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

[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."

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.

Three's a 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.

I just can't imagine how endangering yourself by jumping onto an unsafe vehicle in this situation can be considered an attempt to avoid harm to oneself, whether due to reflex action or a poorly thought out, but understandable decision. I can see how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Three's a 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.

I just can't imagine how endangering yourself by jumping onto an unsafe vehicle in this situation can be considered an attempt to avoid harm to oneself, whether due to reflex action or a poorly thought out, but understandable decision. I can see how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.

First of all, who "jump[ed] onto an unsafe vehicle"? I don't see a single person jump onto the car from the video. Instead, I see some people attacking the car, and one person who ends up on top of the back of the car because the car backs into them.

Second, we're talking about reflexive and poorly thought out actions. You seem to be looking for a well thought out action in a poorly thought out action. Driving into a large crowd, even assuming the driver did not realize other vehicles were in the road, is an incredibly poor decision if the driver was trying to escape. Every one of the people who attacked the car appear to have been unhurt by it backing up; the one person who looked like they may have been hurt did not attack the car, so it's possible they were coming forward to assist rather than attack (the person with the umbrella). Once again, we have you discussing driving a car into a crowd of people as an understandable action, but attacking a car that just drove into a crowd of people as not understandable.

You can see how a person might decide to drive into a large crowd, one which apparently was so full of people that the driver could not see far enough to realize there was another vehicle in front of him, to escape from a man hitting the bumper with a flagpole. You can't imagine people attacking a car that just ran over what could have been a bunch of friends and family.

You can consider driving into a crowd of people who have done nothing to you a form of self-defense. You cannot consider a person attacking a car that just ran into a crowd which the person was a part of a form of self-defense.

Have I got that right?

Your continued use of the word polearm makes me think you are intentionally trying to make the flag seem as dangerous as possible.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Three's a 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.

I just can't imagine how endangering yourself by jumping onto an unsafe vehicle in this situation can be considered an attempt to avoid harm to oneself, whether due to reflex action or a poorly thought out, but understandable decision. I can see how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.

First of all, who "jump[ed] onto an unsafe vehicle"? I don't see a single person jump onto the car from the video. Instead, I see some people attacking the car, and one person who ends up on top of the back of the car because the car backs into them.

You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.

Regardless, they were needlessly endangering themselves.

Second, we're talking about reflexive and poorly thought out actions. You seem to be looking for a well thought out action in a poorly thought out action. Driving into a large crowd, even assuming the driver did not realize other vehicles were in the road, is an incredibly poor decision if the driver was trying to escape.

Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.

Every one of the people who attacked the car appear to have been unhurt by it backing up;

Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?

the one person who looked like they may have been hurt did not attack the car, so it's possible they were coming forward to assist rather than attack (the person with the umbrella). Once again, we have you discussing driving a car into a crowd of people as an understandable action, but attacking a car that just drove into a crowd of people as not understandable.

From the point of protecting oneself from an imminent attack, yes.

You can see how a person might decide to drive into a large crowd, one which apparently was so full of people that the driver could not see far enough to realize there was another vehicle in front of him, to escape from a man hitting the bumper with a flagpole.

If he knew it was a flagpole. He probably just heard his car being struck with some sort of weapon.

You can't imagine people attacking a car that just ran over what could have been a bunch of friends and family.

I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.

You can consider driving into a crowd of people who have done nothing to you a form of self-defense. You cannot consider a person attacking a car that just ran into a crowd which the person was a part of a form of self-defense.

Have I got that right?

No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in an attempt to avoid harm to oneself.

Your continued use of the word polearm makes me think you are intentionally trying to make the flag seem as dangerous as possible.

It's a pole used as a weapon. It's unlikely the driver knew it was a flag, which is why I am calling it that. If someone is charging at you with some sort of spear, does it matter if it's from the 17th or 18th century or made in the guy's home last night?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

There is a utility pole in front of the red car. On the day of the attack there was a large black pickup truck parked ahead of the pole. Just in front of the truck is where the Nazi started hitting pedestrians. That's like three car lengths hitting pedestrians.

