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

[Faun]

One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.

I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable. A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

Why would anyone assume his brakes failed? I would expect a driver would shift their car into park if heading uncontrollably for 2 blocks towards a crowd of people.

That he made no attempt to stop his vehicle, or honk his horn as a warning he was approaching uncontrollably, convinces me the crowd reacted appropriately.

 

[Faun]

WillHaftawaite, post: 17981781

go away, little boy. find some building blocks to play with.

Why should I go away. You are already running from the facts and truth available about this.

It's not looking good for your Nazi. The videos and eyewitnesses, I mean. There's three good videos. One from above. One recording the impact from the front. And the best recorded the Nazi going down 4th Street from behind with eyewitnesses scrambling and screaming to get out of his way.

All those eyewitnesses and the video, and there's this. Your Nazi is a Nazi.

You don't think that will come up in a trial?

WillHaftawaite is nothing but another loser hypocrite. Despite calling for presumption of innocence for a nazi, he afforded no such luxury for Hillary...

Only a ******* tard fails to believe that HIllary is a crook...

... remind me -- when did Hillary have her day in court?

YOU might wants to take another gander at that thread.

I cut and pasted a post of Tyrones, and changed the names from Trump to Hillary..

Which is just more proof you like to jump to conclusions, moron

LOL

As if that means you didn't post it.

And look, here's a third time you advocated someone's guilt without affording them a trial..,

When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?

Hypocrite.

 

[Auld Phart]

WillHaftawaite, post: 17981781

go away, little boy. find some building blocks to play with.

Why should I go away. You are already running from the facts and truth available about this.

It's not looking good for your Nazi. The videos and eyewitnesses, I mean. There's three good videos. One from above. One recording the impact from the front. And the best recorded the Nazi going down 4th Street from behind with eyewitnesses scrambling and screaming to get out of his way.

All those eyewitnesses and the video, and there's this. Your Nazi is a Nazi.

You don't think that will come up in a trial?

WillHaftawaite is nothing but another loser hypocrite. Despite calling for presumption of innocence for a nazi, he afforded no such luxury for Hillary...

Only a ******* tard fails to believe that HIllary is a crook...

... remind me -- when did Hillary have her day in court?

YOU might wants to take another gander at that thread.

I cut and pasted a post of Tyrones, and changed the names from Trump to Hillary..

Which is just more proof you like to jump to conclusions, moron

LOL

As if that means you didn't post it.

And look, here's a third time you advocated someone's guilt without affording them a trial..,

When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?

Hypocrite.

and you prove again you're a moron.

"When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?"

 

[Faun]

WillHaftawaite, post: 17981781

go away, little boy. find some building blocks to play with.

Why should I go away. You are already running from the facts and truth available about this.

It's not looking good for your Nazi. The videos and eyewitnesses, I mean. There's three good videos. One from above. One recording the impact from the front. And the best recorded the Nazi going down 4th Street from behind with eyewitnesses scrambling and screaming to get out of his way.

All those eyewitnesses and the video, and there's this. Your Nazi is a Nazi.

You don't think that will come up in a trial?

WillHaftawaite is nothing but another loser hypocrite. Despite calling for presumption of innocence for a nazi, he afforded no such luxury for Hillary...

Only a ******* tard fails to believe that HIllary is a crook...

... remind me -- when did Hillary have her day in court?

YOU might wants to take another gander at that thread.

I cut and pasted a post of Tyrones, and changed the names from Trump to Hillary..

Which is just more proof you like to jump to conclusions, moron

LOL

As if that means you didn't post it.

And look, here's a third time you advocated someone's guilt without affording them a trial..,

When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?

Hypocrite.

and you prove again you're a moron.

"When will Lynch be found guilty of those crimes?"

Of what crimes, ya flamin' hypocrite? She hasn't been charged with anything.

 

[bgrouse]

One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.

I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable. A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

Why would anyone assume his brakes failed?

Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?

I would expect a driver would shift their car into park if heading uncontrollably for 2 blocks towards a crowd of people.

If he had time to do so. Most people don't have a developed reaction to shift into park when an obstacle comes into view like they do to hit the brakes.

Besides, modern cars can have features in the transmission that are designed to avoid damage in such a situation. For example:
Accidently put in park while moving

I don't know if his car has such a feature, and I certainly don't know if he knew at the time. Either way, don't expect a modern car to react the same way to it as Reese's car did in Terminator.

