Billo_Really]

Stop broadstroking "real Americans," you Nazi Sympathizer!

What is this? Role-playing?

 

[bgrouse]

Stop broadstroking "real Americans," you Nazi Sympathizer!

What is this? Role-playing?

Yeah, I'm playing the role of a butt-hurt liberal that's jumping at any chance to claim that someone is generalizing or broadstroking regarding a group of people.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yeah, I'm playing the role of a butt-hurt liberal that's jumping at any chance to claim that someone is generalizing or broadstroking regarding a group of people.

Liberals don't butt-hurt or broadstroke. I may be generalizing a bit, but that's what it is.

As far as white supremacists, you can't broadstroke that group. Decent people do not become their members. Nice people do not go down to those kind of rallys.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BulletProof, post: 17959925

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.

He killed and injured people going forward into a crowd that had nowhere to go.

He could have avoided and escaped hitting the crowd without harm to himself by reversing anytime for a distance over two city blocks.

The fact that he attacked moving forward proves your Nazi had intent to harm and kill in a hate crime. It proves you don't know what the videos have shown. It proves the Nazi did panic and this all was an accident caused by the victims.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BulletProof, post: 17959925

The crowd can defend themselves by getting out of the way of the car,

Barcelona? And this is your damned fool argument. You need not have a brain to be a Nazi sympathizer. You sure aren't stupid proof.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BulletProof, post: 17959925

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.

You are so filled with hate you can't read the police report on the three car accident that was caused by your boy Nazis' car traveling at a high rate of speed into a crowd of pedestrians and anti-fascist protestors and two vehicles that had slowed or stopped to yield to pedestrians.

Twitter

The three vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was headed south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan traveling south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd of people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bgrouse, post: 17958190

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?

I know from the police report and the laws of physics that he was traveling at a 'high rate of speed' into a crowd of pedestrians and two other vehicles.

Here's the report:

The three vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was headed south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan traveling south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd of people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.

Your pro Nazi defense was never going anywhere. It can't. Your tubby lubby Nazi boy's only threat to his life was the impact with another vehicle or a pedestrian flying through the windshield after being hit by a 2Ton vehicle at a high rate of speed.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Once again, the driver was not defending himself against the guy with the flag. He didn't ram his car into the guy with the flag. He rammed his car into a crowd that had done nothing to him at all.

I pointed out two possible felony offenses by the driver in this thread: leaving the scene of an accident in which a person is injured or killed, and reckless driving in which someone is injured or killed (although that would seem to require his license to be invalid). Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert. I honestly don't think any prosecution is going to rely on the felony homicide law, but it is a possibility.

As far as when the driver was arrested, according to what I read about leaving the scene of an accident, the only exception listed was for injury. However, let's assume that the driver is legally allowed to leave the scene because he was in fear for his life from the crowd. If he was arrested a few hours after the incident, that was plenty of time for him to go to the police or call them. The leaving the scene of an accident statute says that a person needs to get in contact with the victims or the police as soon as is reasonably possible, or words to that effect. If it took a few hours for the driver to be arrested, and that happened not because he went to the police, but because the police went and found him, that seems likely to fit as criminally leaving the scene.

I linked to the relevant Virginia statutes when I first brought up the possibility that this could be a second degree murder case even without intent. Various pictures and videos of the incident have been given in this thread, and I have linked to some myself. I don't know what else you expect a person to present as "preliminary evidence."

 

[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.

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.

I don't need to prove anything, as I'm clearly giving my opinion. I've also pointed out or provided evidence to support my opinion.

Unlikely stories? What does that even mean? I have looked at the videos, I have looked at the pictures, and I have formed an opinion based on them. In the clearest picture of the man with the flag hitting the bumper of the car, the crowd appears to be pretty close. I estimated 15 feet away, but perhaps it was 10 feet, or 20 feet. In the videos of the crash, the car appears to me to be moving fast enough that stopping in 15 or 20 feet would have been difficult, even if the driver had been applying the brakes at the moment the flag hit the bumper.