You can't get much more mass murderer and Nazi terrorist than this guy.

 

[Faun]

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.

Again ... he made no attempt to brake. There was no reason for anyone there to think his brakes failed. Not to mention, they assumed his brakes didn't fail and they were right.

 

[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."

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.

You're ******* deranged.

A guy mows down a crowd of people and you moronically call the crowd he drove into the violent ones, and not the crazed rightwingnut.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I can see how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.

Your Nazi did not speed away after flag guy took a swipe at his car. Speeding away suggests you think your Nazi first slowed down enough to avoid hitting protesters in front of his car. And then he accelerated into the crowd out of fear for his life. I thought you are claiming he did not slow down.



Flag guy was at four seconds after your nazi passed the camera. Your Nazi had already hit people. His windshield was smashed by at lest one body as he came by the black pickup truck. It looks like your Nazi passed the pickup truck and kept going mowing down people for a car length or two,

Flag guy was about one second before we see the violent carnage your Nazi initiated.

Your nazi is a killer, deliberate hate filled killer.

 

[Montrovant]

You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.

Regardless, they were needlessly endangering themselves.

Putting your body weight onto a car is a far cry from jumping on a car. You seem to be describing someone leaning on the car.

Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.

I never said the people attacking the car were attempting to escape.

Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?

I said that the guy with the umbrella might not have been attacking, he's the one that got squeezed between the two cars.

I argued that attacking the car could be seen as self-defense, and more easily to me than driving into a crowd that had done nothing to the driver. If the people attacking the car either disabled it, or disabled the driver, that could prevent the driver from running into or over anyone else.

From the point of protecting oneself from an imminent attack, yes.

So disabling an attacker, or the attacker's weapon, is not a way to protect oneself?

If he knew it was a flagpole. He probably just heard his car being struck with some sort of weapon.

How did he know it was a weapon? Why couldn't his car have been struck by a bird, or a person's foot, or a dog, or anything else? If the driver did not know what hit his car, now he's reaction to an unknown impact on his rear bumper by assuming it is something that should cause him to fear for his life? I figured that in your narrative, the driver at least saw the person hit the car with the flagpole.

I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.

Once again, you can't see how disabling a weapon or the wielder of that weapon is protecting oneself?

No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in an attempt to avoid harm to oneself.

And again, see above.

It's a pole used as a weapon. It's unlikely the driver knew it was a flag, which is why I am calling it that. If someone is charging at you with some sort of spear, does it matter if it's from the 17th or 18th century or made in the guy's home last night?

Now someone was charging at the car with a spear?

We seem to have a driver see his car attacked, but miss the fact that he is attacked with a flag. That's fine.....but somehow he misses the flag, yet sees the pole the flag is attached to? And assumes it is a spear? And then, fearing for his life because his car was just attacked by a spear wielding madman who charged at his car by stepping one foot into the road to swing his polearm, the driver decides that it is a good idea to drive directly into a large crowd of people to escape.

That is plausible, but when a crowd of people is hit by a car, somehow attacking that car in the hopes of disabling it or the driver is incomprehensible?

I don't even think that the people attacked the car in self-defense, but it still seems more of a plausible scenario to me than someone consciously deciding that driving into a street full of people is the way to escape a guy with a polearm, particularly when the street behind the car is mostly empty; and it certainly seems more plausible than the idea that driving into the crowd was a form of self-defense.

I just find it amazing that someone would consider attacking a car that just ran into a crowd of people less acceptable than intentionally driving into that crowd of people, especially after various vehicle attacks such as those in Nice or Stockholm.

 

[Faun]

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.

Three's a 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.

I just can't imagine how endangering yourself by jumping onto an unsafe vehicle in this situation can be considered an attempt to avoid harm to oneself, whether due to reflex action or a poorly thought out, but understandable decision. I can see how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.

