Charlottesville Car Crash Video

[CaptainHowdy]

Neo-Nazi drives into anti-facist counter demonstration and you say there's no apparent political motive ? Pull the other one, it has bells on

He said there's a political motive at Charlottesville because "most other high-profile instances of vehicles running into pedestrians where a political motive seems apparent on its face are called such."

What similarities does this event share with other terrorist attacks that use vehicles to mow down people?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

The entire event and his reason for being there was political.

That doesn't make every action he took that day political.

The statements land within the same range as similar incidents.

Don't over play your hand.

That doesn't mean anything. What "statements" land within the same range as similar incidents? What is a similar incident?

Having an interest in ISIS means nothing...

You're right. An interest in ISIS doesn't necessarily mean anything. But you're compare apples and shoelaces here.

Are you suggesting he accidentally plowed into a group of protesters?

If hitting people with your car when you did not intend to hit people with your car is an accident, yes.

Which is it? Accident or fleeing in credible fear for his life (with his vehicle...into a crowd of people...who were not attacking him)?

Driving into the crowd was unintentional and it's possible he was fleeing ANTIFA. The way they came up on him with weapons ready suggest he was being attacked prior.

Putting the car in reverse and mowing down the group of ANTIFA who ran up behind him is definitely a case of him fearing for his life and needing to escape. Fortunately he wasn't driving fast enough to damage his front end alignment or even set off the airbag when he hit the cars stopped on the road so he was able to take evasive action quickly.

I doubt there are "alot" of examples of what you describe.

Alot of examples of people hitting pedestrians with cars and not being charged with murder? Yes, actually there are.

 

[Meadmaker]

Driving into the crowd was unintentional ...

As we say here at ISF, "Evidence?"

 

[CaptainHowdy]

As we say here at ISF, "Evidence?"

We assume innocent until proven guilty. So far, very little information has been released. Where is the evidence it was intentional?

And, no, being a Nazi in a Nazi town two hours after a Nazi rally was canceled and driving a Nazi car into a group of Nazis isn't evidence that it was intentional.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We assume innocent until proven guilty.

The judicial system assumes this. The public is not under any such obligation.

Also understand that a failure to convict does not mean no crime was committed. Only that the evidence available to the court was insufficient to convict the defendant for the crime.

 

[phiwum]

The judicial system assumes this. The public is not under any such obligation.

Also understand that a failure to convict does not mean no crime was committed. Only that the evidence available to the court was insufficient to convict the defendant for the crime.

I appreciate your point of view. I think the bastard is almost certainly guilty.

But you and I seem to have evidence on our side, so we might as well wait and see what comes out at trial.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That doesn't make every action he took that day political.



That doesn't mean anything. What "statements" land within the same range as similar incidents? What is a similar incident?



You're right. An interest in ISIS doesn't necessarily mean anything. But you're compare apples and shoelaces here.



If hitting people with your car when you did not intend to hit people with your car is an accident, yes.


Driving into the crowd was unintentional and it's possible he was fleeing ANTIFA. The way they came up on him with weapons ready suggest he was being attacked prior.

Putting the car in reverse and mowing down the group of ANTIFA who ran up behind him is definitely a case of him fearing for his life and needing to escape. Fortunately he wasn't driving fast enough to damage his front end alignment or even set off the airbag when he hit the cars stopped on the road so he was able to take evasive action quickly.


Alot of examples of people hitting pedestrians with cars and not being charged with murder? Yes, actually there are.

This all stemmed from a request for what facts support the narrative of this being an intentional act. Those facts have been supplied. You may volley with whatever facts you believe support your alternate narrative.

In the meantime, I'll call it vehicular assault and homicide (precise mechanism of injury aside) with strong potential for being a domestic terror attack for the reasons I've already laid out.

Even if your narrative is correct, this kid doesn't appear to have the spine for the kind of proto-feudal mindset that exists in the hardliner subculture. He needs to find a new hobby.

 

[Meadmaker]

We assume innocent until proven guilty. So far, very little information has been released. Where is the evidence it was intentional?