That he made no attempt to stop his vehicle, or honk his horn as a warning he was approaching uncontrollably, convinces me the crowd reacted appropriately.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bgrouse, post: 17981953

Let's try this an easier way, one thing at a time.

I was counting 8 seconds to the point of the crash. And still do. Nothing changed. The guy yelling go go go did not say it immediately when the car came into view. He said it a couple of seconds after the car came into view.

It has all been explained how the numbers work out in more detail and the original calculated speed has not changed. Do you agree the Nazi in reverse passed the camera 21 seconds after passing the same camera going forward? You must know I could not have meant the crash occurred 16 seconds after passing the camera going in. That would only leave about 4 seconds to cover the same ground coming out as he did going in. Which is twice as fast which is an average speed of 60 MPH.

Do you actually believe he went 60 mph in reverse?!

Also, If you don't believe your Nazi stopped or slowed down at some point prior to accelerating into the crowd because he suddenly became in fear for his life because of flag guy. What do you believe happened.

Akso, how many seconds was it after passing the camera until flag guy took a swipe at his car?

I say it is about 4 seconds. And it looks as if to be about halfway to your Nazi's bigger target. The most dense crowd of anti-Nazi pedestrians. At this point it looks on video to be densely populated with pedestrians. He should have been stopped at this point to avoid hitting any of them.

What is your argument?

 

[Faun]

I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable. A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

Why would anyone assume his brakes failed?

Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?

I would expect a driver would shift their car into park if heading uncontrollably for 2 blocks towards a crowd of people.

If he had time to do so. Most people don't have a developed reaction to shift into park when an obstacle comes into view like they do to hit the brakes.

Besides, modern cars can have features in the transmission that are designed to avoid damage in such a situation. For example:
Accidently put in park while moving

I don't know if his car has such a feature, and I certainly don't know if he knew at the time. Either way, don't expect a modern car to react the same way to it as Reese's car did in Terminator.

That he made no attempt to stop his vehicle, or honk his horn as a warning he was approaching uncontrollably, convinces me the crowd reacted appropriately.

I already explained why it was reasonable to think he was trying to run them over. He drove for at least 2 blocks before running into that crowd. He had other options had it been break failure, including but not limited to ... throwing his car into park ... laying on his horn ... screaming out his window to get out of his way ... etc....

He neither made any attempt to stop his vehicle nor attempt to warn anyone to get out of his way. His intentions were clear. At least one eyewitness even called it an act of terrorism. I know I'd be pissed as shit if someone intentionally tried to run me over.

Not to mention, there's been no evidence his brakes failed him -- which means the crowd reaction was both accurate and justifiable.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?

Nope. He has made his Nazi views public, He drove 8 hours to be part of a hate group protest movement. He was driving toward black, white, all races of marchers who were protesting his hate groups coming to Charlottesville.

For his brakes to fail at the precise moment his car was forcing panicked pedestrians to jump out of his way, is extremely farfetched.

He drove away in reverse you might think at 60 mph - without brakes? And drive a few miles and was caught. I bet the first thing after a drunk test in cases like this would be if the brakes wiere working. Including the parking brake

 

[Montrovant]

One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.

I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable. A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

I can't say for sure why some members of the crowd immediately attacked the car. Did they have some indication before the crash that it was intentional? Perhaps. The speed the car traveled at, the lack of brake lights, people being forced to jump out of the way as the car made its way down the road, any or all of these might have given the members of the crowd the idea it was intentional.

Perhaps those members of the crowd that attacked the car were simply prone to violence. I won't deny that possibility. Maybe their first reaction to seeing friends or family injured like that is to seek retribution, without worrying about whether it was accidental or intentional. Or it may have been less considered than retribution; more of a lashing out at the thing which just caused such violence, without any clear goal or rationale.

I wasn't so much comparing the two actions, driving into the crowd and the crowd attacking the car, as comparing your reactions to them. You quite easily come up with reasons you think that driving into a crowd of people is a reasonable action, whereas you seem to find the idea of people attacking a vehicle which had just driven into their fellows something for which there cannot be a rational reason. While I believe the driver intentionally hit the crowd, and I disagree that driving into the crowd would be a rational way to try to escape, I certainly can see how a panic reaction could lead to such an accident. I also can see how members of the crowd might feel attacking the car to be appropriate, if they believed it had run into their fellows on purpose.