First of all, who "jump[ed] onto an unsafe vehicle"? I don't see a single person jump onto the car from the video. Instead, I see some people attacking the car, and one person who ends up on top of the back of the car because the car backs into them.

You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.

Regardless, they were needlessly endangering themselves.

Second, we're talking about reflexive and poorly thought out actions. You seem to be looking for a well thought out action in a poorly thought out action. Driving into a large crowd, even assuming the driver did not realize other vehicles were in the road, is an incredibly poor decision if the driver was trying to escape.

Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.

Every one of the people who attacked the car appear to have been unhurt by it backing up;

Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?

the one person who looked like they may have been hurt did not attack the car, so it's possible they were coming forward to assist rather than attack (the person with the umbrella). Once again, we have you discussing driving a car into a crowd of people as an understandable action, but attacking a car that just drove into a crowd of people as not understandable.

From the point of protecting oneself from an imminent attack, yes.

You can see how a person might decide to drive into a large crowd, one which apparently was so full of people that the driver could not see far enough to realize there was another vehicle in front of him, to escape from a man hitting the bumper with a flagpole.

If he knew it was a flagpole. He probably just heard his car being struck with some sort of weapon.

You can't imagine people attacking a car that just ran over what could have been a bunch of friends and family.

I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.

You can consider driving into a crowd of people who have done nothing to you a form of self-defense. You cannot consider a person attacking a car that just ran into a crowd which the person was a part of a form of self-defense.

Have I got that right?

No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in an attempt to avoid harm to oneself.

Your continued use of the word polearm makes me think you are intentionally trying to make the flag seem as dangerous as possible.

It's a pole used as a weapon. It's unlikely the driver knew it was a flag, which is why I am calling it that. If someone is charging at you with some sort of spear, does it matter if it's from the 17th or 18th century or made in the guy's home last night?

There's no way of knowing if Fields even saw the guy swing a flag at his car. He was already passed the guy when he tried to hid Fields' car.

 

[bgrouse]

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.

Again ... he made no attempt to brake. There was no reason for anyone there to think his brakes failed. Not to mention, they assumed his brakes didn't fail and they were right.

If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.

I can see how speeding away from a polearm-wielding attacker can be either a reflex action to avoid harm or a poorly thought out, but understandable reaction.

Your Nazi did not speed away after flag guy took a swipe at his car. Speeding away suggests you think your Nazi first slowed down enough to avoid hitting protesters in front of his car. And then he accelerated into the crowd out of fear for his life. I thought you are claiming he did not slow down.



Flag guy was at four seconds after your nazi passed the camera. Your Nazi had already hit people. His windshield was smashed by at lest one body as he came by the black pickup truck. It looks like your Nazi passed the pickup truck and kept going mowing down people for a car length or two,

Flag guy was about one second before we see the violent carnage your Nazi initiated.

Your nazi is a killer, deliberate hate filled killer.

You're a dumbass who doesn't want to discuss or back up his statements so I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

You can see the guy with the bat putting his body weight onto the trunk.

Regardless, they were needlessly endangering themselves.

Putting your body weight onto a car is a far cry from jumping on a car. You seem to be describing someone leaning on the car.

You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.

jump on

Would you prefer if I used "lunge" instead, as it is a synonym?

Sure, but at least it can suggest an attempt to escape.

I never said the people attacking the car were attempting to escape.

They weren't. Not the ones that were attacking, anyway. Those were just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.

Really? What about the guy who got his ass pinched against the Toyota? Looks painful to me. Do you really want to split hairs on this? How about the guy who was running at the car (purple shirt) and got knocked down, then continued chasing after the car? Are you honestly arguing they were attacking the car to avoid imminent an attack to themselves?

I said that the guy with the umbrella might not have been attacking, he's the one that got squeezed between the two cars.

