Charlottesville Car Crash Video

[Arcade22]

I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.

No it's obvious you have taken a position simply because you have continued to try undermining, by way of completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof, the conclusion that this was "terrorism" and more broadly that he actually intended to hurt anyone.

If you were uncommitted you wouldn't engage in these kind of dishonest denialist rhetoric.

 

[Oystein]

I have not taken a position. I only pointed out if one thinks it is murder does not make it terrorism.

Right.

I have in the last couple of days very certainly taken an extreme stand against nazi scum in Charlottesville, the Nazi sypathizer Presiden and several of their Nazi enablers on this forum.
I have most clearly stated that this attack by a piece of **** Nazi scum ******* was intentional homicide - he deliberately drove into the crowd at reckless speed with criminal intent, and he did so for ultimately nefarious reasons (his hatred of people of color, a certain religion, people of minority sex identification...); that makes him, IMO, a murderer (with the caveat that I am not versed in US criminal law and its criteria to differentiate between classes of murder, or between murder and manslaughter).

I have at no point even hinted I also regard him a terrorist - it's possible, but I doubt it, and see no evidence for it.

The problem is of course that we do not have definition for "terrorism" that even a sizable minority here could agree upon. Personally, in order to differentiate "terrorism" from mere "homiced", I certainly would see the following criteria as central:

• Premeditation - that the attack be planned and prepared ahead of time and not be perpetrated out of momentary rage.
• A message of terror that is directed at an audience larger than the group immediately attacked. Usually "society". This criteria would differentiate terrorism from e.g. acts of violent intimidation that two crime syndicates levy against one another; or from acts of mere revenge
• A political framework to justify the deed

As for #1, I see no evidence yet whatsoever that this moron had a plan to kill even 10 minutes before the incident
As for #2, I see no evidence that he intended a message to the society at large, or at least to the "liberal" spectrum of society. It's conceivable he had such an intention, but it is equally conceivable that he considered the "antifa" as a militia and thus a legitimate target of a fight, or that he simply wanted revenge for the defeat he suffered earlier in the day. Several more intentions would be conceivable - we cant know until we have his own testimony, or uncovered records of his communications that speak to his intentions
As for #3, we skeptic, rationally thinking "liberals" ought not be too quick to give Nazis credit for forming a framework of ideas. The base assumption / null hypothesis ought to be that their stupidity suffices as explanation.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No it's obvious you have taken a position simply because you have continued to try undermining, by way of completely arbitrary and unreasonable standards of proof, the conclusion that this was "terrorism" and more broadly that he actually intended to hurt anyone.

If you were uncommitted you wouldn't engage in these kind of dishonest denialist rhetoric.

I simply go where the unskeptical arguments are being made.

 

[Arcade22]

It would actually be rather foolish to rely much on eye witnesses here.
For starters, eye witnesses are NEVER a reliable source to determine velocity or acceleration of a motor vehicle. Just simply never ever.

And that's why all eye witnesses accounts are completely inadmissible in all criminal or civil cases involving automobiles.

But in this case, it is clear that the vast majority of witnesses can be assumed to be biased against the attacker, on top of being emotionally distressed by the awful results of the attack.

I'm sure most people would be biased against someone who tried to run them over, or at least showed complete and utter disregard for their life.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Honestly, unless you're saying that he's a psychopath (is that your argument, because it may fit with more evidence?), then killing or attempting to kill people who you "hate" (as you termed it) but who you do not actually know, pretty much makes it political, at minimum. And if murder of innocents to make a political point is how one wishes to define terrorism, then it would becomes terrorism.

Personally, I think there's too much of this Obama/Trump concern of "will they call it terrorism... stay tuned". How about "Nazi thug murders person and attempts to murder several other with his vehicle". It weren't a love triangle. Let people make of it what they will. I see no value in calling it terrorism or not calling it terrorism other than to make GOP nazi enablers and apologists squirm, and there is a certain value to that, after all.