If the driver "thought the crowd would get out of the way" then he would be guilty of reckless driving, at the least. I'm pretty sure "I though the pedestrians in the road would get out of my way" is not a valid defense for hitting someone with your car anywhere in the country. Also, seeing some people notice a car coming to hit them and trying to run or jump out of the way is not the sort of evidence to exonerate the driver.

When the crowd to the rear and sides attacked, the driver had already slammed into the crowd and cars in front of him.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Wow. Since he wasn't able to drive through the crowd in the street and the cars in front of him, he didn't apply more force than reasonable? Running your car through a crowd of people who have not threatened you (and at that point, only the one guy with the flag had done anything to the car) is reasonable force?

And you have the gall to ask someone else if they have ever driven?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Montrovant, post: 17960937, member: 19302

Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert.

I'm pretty sure the Feds will find this was a hate crime.

This fear for his life defense is absurd. He had a way out prior to hitting people. In fact he got out after hitting the people.

There is no defense for this Nazi save the Schizophrenic defense some have tossed out.

Lots of right wing killers end up claiming mental disorders.

I think this one is getting hit with a hate crime since he came to Charlottesville to participate in a hate group rally. And he is the only one at the crime scene operating a lethal weapon and used it with deadly force.

No one mows down unarmed pedestrians and claims self defense.

He rear ended another vehicle with people between his car and that one.

Multiple counts of attempted murder in the prosecution of a hate crime.

I'm no legal expert as well, but it's clear this Nazi was motivated by hate and acted.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bgrouse, post: 17959741

Reasonable fear for one's life is enough, dumbass.

Your Nazi Hitler's Youth cannot prove he had reasonable fear. It's on camera. He wrecked his car much more than any in the crowd could do. Reasonable fear means he had no way to escape the crowd prior to running over them.

After he hit the first pedestrian the crowd reaction to defend themselves would have a reasonable defense had they killed him while still operating the car.

His high rate of speed at the time of impact of the Mustang and human beings, ruins his self defense argument.

Your argument is nuts.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrovant, post: 17960937, member: 19302

Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert.

I'm pretty sure the Feds will find this was a hate crime.

This fear for his life defense is absurd. He had a way out prior to hitting people. In fact he got out after hitting the people.

There is no defense for this Nazi save the Schizophrenic defense some have tossed out.

Lots of right wing killers end up claiming mental disorders.

I think this one is getting hit with a hate crime since he came to Charlottesville to participate in a hate group rally. And he is the only one at the crime scene operating a lethal weapon and used it with deadly force.

No one mows down unarmed pedestrians and claims self defense.

He rear ended another vehicle with people between his car and that one.

Multiple counts of attempted murder in the prosecution of a hate crime.

I'm no legal expert as well, but it's clear this Nazi was motivated by hate and acted.

I agree that it seems he drove into the crowd intentionally, and that the "fear for his life" defense is pretty thin, at best.

I don't look at this as some right vs left issue, however. Nor do I think it helps to claim that "right wing killers end up claiming mental disorders," as though killers who lean left would not claim the same thing.

I've read that Sessions has brought up the idea of charging him with a hate crime, but that the feds are planning to investigate further before deciding which, if any, charges to level.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

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

There is no way anyone in the crowd had time to even think about beating this Nazi's brains in:

The video you need to see is at the end br of the story.

Victim hit by car during white power rally recounts saving fiancée’s life | New York Post

This view proves your Nazi was not under any threat to his life when he plowed into the slow moving Mustang.

I didn't realize it but the minivan and convertible were being let through the crowd slowly when your Nazi rammed them.

 

[bgrouse]

bgrouse, post: 17958190

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?

I know from the police report and the laws of physics that he was traveling at a 'high rate of speed' into a crowd of pedestrians and two other vehicles.

Here's the report:

The three vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was headed south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan traveling south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd of people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.

Your pro Nazi defense was never going anywhere. It can't. Your tubby lubby Nazi boy's only threat to his life was the impact with another vehicle or a pedestrian flying through the windshield after being hit by a 2Ton vehicle at a high rate of speed.