I argued that attacking the car could be seen as self-defense, and more easily to me than driving into a crowd that had done nothing to the driver. If the people attacking the car either disabled it, or disabled the driver, that could prevent the driver from running into or over anyone else.

From the point of protecting oneself from an imminent attack, yes.

So disabling an attacker, or the attacker's weapon, is not a way to protect oneself?

If he knew it was a flagpole. He probably just heard his car being struck with some sort of weapon.

How did he know it was a weapon? Why couldn't his car have been struck by a bird, or a person's foot, or a dog, or anything else? If the driver did not know what hit his car, now he's reaction to an unknown impact on his rear bumper by assuming it is something that should cause him to fear for his life? I figured that in your narrative, the driver at least saw the person hit the car with the flagpole.

Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.

I can, to carry out a violent fantasy, not to protect oneself.

Once again, you can't see how disabling a weapon or the wielder of that weapon is protecting oneself?

In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!

No, you got it wrong right away. It's not that I can't imagine them attacking, I can't imagine them attacking in an attempt to avoid harm to oneself.

And again, see above.

It's a pole used as a weapon. It's unlikely the driver knew it was a flag, which is why I am calling it that. If someone is charging at you with some sort of spear, does it matter if it's from the 17th or 18th century or made in the guy's home last night?

Now someone was charging at the car with a spear?

It's an example.

We seem to have a driver see his car attacked, but miss the fact that he is attacked with a flag. That's fine.....but somehow he misses the flag, yet sees the pole the flag is attached to?

You can tell it's some sort of polearm from the way it is used (swinging motion). I missed that it was a "flag" from the initial videos, thinking it was a bat.

And assumes it is a spear?

That was an example. Don't be obtuse.

And then, fearing for his life because his car was just attacked by a spear wielding madman who charged at his car by stepping one foot into the road to swing his polearm, the driver decides that it is a good idea to drive directly into a large crowd of people to escape.

That is plausible, but when a crowd of people is hit by a car, somehow attacking that car in the hopes of disabling it or the driver is incomprehensible?

Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

We're going in circles. You keep ignoring modifiers and the point.

I don't even think that the people attacked the car in self-defense, but it still seems more of a plausible scenario to me than someone consciously deciding that driving into a street full of people is the way to escape a guy with a polearm, particularly when the street behind the car is mostly empty; and it certainly seems more plausible than the idea that driving into the crowd was a form of self-defense.

I just find it amazing that someone would consider attacking a car that just ran into a crowd of people less acceptable than intentionally driving into that crowd of people, especially after various vehicle attacks such as those in Nice or Stockholm.

The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.

 

[Faun]

If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.

In that atmosphere of hate and violence, it would be lunacy to assume brakes failed over an intentional act of terrorism, especially given the driver made zero attempts to either stop or warn the crowd.

And again, the point which destroys your point -- the crowd called it right. It was an act of terrorism. And they reacted appropriately.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

f you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you

It's location location location. A member of a Nazi organization, A hater of blacks and Jews who came to C-ville to demonstrate solidarity with other haters of blacks and Jews, decided to take a sightseeing tour of the city and just happens to end up rolling into
dozens of anti-Nazi protesters at a location where a crowd protesting against Nazis was very deep. And the brakes went out precisely when your Nazi wax so full of peace in his heart.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

Not true. It was a peaceful protest until your Nazi comes barreling down a narrow street filled with pedestrians. That's terrorism to you unless a Nazi dies it. Wherever violence that occurred following the attack is justifiable as self defense. Your Nazi could have jumped out of the car spraying the crowd with his Ak47 if he had one.

Tension was high in fear of Nazis show of force with weapons at their side.

 

[hadit]

Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

Not true. It was a peaceful protest until your Nazi comes barreling down a narrow street filled with pedestrians. That's terrorism to you unless a Nazi dies it. Wherever violence that occurred following the attack is justifiable as self defense. Your Nazi could have jumped out of the car spraying the crowd with his Ak47 if he had one.