You have made comments about how the driver did not have time to make a fully thought out, rational decision. That makes sense, at least in the context of the amount of time between the car being hit by the flagpole and the car striking the crowd. How much time did the crowd have to make a rational decision after the crash? Is the lack of time to think the situation through and reach a rational conclusion not applicable to them for some reason? A car had just driven into the crowd, at least injuring a bunch of people. If a man hitting the back bumper of a moving car is enough for the driver of that car to become fearful for his life and make a hasty, perhaps panicked, reaction, wouldn't a car driving into a crowd of which you are a member be enough for the same? Couldn't the members of the crowd have been in fear for their lives and reacting to that fear?

Put another way, I question the reasoning behind seeing self-defense when a car runs into a crowd of people who have done nothing to the driver or the car, yet not seeing self-defense when members of a crowd, that has just been run into by a car, attack that car.

 

[Montrovant]

You are disgusting.

One can only hope that the poster is a troll, and does not seriously believe the content of the posts.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bgrouse, post: 17981953

a

See the green line. I did a recheck on google earth at work today. You can select two points on the "path" feature and it calculates the distance. Very exact. I get 280' each way from where I think your Nazi passed
The camera. So his speed going in is about 24 mph figuring 8 seconds to impact.

He still has no time to slow way down before the flag guy hit his car and no brake lights were used. I think flag guy was located on the sidewalk somewhere maybe a car length behind the silver car in the travel lane. By the time your Nazi passed flag guy there was no doubt he was going to start hitting people.

This is not meant to be a perfect calculation since several assumptions have to be made. But it is close enough to know he was going over 20 mph where he should have been no faster than people can walk and stopped before hitting anyone that could not get out of his way.

 

[bgrouse]

bgrouse, post: 17981953

Let's try this an easier way, one thing at a time.

I was counting 8 seconds to the point of the crash.

Can you answer the questions that were asked instead of making up your own?

And still do. Nothing changed. The guy yelling go go go did not say it immediately when the car came into view. He said it a couple of seconds after the car came into view.

It has all been explained how the numbers work out in more detail and the original calculated speed has not changed. Do you agree the Nazi in reverse passed the camera 21 seconds after passing the same camera going forward? You must know I could not have meant the crash occurred 16 seconds after passing the camera going in. That would only leave about 4 seconds to cover the same ground coming out as he did going in. Which is twice as fast which is an average speed of 60 MPH.

Do you actually believe he went 60 mph in reverse?!

Why don't you take it easy and answer the questions first? You're getting ahead of yourself and I don't think you have the cognitive capabilities to do that.

Also, If you don't believe your Nazi stopped or slowed down at some point prior to accelerating into the crowd because he suddenly became in fear for his life because of flag guy. What do you believe happened.

Akso, how many seconds was it after passing the camera until flag guy took a swipe at his car?

I say it is about 4 seconds. And it looks as if to be about halfway to your Nazi's bigger target. The most dense crowd of anti-Nazi pedestrians. At this point it looks on video to be densely populated with pedestrians. He should have been stopped at this point to avoid hitting any of them.

What is your argument?

Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?

Nope. He has made his Nazi views public, He drove 8 hours to be part of a hate group protest movement. He was driving toward black, white, all races of marchers who were protesting his hate groups coming to Charlottesville.

For his brakes to fail at the precise moment his car was forcing panicked pedestrians to jump out of his way, is extremely farfetched.

He drove away in reverse you might think at 60 mph - without brakes? And drive a few miles and was caught. I bet the first thing after a drunk test in cases like this would be if the brakes wiere working. Including the parking brake

Why don't you answer the questions about what you said earlier first. You're making claims and not backing them up or explaining them so we're going in circles.

 

[bgrouse]

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

Why would anyone assume his brakes failed?

Why would they assume he was homicidal? I know people whose brakes have failed. I don't know anyone who committed vehicular homicide or even tried to do so. Failed brakes, in addition to the other non-homicidal reasons for a car crash, is a far more likely cause of a crash than intentional homicide, don't you think?

I would expect a driver would shift their car into park if heading uncontrollably for 2 blocks towards a crowd of people.

If he had time to do so. Most people don't have a developed reaction to shift into park when an obstacle comes into view like they do to hit the brakes.

Besides, modern cars can have features in the transmission that are designed to avoid damage in such a situation. For example:
Accidently put in park while moving

I don't know if his car has such a feature, and I certainly don't know if he knew at the time. Either way, don't expect a modern car to react the same way to it as Reese's car did in Terminator.

That he made no attempt to stop his vehicle, or honk his horn as a warning he was approaching uncontrollably, convinces me the crowd reacted appropriately.