In a related thread I put up story of a hate crime where a man murdered a transgender woman calling her an "it". I'm sure he had anti LGBT politics. But he killed her because he hated her....not to influence US politics or the LGBT community at large.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Personally, in order to differentiate "terrorism" from mere "homiced", I certainly would see the following criteria as central:

• Premeditation - that the attack be planned and prepared ahead of time and not be perpetrated out of momentary rage.
• A message of terror that is directed at an audience larger than the group immediately attacked. Usually "society". This criteria would differentiate terrorism from e.g. acts of violent intimidation that two crime syndicates levy against one another; or from acts of mere revenge
• A political framework to justify the deed

This is probably the one point that Mr. Fields' attack lacks that would prevent the label of "terrorism" from applying. That could easily change, however, if/when his statements to police after his arrest are made public.

ETA: As I said in my previous post, I consider it likely that the criteria for premeditation will be met in this case. From an explanation of first-degree murder:

The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. (source)​

Now, I believe Mr. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, which is a lower bar. The prosecution may be trying to avoid proving that Mr. Fields intended to kill, which is also a requirement for first-degree murder.

 

[uke2se]

Well, explicitly sharing one's awareness of the perpetrator's skin color is not necessary for skin color to be a factor in one's argument. I'd say that most "casual racists" wouldn't think to mention it; it's just a significant undercurrent pushing their thinking in a particular direction.

Not that I necessarily think that you are overtly or even casually racist, but there was a certain curious rigidity in your counter-argument that "all ISIS attacks are premeditated" that you seem reluctant to apply to this neo-Nazi's attack.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that you should be equally rigid toward this incident. I'm simply (perhaps too simply) trying to point out that there may be no significant difference between the information available to the public in the days following an actual ISIS or ISIS-inspired attack and this attack.




I'd agree that it's not terrorism in the sense that Mr. Fields likely hadn't planned the attack for months. However, I'm not sure "months of planning" is a requirement for terrorism. Also, I'd argue that his attack was still very much premeditated: as he was coming down the street, approaching the crowd of counter-protesters, he had more than enough time to consider his options.

Terrorism is, per definition, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. It does not have to be planned in advance. That it often is doesn't disqualify this incident from being terrorism.

 

[Oystein]

...we do not have a definition for "terrorism" ... I certainly would see the following criteria as central:

• 
  ...
• A message of terror that is directed at an audience larger than the group immediately attacked. Usually "society". This criteria would differentiate terrorism from e.g. acts of violent intimidation that two crime syndicates levy against one another; ...

To flesh out a bit more on this:

I consider a proportion of the militants on both sides to be driven less by politics and more by a sense of adventure, exitement, and even fashion. A lot like Hooligans. Hooligans are hooligans because they like to hide in groups and under masks or behind tinted car windows, drink, shout, wear uniforms, and be violent dicks. And on the side, they are fans of West Ham United, Hertha BSC Berlin, General Lee or Che.

A good day for a Hooligan is when he, hiding among his fellow Hooligans, gets to meet other Hooligans who happen to identify themselves as fans of someone else (FC Liverpool, Schalke 04, Mao or the KKK), and to engage in a major brawl. Lots of fun is being had, and the next day they can brag about how many of the opposing swine they hit with a rock or a bar.

In short, I have little doubt that some of the militants on both sides go to such rallies merely because they love to have a good fight once in a while.

In that context, speeding at the other side recklessly to demonstrate you are a tough dog is indistinguishable from one biker gang throwing a Molotov cocktail into a pub frequented by another biker gang - that's not terrorism, that's inner-crime bullying.


The Nazi murdering kiddo in Charlottesville may have hated the group he raced into not so much for some finer analysis of political differences, but simply he perceived them as part of the other gang his gang had come to town to have a fight with.
Hooligan behaviour.

 

[varwoche]

My money is on accident (plus action under shock on the way back up) now. Thoughts?