Tension was high in fear of Nazis show of force with weapons at their side.

It was incumbent on the driver to stop when he saw people in the street in front of him, period. It was also foolish, and ultimately deadly, for the counter protesters to stay in the area when they realized they were facing weapons. Staying, and escalating tensions was dumb. Do you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Montrovant]

You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.

The idiom "jump on" would mean to do something before someone else.

They weren't. Not the ones that were attacking, anyway. Those were just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.

Ah, so the people hitting a car that just drove into the crowd they were a part of with bats are just waiting for an excuse to kill someone, but the guy that drives his car into a crowd is making a reasonable decision for how to escape? You don't see the disconnect there?

Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.

You can tell it's some sort of polearm from the way it is used (swinging motion). I missed that it was a "flag" from the initial videos, thinking it was a bat.

Now a bat is a polearm?

So now we have a guy driving a car towards a crowd filled with people with weapons? Let me make sure I am reading this correctly. The driver is in fear for his life because his car was hit by some sort of weapon, and he can see that there are many weapons in the crowd. Because of this, he wants to escape, and attempts to do so by driving through the crowd. You consider this an understandable reaction.

At the same time, you argue that the first instinct of a person seeing a threat is to move the other way, and therefore don't think people attacking the car is an understandable reaction.

So the driver chooses to move at the crowded street, apparently knowing it contained many people with weapons, rather than trying to move away from that threat and back down the mostly empty road he just came from. That makes sense. Someone lashing out at a car that just ran over their friends, a car that is at that moment not moving, that can only happen if the people were already looking for a reason to kill someone. Is that about the gist?

In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!

I didn't say coming at the car from behind was smart or rational. That doesn't mean I can't understand the urge to lash out at a car that just ran into a crowd of people, particularly if they were people I knew and cared about.

Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

We're going in circles. You keep ignoring modifiers and the point.

What is the point I am missing?

The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.

A few of points regarding this quote.

First, everyone does not react the same way. I would guess that for the vast majority of people, yes, the first instinct is to move away from a threat. That may not be true for everyone.

Second, people overcome instincts all the time. Those members of the crowd that attacked might have had that first instinct to move away, but decided to ignore it and attack the car instead.

Third, based on what you've said, the driver moved toward danger. If he saw a crowd which had a bunch of people carrying weapons, and that is part of the reason he feared for his life, driving forward as he did was driving toward danger. So he did basically the same thing you think makes no sense for the crowd. Now, perhaps that is because he made a bad decision; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things. That makes sense. However, the same is true of the crowd; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.

I'm also curious about the timing of events. As I've pointed out before, there is only about a single second between the time the driver is hit by the flagpole and the time the car crashes. I base this on the video evidence, and will repost it should you feel it necessary. At what point do you think the driver realized his car had been attacked, that the crowd was filled with people with weapons, that he should fear for his life? Did the driver already know he was heading toward a crowd filled with weapons before his car was struck?

Honestly, the most reasonable supposition I can think of that would explain the incident without the driver intentionally hitting the crowd is that he completely froze; there was no decision, no panicked swerve or acceleration or braking, he just could not do anything and so continued the way he was going right into the crowd and vehicles in front of him. That seems like a far better argument than that he drove directly into a crowded street in an attempt to flee.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

hadit, post: 17990353

It was also foolish, and ultimately deadly, for the counter protesters to stay in the area when they realized they were facing weapons. Staying, and escalating tensions was dumb. Do you agree?

No. They had 20 casualties already on the ground. Since they could not subdue the NAZI attacker and it appeared he was alone, some did the right thing in attacking the murder weapon and the others did the right thing in tending to casualties until EMT could arrive.

Fortunately this killer didn't have a firearm like most Nazis did.

 

[flacaltenn]

re-opened after Mod Clean-up..