I already explained why it was reasonable to think he was trying to run them over. He drove for at least 2 blocks before running into that crowd.

He might have been driving for 200 miles. Brakes can fail suddenly.

He had other options had it been break failure, including but not limited to ... throwing his car into park ... laying on his horn ... screaming out his window to get out of his way ... etc....

Have you ever been in a situation where you had to brake suddenly? Not much time to do much else. You're also assuming the parking system in his car works the same way as a 1960's car.

He neither made any attempt to stop his vehicle nor attempt to warn anyone to get out of his way.

There's no way the crowd would have known this at the time. I told you about numerous, far more common reasons cars fail to stop.

His intentions were clear. At least one eyewitness even called it an act of terrorism. I know I'd be pissed as shit if someone intentionally tried to run me over.

Not to mention, there's been no evidence his brakes failed him -- which means the crowd reaction was both accurate and justifiable.

 

[bgrouse]

One is either reflex action or a conscious decision to escape an imminent threat. The other is not.

I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable. A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

I can't say for sure why some members of the crowd immediately attacked the car. Did they have some indication before the crash that it was intentional? Perhaps. The speed the car traveled at, the lack of brake lights, people being forced to jump out of the way as the car made its way down the road, any or all of these might have given the members of the crowd the idea it was intentional.

Perhaps those members of the crowd that attacked the car were simply prone to violence. I won't deny that possibility. Maybe their first reaction to seeing friends or family injured like that is to seek retribution, without worrying about whether it was accidental or intentional. Or it may have been less considered than retribution; more of a lashing out at the thing which just caused such violence, without any clear goal or rationale.

I wasn't so much comparing the two actions, driving into the crowd and the crowd attacking the car, as comparing your reactions to them. You quite easily come up with reasons you think that driving into a crowd of people is a reasonable action, whereas you seem to find the idea of people attacking a vehicle which had just driven into their fellows something for which there cannot be a rational reason. While I believe the driver intentionally hit the crowd, and I disagree that driving into the crowd would be a rational way to try to escape, I certainly can see how a panic reaction could lead to such an accident. I also can see how members of the crowd might feel attacking the car to be appropriate, if they believed it had run into their fellows on purpose.

You have made comments about how the driver did not have time to make a fully thought out, rational decision. That makes sense, at least in the context of the amount of time between the car being hit by the flagpole and the car striking the crowd. How much time did the crowd have to make a rational decision after the crash? Is the lack of time to think the situation through and reach a rational conclusion not applicable to them for some reason?

Only one of the groups reacted in an undeniably violent manner.

A car had just driven into the crowd, at least injuring a bunch of people. If a man hitting the back bumper of a moving car is enough for the driver of that car to become fearful for his life and make a hasty, perhaps panicked, reaction, wouldn't a car driving into a crowd of which you are a member be enough for the same? Couldn't the members of the crowd have been in fear for their lives and reacting to that fear?

Then they would have gotten out of the way, not jumped ONTO the car, which undoubtedly caused more injuries.

Put another way, I question the reasoning behind seeing self-defense when a car runs into a crowd of people who have done nothing to the driver or the car, yet not seeing self-defense when members of a crowd, that has just been run into by a car, attack that car.

 

[Billo_Really]

No I say that because they advocate and engage in violence against civilians and civilian property.

So do you. They do it when provoked; you do it by design. They seek equality; you seek supremacy.

You're the evil, not them.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

No I say that because they advocate and engage in violence against civilians and civilian property.

So do you. They do it when provoked; you do it by design.

No they do the provoking XXXX Mod Edit --- too close to bestiality.

They seek equality; you seek supremacy.

No they want to destroy the republic which has granted equality under the law to hundreds of millions, what I want is to slaughter them to the last, the armies of Kek are mobilized, there will be much more blood to come.

You're the evil, not them.

Good, bad, we're the guys with the guns and the Normie faggots better watch their six because we're coming and hells coming with us.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Why don't you answer the questions about what you said earlier first. You're making claims and not backing them up or explaining them so we're going in circles.

I made a claim that it was about 8 seconds to the major impact. That has not changed. if you cannot see that your Nazi was in and out in 21 seconds then you must believe he was backing up three times faster backing out than driving in. That car might get 0 to 60 in 5 seconds with a full drag strip burn out, but in reverse under the conditions, nope. He probably would need to be going 70 mph when he passed the camera getting out from the crash in 5 seconds.

Do some math. You are still arguing that at the 16 second point your Nazi started going in reverse. That is nuts.

