Charlottesville Car Crash Video

[Porpoise of Life]

What's all this talk about "Nazis?" There were antifa thugs committed to silencing any speech they didn't like with violence and there were people who wanted to preserve a statue.

Those white supremacist guys yelling 'blood and soil' and 'the Jews will not replace us' while wearing fascist symbols, waving around Nazi flags, and doing the Hitler salute don't count as Nazis?

And the people being mowed down were the real bad guys?

 

[varwoche]

What's all this talk about "Nazis?" There were antifa thugs committed to silencing any speech they didn't like with violence and there were people who wanted to preserve a statue.

Yeah sure, good people chanting "Jews will not replace us" and other vile nazi slogans. Interesting tactic if the goal is to preserve a statue.

Why the weaseling? You flat out support nazis. Own it.

 

[Giordano]

What's all this talk about "Nazis?" There were antifa thugs committed to silencing any speech they didn't like with violence and there were people who wanted to preserve a statue.

Do you know the term "jumped the shark?" It refers to an action that loses all of one's already crumbling credibility. I'd say you really cleared the dorsal fin here! Congratulations.

 

[Oystein]

What's all this talk about "Nazis?" ...

What else do you call people who design the invitation in Nazi colors and Nazi symbolism, sport Nazi flags, do the Nazi Heils, shout Nazi slogans, and self-identify as proud white supremacists intent on destroying the extant Republic for an ethnically cleansed state based on "blood and soil" ideology?

 

[Oystein]

I was replying to the statement that pedestrians can walk in either direction down a one way street. They can....on the sidewalk.

And this being "the wrong direction on a one-way street" has what, exactly, got to do with that argument? Are you saying getting off the sidewalk is inexcusable in a one-way street, but ok elsewhere?

 

[Mumbles]

I've seen them smeared as communists, anarchists, and violent thugs, but my god, don't tell me that they were jaywalkers? Horror of horrors! Now we are talking not only justified homocide, but perhaps the driver being given an award.

You talk of demonstrators being in the street as if it was a violation of civilized conduct! Well, virtually all large public events I've ever seen have spilled into the streets at least to some extent. Permits or not. People coming or going. These have ranged from musical festivals to flea sales to political demonstrations. In Charlottesvile the demonstrations as a whole spilled into the streets: both sides. The police anticipate and plan for this and usually try to divert traffic in advance or in response. When it becomes a significant problem the police tell the people to get off the asphalt. It is that simple.

Same here. The simple fact is that sidewalks are often entirely inadequate to hold the number of people leaving major events - concerts, holiday celebrations, sports games, major protests.

And in any event, "plow into the people walking in the street" has always been considered a criminal response to this, even when the person isn't a member of a violent, bigoted, planned event.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Who knew that jaywalking was a capital offense and such an aggressive display that it justifies summary execution (under the guise of "self defense") by average citizens?

I guess I learned something today.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you know the term "jumped the shark?" It refers to an action that loses all of one's already crumbling credibility. I'd say you really cleared the dorsal fin here! Congratulations.

[linguistic aside] That's not what "jumped the shark" means. It means loses all their entertainment value because of running out of new and interesting ideas. It comes from a late season episode of "Happy Days" where Fonzie jumps over a shark. The problem was not that the stunt was implausible or lacked credibility, just that it was boring, and there was nothing left of interest to do with those characters and situations. [/linguistic aside]

 

[Giordano]

[linguistic aside] That's not what "jumped the shark" means. It means loses all their entertainment value because of running out of new and interesting ideas. It comes from a late season episode of "Happy Days" where Fonzie jumps over a shark. The problem was not that the stunt was implausible or lacked credibility, just that it was boring, and there was nothing left of interest to do with those characters and situations. [/linguistic aside]

I know the origin but my interpretation of its original and subsequent use is that the plot device of Fonzie jumping the shark was so ridiculous that it highlighted the show had run out of useful ideas and was exposed as having become a hollow version of what it once was.

We actually agree in that I see that this running out of creative ideas in the show meant it had become very boring. But I see the term in general meaning an excess that marks a point that lays bare the emptiness of the current endeavor and what led up to it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark

 

[Meadmaker]

If you're being attacked by a crowd, you are entitled to defend yourself in anyway possible. The video shows he was clearly under attack.

It's amazing what is "clear" to people seeing these videos.

It's not clear at all to me that he was under attack, although I'm willing to admit the possibility, and listen to evidence. Even if he wasn't literally under attack, he may have perceived some imminent danger. Once again, that isn't evident from the videos, but it must be considered one possibility, and we should be willing to entertain evidence of that sort.

Also, even if he was in fact under attack or in reasonable fear for his safety, he is not allowed to defend himself "in anyway possible". There are limits even then.