Of course he was going fast at the time of the crash. That's when he was trying to escape with his life. Read your own report, dumbass!

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Once again, the driver was not defending himself against the guy with the flag. He didn't ram his car into the guy with the flag. He rammed his car into a crowd that had done nothing to him at all.

Because he was trying to escape the fastest way he thought was possible. It may have possibly been combined with reflex action to get away from the threat that was right behind him by going forward.

I pointed out two possible felony offenses by the driver in this thread: leaving the scene of an accident in which a person is injured or killed, and reckless driving in which someone is injured or killed (although that would seem to require his license to be invalid). Perhaps the felony homicide wouldn't apply; I said quite clearly I am not a lawyer nor legal expert. I honestly don't think any prosecution is going to rely on the felony homicide law, but it is a possibility.

As far as when the driver was arrested, according to what I read about leaving the scene of an accident, the only exception listed was for injury. However, let's assume that the driver is legally allowed to leave the scene because he was in fear for his life from the crowd. If he was arrested a few hours after the incident, that was plenty of time for him to go to the police or call them.

That's IF that's when it happened. It's your charge. You prove it. You need to prove when he was arrested and what the time limit is on surrendering to the cops, to start.

The leaving the scene of an accident statute says that a person needs to get in contact with the victims or the police as soon as is reasonably possible, or words to that effect. If it took a few hours for the driver to be arrested, and that happened not because he went to the police, but because the police went and found him, that seems likely to fit as criminally leaving the scene.

That's lots of ifs. Since it's your charge that you brought up, it's up to you to prove it.

I linked to the relevant Virginia statutes when I first brought up the possibility that this could be a second degree murder case even without intent. Various pictures and videos of the incident have been given in this thread, and I have linked to some myself. I don't know what else you expect a person to present as "preliminary evidence."

 

[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.

I don't need to prove anything, as I'm clearly giving my opinion. I've also pointed out or provided evidence to support my opinion.

It's crap you pulled out of your ass.

Unlikely stories? What does that even mean?

It means you're pulling shit out of your ass. Maybe if this happened, if that happened, etc...

My position is grounded in fact. We all saw who struck first. We all know the violent demeanor of the crowd.

I have looked at the videos, I have looked at the pictures, and I have formed an opinion based on them. In the clearest picture of the man with the flag hitting the bumper of the car, the crowd appears to be pretty close. I estimated 15 feet away, but perhaps it was 10 feet, or 20 feet. In the videos of the crash, the car appears to me to be moving fast enough that stopping in 15 or 20 feet would have been difficult, even if the driver had been applying the brakes at the moment the flag hit the bumper.

And how did you come up with your estimate? The funniest part here is you don't even attempt to provide any data on the stopping capabilities of that car. Know what that tells me? That your position is highly unscientific.

If the driver "thought the crowd would get out of the way" then he would be guilty of reckless driving, at the least.

And maybe he was speeding 5 minutes ago. He might have even smoked a joint 2 weeks before this incident. Who cares?

I'm pretty sure "I though the pedestrians in the road would get out of my way" is not a valid defense for hitting someone with your car anywhere in the country.

Good thing he was attacked. That IS a valid defense.

Also, seeing some people notice a car coming to hit them and trying to run or jump out of the way is not the sort of evidence to exonerate the driver.

When the crowd to the rear and sides attacked, the driver had already slammed into the crowd and cars in front of him.

I know when I see a crash, I and all the people around me mob the car and try to murder the driver!

How obtuse are you? Nobody does that shit unless they had violent mob intentions to begin with. The attack prior to the crash just solidifies this fact.

 

[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.

Wow. Since he wasn't able to drive through the crowd in the street and the cars in front of him, he didn't apply more force than reasonable? Running your car through a crowd of people who have not threatened you (and at that point, only the one guy with the flag had done anything to the car) is reasonable force?

And you have the gall to ask someone else if they have ever driven?

It's not about revenge, but self-preservation. He was trying to protect his life, not necessarily kill the guy with the flag. If you want, you can charge the guy with the flag with her murder.