 

[bgrouse]

Why don't you answer the questions about what you said earlier first. You're making claims and not backing them up or explaining them so we're going in circles.

I made a claim that it was about 8 seconds to the major impact. That has not changed. if you cannot see that your Nazi was in and out in 21 seconds then you must believe he was backing up three times faster backing out than driving in. That car might get 0 to 60 in 5 seconds with a full drag strip burn out, but in reverse under the conditions, nope. He probably would need to be going 70 mph when he passed the camera getting out from the crash in 5 seconds.

Do some math. You are still arguing that at the 16 second point your Nazi started going in reverse. That is nuts.

Here is what you said!

8 seconds from the moment the car passed the camera until someone shouted go go go

Also, where did I make the claim that

your Nazi was stopped or barely moving when the flag guy hit his car

?

It's obvious you're a damned liar and will avoid the issue when it's pointed out to you. I could point at a can of blue paint and you'll say "nope, it's orange!" My question then is, WTF is the point of arguing with you? It's unreasonable to expect that you will even consider an unknown like the driver's true intention if you can't even accept a simple fact.

 

[Montrovant]

I've said before, if this was a reflex action, it is still a crime, but at least somewhat understandable. A conscious decision to drive into a crowd of pedestrians is pretty much inexcusable IMO.

And as I said before, the two (driver's actions and crowd's actions) are not comparable.

was trying to kill them.

That's debatable. For all the crowd knew, his brakes failed. Hence no "attempt to stop."

I can't say for sure why some members of the crowd immediately attacked the car. Did they have some indication before the crash that it was intentional? Perhaps. The speed the car traveled at, the lack of brake lights, people being forced to jump out of the way as the car made its way down the road, any or all of these might have given the members of the crowd the idea it was intentional.

Perhaps those members of the crowd that attacked the car were simply prone to violence. I won't deny that possibility. Maybe their first reaction to seeing friends or family injured like that is to seek retribution, without worrying about whether it was accidental or intentional. Or it may have been less considered than retribution; more of a lashing out at the thing which just caused such violence, without any clear goal or rationale.

I wasn't so much comparing the two actions, driving into the crowd and the crowd attacking the car, as comparing your reactions to them. You quite easily come up with reasons you think that driving into a crowd of people is a reasonable action, whereas you seem to find the idea of people attacking a vehicle which had just driven into their fellows something for which there cannot be a rational reason. While I believe the driver intentionally hit the crowd, and I disagree that driving into the crowd would be a rational way to try to escape, I certainly can see how a panic reaction could lead to such an accident. I also can see how members of the crowd might feel attacking the car to be appropriate, if they believed it had run into their fellows on purpose.

You have made comments about how the driver did not have time to make a fully thought out, rational decision. That makes sense, at least in the context of the amount of time between the car being hit by the flagpole and the car striking the crowd. How much time did the crowd have to make a rational decision after the crash? Is the lack of time to think the situation through and reach a rational conclusion not applicable to them for some reason?

Only one of the groups reacted in an undeniably violent manner.

A car had just driven into the crowd, at least injuring a bunch of people. If a man hitting the back bumper of a moving car is enough for the driver of that car to become fearful for his life and make a hasty, perhaps panicked, reaction, wouldn't a car driving into a crowd of which you are a member be enough for the same? Couldn't the members of the crowd have been in fear for their lives and reacting to that fear?

Then they would have gotten out of the way, not jumped ONTO the car, which undoubtedly caused more injuries.

Put another way, I question the reasoning behind seeing self-defense when a car runs into a crowd of people who have done nothing to the driver or the car, yet not seeing self-defense when members of a crowd, that has just been run into by a car, attack that car.

It did not appear to be a group that attacked the car, but rather some individuals from the crowd. They came from both sides as well as from behind the car.

You seem to have a bit of a double standard regarding reactions. For the driver, going into the crowd may have been a poorly thought out plan, a panic reaction, an irrational but understandable response to being afraid. For the crowd, they cannot have had an irrational reaction to a car running into their fellows? Do you think flight is the only possible reaction to fear?

I'm still trying to understand how driving into a crowd that has, at that point, done nothing to you can be considered self-defense, but people attacking a car which just drove into the crowd of which they are a part is not self-defense.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bgrouse, post: 17986500

Only one of the groups reacted in an undeniably violent manner.

No your Nazi was driving in a violent aggressive dangerous manner at least 10 seconds before hit maimed and killed unarmed people compared to a two ton motor vehicle.