And, no, being a Nazi in a Nazi town two hours after a Nazi rally was canceled and driving a Nazi car into a group of Nazis isn't evidence that it was intentional.

You asserted it was unintentional, so I asked for evidence of that assertion.

As for evidence that it was intentional, cars generally go where their drivers intend them to go. It makes them useful as transportation devices. The vast, vast, majority of drivers would have been able to avoid running into anyone under those circumstances, so the fact that he did not avoid it suggests that it was his intention to hit them.

However, it is true that we have very little data on which to make a decision. Something more definitive will have to wait for the prosecution and/or trial.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As for evidence that it was intentional, cars generally go where their drivers intend them to go. It makes them useful as transportation devices. The vast, vast, majority of drivers would have been able to avoid running into anyone under those circumstances, so the fact that he did not avoid it suggests that it was his intention to hit them.

Let's also not forget that the street behind Mr. Fields was clear of obstructions, as is readily evidenced by his fleeing backwards up said street after plowing into the crowd in front of him. This is quite obvious in publicly available videos.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Let's also not forget that the street behind Mr. Fields was clear of obstructions, as is readily evidenced by his fleeing backwards up said street after plowing into the crowd in front of him. This is quite obvious in publicly available videos.

There are also the two photos, one as he enters the first lines of the crowd, and one about 20-30m on that have been shown repeatedly in this thread. The fact that the brake lights are on as he first approached the crowd shows that he at least tapped the brakes instinctively. If he had no intention of driving into the crowd then he could easily have stopped well before doing so, that he took his foot off the brake and carried on into them, that shows intent.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

The judicial system assumes this. The public is not under any such obligation.

That's true. The court of public opinion is a fickle bitch.

Also understand that a failure to convict does not mean no crime was committed. Only that the evidence available to the court was insufficient to convict the defendant for the crime.

The converse is also true. A conviction doesn't mean that the defendant is actually guilty of the crime. Rules of evidence, unavailable witnesses, ineffective counsel, plea bargaining, etc. has lead to many an injustice. The court system is also a fickle bitch.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

We're not going to resolve this on the limited information that is available. So we'll just have to agree to disagree until he has his day in court. One question I have for those of you think that he acted intentionally: Do you think he knew that there were two cars blocking the road and he intentionally hit them or did he intend to mow down people and didn't know the crowd of people he aimed for were blocking the cars from his view?

I've heard some speculation that his airbags didn't deploy because he disabled them because he planned to kill people by slamming into another car and either a) wanted to make sure he was killed upon impact or b) he wanted to be able to drive away without the deflated airbag impairing his driving so he could kill again. The suicide mission theorists say the fact that he dropped his cat off with his Mom before going on a one day road trip is proof that he didn't intend to return. The continue the killing spree theorists say that his ability to drive in reverse is proof that he been training to use his car as a weapon. I'm not buying either of theories but I do think it's odd that the airbag didn't deploy and there is no question that his reverse driving skills are better than most people.

 

[Meadmaker]

We're not going to resolve this on the limited information that is available. So we'll just have to agree to disagree until he has his day in court....

But until then I* will ignore anything I don't like, but will continue to throw out lots of speculation.

One question I have for those of you think that he acted intentionally: Do you think he knew that there were two cars blocking the road and he intentionally hit them or did he intend to mow down people and didn't know the crowd of people he aimed for were blocking the cars from his view?

...but I do think it's odd that the airbag didn't deploy and there is no question that his reverse driving skills are better than most people.

My guess is that he didn't see the cars until he was very close to the crowd, and possibly not even then.

As for the lack of airbag deployment, my guess is that he wasn't going all that fast. Some people took direct hits and weren't killed. The interaction of the car with the people would have slowed it down somewhat, and also provided a little bit of cushion at the time of the collision.

That can all be determined by scientific analysis of the car, the videos, and the victims' injuries. However, if it turns out it was a relatively low speed collision, say, 25 miles per hour or thereabouts, doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. It would just mean it wasn't a preplanned, "kill as many as you can", terrorist attack. It would fit better with a "These guys really tick me off! I'll show you whose street this is!" scenario. i.e. more like a spontaneous "road rage" style attack than a terrorist attack.