 

[hadit]

hadit, post: 17990353

It was also foolish, and ultimately deadly, for the counter protesters to stay in the area when they realized they were facing weapons. Staying, and escalating tensions was dumb. Do you agree?

No. They had 20 casualties already on the ground. Since they could not subdue the NAZI attacker and it appeared he was alone, some did the right thing in attacking the murder weapon and the others did the right thing in tending to casualties until EMT could arrive.

Fortunately this killer didn't have a firearm like most Nazis did.

I'm not telling about the one incident, I'm talking about the protest as a whole. Is it not wise to leave a legal protest that you are protesting if you think there are weapons present and you fear for your safety? IOW, somebody was ready for violence, and somebody else thought it a good idea to accommodate them. In either case, the police did a lousy job keeping them apart. The city officials need to come clean with who was ordered to do what and when.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bgrouse]

If you want to assume a car crash is more likely to be intentional homicide than mechanical failure, then there's no point in talking to you.

In that atmosphere of hate and violence, it would be lunacy to assume brakes failed over an intentional act of terrorism, especially given the driver made zero attempts to either stop or warn the crowd.

If the brakes failed, they wouldn't notice the attempt to stop the car unless they were looking at his feet.

And again, the point which destroys your point -- the crowd called it right. It was an act of terrorism. And they reacted appropriately.

You're splitting hairs about a common idiom.

The idiom "jump on" would mean to do something before someone else.

They weren't. Not the ones that were attacking, anyway. Those were just waiting for an excuse to kill someone.

Ah, so the people hitting a car that just drove into the crowd they were a part of with bats are just waiting for an excuse to kill someone, but the guy that drives his car into a crowd is making a reasonable decision for how to escape? You don't see the disconnect there?

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash. Second, I said his decision might not have been the best one, but it was understandable: he was moving away from a threat having been given a split second to make the decision.

Weapons look pretty common among this crowd. Did you see all the weapons those attackers had? He would have likely been in position to see this using the mirrors. It would not have taken a genius to figure out generally what happened even if he couldn't tell it was a flag pole or what flag was on it.

You can tell it's some sort of polearm from the way it is used (swinging motion). I missed that it was a "flag" from the initial videos, thinking it was a bat.

Now a bat is a polearm?

So now we have a guy driving a car towards a crowd filled with people with weapons? Let me make sure I am reading this correctly. The driver is in fear for his life because his car was hit by some sort of weapon, and he can see that there are many weapons in the crowd. Because of this, he wants to escape, and attempts to do so by driving through the crowd. You consider this an understandable reaction.

The rest of the crowd in front had not attacked him yet. He was moving away from the initial attacker. Not very hard to understand.

At the same time, you argue that the first instinct of a person seeing a threat is to move the other way, and therefore don't think people attacking the car is an understandable reaction.

It's my reaction, at least. If I see a car speeding my way, if I am trying to protect myself, I will jump out of the way.

So the driver chooses to move at the crowded street, apparently knowing it contained many people with weapons, rather than trying to move away from that threat and back down the mostly empty road he just came from. That makes sense. Someone lashing out at a car that just ran over their friends, a car that is at that moment not moving, that can only happen if the people were already looking for a reason to kill someone. Is that about the gist?

The threat at the time of the initial attack was the initial attacker. The motives of the other protesters may have been unknown to the driver at that time. I think you're being obtuse.

In that situation the last thing one would do is lunge (is that better?) at the car from the only end where it is free to move if self-protection was the desire!

I didn't say coming at the car from behind was smart or rational. That doesn't mean I can't understand the urge to lash out at a car that just ran into a crowd of people, particularly if they were people I knew and cared about.

It's not even instinctive (as far as self-protection is concerned). That's the point.

Not incomprehensible if it's a given that it is a bloodthirsty, violent mob.

We're going in circles. You keep ignoring modifiers and the point.

What is the point I am missing?

What I just said in the part you quoted.