What is clear to me from the videos is that a lot of people showed up to that rally armed, creating a very dangerous situation with the possibility of violence. That's very troubling. However, Mr. Fields' actions were his own. He will have to defend himself against the charge that he deliberately killed one person while attempting to kill more. It's up to him (and his lawyers) to mount such a defense, and he should be given the opportunity to do so in court. It seems like a tough sell.

 

[Childlike Empress]

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.

I can easily imagine how he starts at the stop sign before the traffic lights, tries to catch green and then "falls" down confronted with something that was hidden through topography before.

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.

That's what I think we see in the video of him passing while landing from the little jump over the pedestrian road "step". We hear "landing" sounds from the chassis and the tires but no engine. I don't think we see accelerating to do more harm (or serious braking), we see "freezing" after already having lost partial control.

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.

Absolutely.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's amazing what is "clear" to people seeing these videos.

It's not clear at all to me that he was under attack, although I'm willing to admit the possibility, and listen to evidence. Even if he wasn't literally under attack, he may have perceived some imminent danger. Once again, that isn't evident from the videos, but it must be considered one possibility, and we should be willing to entertain evidence of that sort.

Also, even if he was in fact under attack or in reasonable fear for his safety, he is not allowed to defend himself "in anyway possible". There are limits even then.

I think it's obvious from the videos that he was nowhere near the demo before he approached, so these "under attack" postulations are totally unfounded. (He could of course have been under real or perceived attack earlier in the story, up the hill, but that is pure speculation)

It was either an accident or what you call road rage, a spontaneous decision to commit mass murder. My money is as I reasoned on the former, but the latter is also a possible option.

For a planned attack he would have to know of the "rogue" demo and how to hit it down at the corner where it just turned around. Which is next to impossible.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't think we see accelerating...

You can argue whether or not acceleration is visible in this clip (it is to me), but it is audible.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You can argue whether or not acceleration is visible in this clip (it is to me), but it is audible.

That's the same as clip 2 in the compilation, but with much better video and audio quality. You're right, it's clearly audible, and after comparing it's audible in the lower quality clip as well if one knows what to listen for. It also looks more like it. So I guess with that I'm switching to road rage, at least "last second" road rage. The approach could still be like I theorized, that he "stumbled" into it, but it's less likely now and the last step is clearly intentional.

See how easy that is? I went back and saw that you came up with this already while I was composing my detailed post. Had you actually followed what I had written instead of calling me a Nazi enabler or something, following up on your earlier ridiculous slander of other posters, you could have easily refuted my observation back then with your counter-evidence at hand.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Those white supremacist guys yelling 'blood and soil' and 'the Jews will not replace us' while wearing fascist symbols, waving around Nazi flags, and doing the Hitler salute don't count as Nazis?

And the people being mowed down were the real bad guys?

A few swastikas doesn't make everybody protesting a "Nazi" any more than a few hammer and sickles make all the counter-protestors "Commies."

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Those white supremacist guys yelling 'blood and soil' and 'the Jews will not replace us' while wearing fascist symbols, waving around Nazi flags, and doing the Hitler salute don't count as Nazis?

And the people being mowed down were the real bad guys?

Yes and No. The people injured by the car moving forward are not necessarily the bad guys. Some were, some weren't. The people who were injured when the car went in reverse were definitely bad guys. They rushed the vehicle and began attacking it, clearly intending harm to the driver of the vehicle

 

[Oystein]

For a planned attack he would have to know of the "rogue" demo and how to hit it down at the corner where it just turned around. Which is easily next to impossible.

FTFY.

It wasn't exactly difficult to find protestors in Charlottesville that day. Not at all. You drive around a bit within 2 blocks of the two main locations (the parks), und you were absolutely 100% guaranteed to find them.

Just as it is conceivable, as you pointed out, that perhaps he had already encountered confrontation and threats before driving into the recorded scene, it is easily conceivable that he had driven around town searching for a group of liberals to mow down.

Next to impossible?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

And this being "the wrong direction on a one-way street" has what, exactly, got to do with that argument? Are you saying getting off the sidewalk is inexcusable in a one-way street, but ok elsewhere?

My God you have trouble with reading comprehension.

 

[Oystein]

My God you have trouble with reading comprehension.

Thanks for communicating clearly that there was no sense in what you wrote (otherwise, you'd be able to explain)
(Oh, and you can call me "Oystein" next time, or simply "Oy")

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

See how easy that is? I went back and saw that you came up with this already while I was composing my detailed post. Had you actually followed what I had written instead of calling me a Nazi enabler or something, following up on your earlier ridiculous slander of other posters, you could have easily refuted my observation back then with your counter-evidence at hand.

It's not my burden to make sure you're informed of my postings. That you missed my note of the audible acceleration for nearly 4 pages is on you.