*Insert identify of speaker here.

 

[uke2se]

If only the White supremacists/Nazis/White nationalists had the courage of ISIS terrorists. There's never any whining about how they "unintentionally" drove a van into a crowd. They did it, they say they did it. Why can't the White supremacists/Nazis/White nationalists?

 

[Stacko]

And the GOP is already back to endorsing this behavior.

A Republican state legislator in South Dakota apologized Tuesday after sharing a meme on Facebook that appeared to encourage people to hit*protestors with vehicles.

Under the headline “All Lives Splatter,” the cartoon showed a car apparently hitting people in the street and said “nobody cares about your protest” and “keep your ass out of the road.”

Her caption above the image said “I think this is a movement we can all support,” according to local newspaper, the Argus Leader.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

But until then I* will ignore anything I don't like, but will continue to throw out lots of speculation.

I'm not ignoring anything I don't like. We're all looking at the same facts and those facts can be interpreted in different ways. I'm acknowledging the ambiguity. I'm not saying that I know what happened. Throwing out lots of speculation is all any of us are doing.

My guess is that he didn't see the cars until he was very close to the crowd, and possibly not even then.

That's what I think too.

As for the lack of airbag deployment, my guess is that he wasn't going all that fast. Some people took direct hits and weren't killed. The interaction of the car with the people would have slowed it down somewhat, and also provided a little bit of cushion at the time of the collision.

According to the NTHC the airbags should deploy by striking a parked car of similar size at about 16 to 28 mph or higher. According to safespeed.org.uk:
If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed.
If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed.
If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed.

So it seems that you're right about him not going all that fast. But the front end of his car looked pretty messed up when he threw it in reverse. And the Faith Goldy video of the crash from the side shows that pushed the other two cars forward at least half a car length.

That can all be determined by scientific analysis of the car, the videos, and the victims' injuries.

That's true. Some newer model cars even have a "black box" event recorder. I don't know if those have trickled down to Dodge yet or how much information is recorded. But the Police have the Dodge.

However, if it turns out it was a relatively low speed collision, say, 25 miles per hour or thereabouts, doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. It would just mean it wasn't a preplanned, "kill as many as you can", terrorist attack. It would fit better with a "These guys really tick me off! I'll show you whose street this is!" scenario. i.e. more like a spontaneous "road rage" style attack than a terrorist attack.

You're right about the relevance of a low speed collision. An intentional, road rage style event is a reasonable interpretation of the limited information we have available. That would still make him criminally liable for his actions on that day. But a low speed collision is also consistent with it being unintentional. So we wait.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If he had intentions of committing violence that day ("frame of mind") then I still call it more than just a road-rage style incident.

Lots of people went there with a mind for violence. Just because a specific act they experienced or witnessed prompted them to a specific violent act of their own doesn't excuse it from extending from the same initial predisposition.

I'm as loathe as anyone to toss around the "T" word, but if we're going to do it, we should be consistent.

We should, at the very least, be able to call it "political violence." We'd also better get used to it at the rate things are going.

 

[Meadmaker]

If he had intentions of committing violence that day ("frame of mind") then I still call it more than just a road-rage style incident.

Lots of people went there with a mind for violence. Just because a specific act they experienced or witnessed prompted them to a specific violent act of their own doesn't excuse it from extending from the same initial predisposition.

I'm as loathe as anyone to toss around the "T" word, but if we're going to do it, we should be consistent.

We should, at the very least, be able to call it "political violence." We'd also better get used to it at the rate things are going.

Good point.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I guess I’m not the only person who is wandering what information law enforcement is sitting on. http://www.toledoblade.com/City-Desk/2017/09/21/Agencies-reject-records-requests-in.html

 

[Elagabalus]

I guess I’m not the only person who is wandering what information law enforcement is sitting on. http://www.toledoblade.com/City-Desk/2017/09/21/Agencies-reject-records-requests-in.html

Planning on ratting him out when you get a hold of his juvenile records?