The first instinct when you see an immediate threat is to move the other way. This guy didn't have a week to argue on USMESSAGEBOARD.COM what the best course of action was. That's why the argument for his actions as being self-preservation is stronger than those for the crowd's actions.

A few of points regarding this quote.

First, everyone does not react the same way. I would guess that for the vast majority of people, yes, the first instinct is to move away from a threat. That may not be true for everyone.

All those folks who, when you throw a brick at them, try to catch it with their teeth instead of moving away! A whole bunch of them apparently happened to be in the same place and time at that protest!

Second, people overcome instincts all the time. Those members of the crowd that attacked might have had that first instinct to move away, but decided to ignore it and attack the car instead.

So were they acting rationally or instinctively? An instinctive actor would move away. A rational actor would...try to murder a driver who just crashed because it's inconceivable that the crash was caused by inattention, driver error, or mechanical failure, as most crashes are? Either way it makes no sense, unless you take into account the idea that those people were violent pieces of shit to start with.

Third, based on what you've said, the driver moved toward danger. If he saw a crowd which had a bunch of people carrying weapons, and that is part of the reason he feared for his life, driving forward as he did was driving toward danger. So he did basically the same thing you think makes no sense for the crowd. Now, perhaps that is because he made a bad decision; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things. That makes sense. However, the same is true of the crowd; there wasn't much time to think rationally about things.

If it's instinct, he moved away from the moving weapon/immediate threat. If it's a bad decision (but understandable one), then he chose the lesser of two threats, one being a violent attacker with a known motive and the other being an armed mob who may attack him or may not (he didn't know for certain at the time that the mob in front would attack, though he did know that the man behind did). Either way it makes sense.

I'm also curious about the timing of events. As I've pointed out before, there is only about a single second between the time the driver is hit by the flagpole and the time the car crashes. I base this on the video evidence, and will repost it should you feel it necessary. At what point do you think the driver realized his car had been attacked, that the crowd was filled with people with weapons, that he should fear for his life? Did the driver already know he was heading toward a crowd filled with weapons before his car was struck?

I think he suspected the crowd was filled with bad people when he passed the cameraman, just as I know certain black neighborhoods are bad. The noise of the car being hit immediately alerted him to the threat behind him, at which point in time the threat ahead was questionable, whereas the threat behind him was certain. After the crash, obviously it looks like he would have been better off backing up, but how many times do people go the wrong way on a road backwards unless something really bad has happened? Driving against traffic, especially backwards, is dangerous in and of itself, though far less so than being beaten by a bunch of violent pieces of shit (remember: he didn't know they would attack until they did).

Honestly, the most reasonable supposition I can think of that would explain the incident without the driver intentionally hitting the crowd is that he completely froze; there was no decision, no panicked swerve or acceleration or braking, he just could not do anything and so continued the way he was going right into the crowd and vehicles in front of him. That seems like a far better argument than that he drove directly into a crowded street in an attempt to flee.

Maybe. It's certainly reasonable. I see plenty of reasonable doubt. Of course, this doesn't mean this guy isn't a christian holy warrior with a manifesto to kill negroes and their enablers. I'm just saying I'm not convinced without further evidence as there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

First, at least one is on video hitting the car before the crash.

The crash is happening whether flag guy hit the car or not. That is a fact. Your Nazi established his intent to commit an act of terror at second one on the 21 second video that recorded his reckless path in and out.

Flag guy swiped at the moving car 4 seconds into the 21 second terror attack. The location of the parked black pickup truck during the attack can represented on this google earth map photo, as in the second parking space from the crosswalk.

The silver car just happens to be at the location that your Nazi was on the day of the attack when flag guy swiped at the rear bumper.

We know from video that your Nazi began hitting pedestrians as he arrived at the rear of the parked black pickup truck.

This means that your Nazi was hitting pedestrians within a second of flag guy hitting his car.

Your Nazi is doomed. He was hitting people 59 feet before get hit the cars in front of him.