My level of surprise that you interpret things favorably to the neo-nazis and Trump: nil.

 

[Oystein]

And that's why all eye witnesses accounts are completely inadmissible in all criminal or civil cases involving automobiles.

You are usually much too smart to strawman an argument like this. What is clouding your judgement, you think?

But yes, courts are probably giving witness testimony too much weight in many cases. It's a bad habit that's difficult to shed.

(Personal anecdote: I was once called to court to testify in a case about a minor traffic accident. The incident happened as I was accelerating from perhaps 60 km/h to maybe 100 km/h, the guilty party, a commercial truck, was going steady at perhaps 90 km/h, and the victim came with high speed from behind and was forced to brake hard as the perp pulled to the left lane without looking. The court asked me how fast the victim was going initially. This question alone is cause for me to totally, 100% dismiss this judge as completely unfit to be presiding over traffic matters. Why? Because there is absolutely no way that I could estimate that speed with any reliability whatsoever. Zero chance. Impossible.
By the way, what they didn't ask me was, if the accused man sitting there in court was the driver of the truck in question. He wasn't! I think their boss sent a surrogate to fetch the penalty, because the real driver was already maxed out on penalties )

I'm sure most people would be biased against someone who tried to run them over, or at least showed complete and utter disregard for their life.

Exactly. Such witnesses ought to recuse themselves.
Some might even feel motivated to plainly lie, don't you agree?

 

[Arcade22]

I simply go where the unskeptical arguments are being made.

Really? You seem oddly selective and biased to what you see as "unskeptical arguments".

 

[Oystein]

This is probably the one point that Mr. Fields' attack lacks that would prevent the label of "terrorism" from applying. That could easily change, however, if/when his statements to police after his arrest are made public.

ETA: As I said in my previous post, I consider it likely that the criteria for premeditation will be met in this case. From an explanation of first-degree murder:

The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. (source)​

Now, I believe Mr. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, which is a lower bar. The prosecution may be trying to avoid proving that Mr. Fields intended to kill, which is also a requirement for first-degree murder.

You quote a criterion for first-degree murder.
I was talking about criteria for terrorism. That bar would be higher (and much narrower), IMO, than the bar for 1st° murder.

 

[Oystein]

Terrorism is, per definition, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. It does not have to be planned in advance. That it often is doesn't disqualify this incident from being terrorism.

I both disagree with this definition and doubt your implication that Mr. Field's homicide fits that definition.

 

[Meadmaker]

Did you take the ride down the hill with Google StreetView (just go straight forward a couple of blocks)? This is one bad view.

Thanks for posting that. I just "took the ride".

It still seems to me like he had plenty of time. If he were driving completely recklessly AND got distracted by something, maybe. It still seems a bit far fetched.

Of course, sometimes people "freeze" and make absolutely no decision in a life threatening situation. It's the "deer in the headlights" reaction. Maybe he sees the hostile crowd, and it invokes a "fight or flight" reaction, and his mind can't choose between the two. The instinct screams "fight", while the rational mind is saying "flight", and the result is paralysis, and he slams into the crowd.

I think what you have shown with what you posted is a plausible case that he had no intention of mowing down a crowd of people when he got into his car. Indeed, he could have easily been trying to leave the area with no intention of confrontation at least until his car was going at a high rate of speed toward an unexpected crowd.

However, it looks to me like he had good visibility for at least a block before he hit the people. Even at high speed, it looks like he had plenty of time to stop. Unless he can make a convincing case that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, he's still guilty.

For what it's worth, there were two phases of the incident. There was his ramming into the crowd while going forward, and his running into people going backward. I think any prosecution will have to be based on his actions moving forward, because by the time he throws it into reverse, his life is clearly in danger.

 

[Arcade22]

You are usually much too smart to strawman an argument like this. What is clouding your judgement, you think?

Oh if everyone else is going to be such dishonest and disingenuous jerks then surely i can be one as well?

But yes, courts are probably giving witness testimony too much weight in many cases. It's a bad habit that's difficult to shed.

Since people can "Just simply never ever" establish how fast a vehicle is moving or accelerating, which presumably means that Humans are unable to distinguish a completely stationary car and one that's moving under any and all circumstances, i sure as hell wouldn't trust their recollections on any other subject whatsoever.

Why risk being wrong? Even if it's just wrong by a couple of km/h then it's too much.

Personal anecdote

Thanks for that expert assessment on the facts and scientific consensus behind the reliability of eye witness accounts.

Exactly. Such witnesses ought to recuse themselves.

If this really was a complete accident, or simply caused by negligence, then surely some of the eye witnesses should be able to vouch for the driver. Just because someone is biased sure as hell doesn't mean that their witness testimony should be completely rejected especially if it squares up with someone who isn't biased.

Some might even feel motivated to plainly lie, don't you agree?

Everyone could lie about everything. Hence why all witness testimony should be ruled inadmissible in every single criminal or civil case ever. If we're going to embrace solipsism we might just do it so wholeheartedly and consistently.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh if everyone else is going to be such dishonest and disingenuous jerks then surely i can be one as well?



Since people can "Just simply never ever" establish how fast a vehicle is moving or accelerating, which presumably means that Humans are unable to distinguish a completely stationary car and one that's moving under any and all circumstances, i sure as hell wouldn't trust their recollections on any other subject whatsoever.

The issue isn't perceiving it but recalling it afterwards.

 

[uke2se]

I both disagree with this definition and doubt your implication that Mr. Field's homicide fits that definition.

It's literally the dictionary definition.

Nazi Fields fits it because 1. he unlawfully used violence against 2. civilians in order to 3. further his neo-Nazi agenda. It doesn't really matter what he thought he would gain by killing counter-demonstrators. Perhaps he was angry at them because they had the gall to attempt to disrupt his beloved Nazi rally, or perhaps he simply saw them as the enemy and expected to be celebrated as a hero for the cause. Either way suits nicely.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You quote a criterion for first-degree murder.
I was talking about criteria for terrorism. That bar would be higher (and much narrower), IMO, than the bar for 1st° murder.

You listed premeditation as one of the criteria for terrorism. Do you wish to define premeditation for terrorism as different from premeditation for first-degree murder?

 

[uke2se]

Thanks for posting that. I just "took the ride".

It still seems to me like he had plenty of time. If he were driving completely recklessly AND got distracted by something, maybe. It still seems a bit far fetched.

Of course, sometimes people "freeze" and make absolutely no decision in a life threatening situation. It's the "deer in the headlights" reaction. Maybe he sees the hostile crowd, and it invokes a "fight or flight" reaction, and his mind can't choose between the two. The instinct screams "fight", while the rational mind is saying "flight", and the result is paralysis, and he slams into the crowd.

I think what you have shown with what you posted is a plausible case that he had no intention of mowing down a crowd of people when he got into his car. Indeed, he could have easily been trying to leave the area with no intention of confrontation at least until his car was going at a high rate of speed toward an unexpected crowd.

However, it looks to me like he had good visibility for at least a block before he hit the people. Even at high speed, it looks like he had plenty of time to stop. Unless he can make a convincing case that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, he's still guilty.

For what it's worth, there were two phases of the incident. There was his ramming into the crowd while going forward, and his running into people going backward. I think any prosecution will have to be based on his actions moving forward, because by the time he throws it into reverse, his life is clearly in danger.

It's absolutely clear that he intended to murder when he got into the car. He went from the ongoing Nazi rally to get his car - not to go home or run some errands - but to go into the center of town where the counter-protesters where. His motive was murder from the time he got in the car.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If this really was a complete accident, or simply caused by negligence, then surely some of the eye witnesses should be able to vouch for the driver.

Let's also keep in mind that Mr. Fields' ideological leanings weren't known until some time after the incident.