[SpecialOlympian]

(3) @SpecialOlympian , that isn't how the rally characterized itself, and there were far more counter protesters at the rally than anyone else, right?

But you are not making serious posts here, SO. You are using scare words over & over and disinterested in an honest discussion.

I think you aren't posting up to your potential.

Unite the Right was organized by Jason Kessler, who his an out and open white supremacist. Anyone who says this was about free speech and monuments is an idiot or a sympathizer.

Here is a video of Jason Kessler getting his ass kicked by a middle aged woman 10+ years his senior after his embarrassing attempt to smooth over the murder of Heather Heyer with a powerful speech:

Now let's all lean back in our chairs and watch Verv pretend this was a simple protest held by people who only collect nazi memorabilia as a hobby and just happen to want to preserve monuments built to honor the Confederacy out of a true and genuine love of history.

[Verv]

@Verv

So we agree that the car was going faster than you stated.

And the picture you show with the brake ligts supposedly on does not show the third brake light on: the one in the window at the top. Thus, the illumination of the taillights is either the taillights that are always on when the car is on, or the taillights seem illuminated by some trick of the light. Either way, the brakes are not on.

Actually, I think that the third light IS on, it's merely that the cars window is tinted and it is not as bright and the angle likewise affects it.

Interesting bonus note, you can see the same picture on the CBS website when you type in James Fields car on Google images.

Sadly, my brief search didn't really reveal any great images to show that it was tinted.


...

And sure, 28 MPH. I heard someone on RIR say that it was an average speed of 21 MPH and was going between 20 and 25 during the time of the crash.

Either way, 28 is still not exactly what anyone imagines when we are talking about some absolutely determined murderer running into a crowd, right?

[Verv]

Unite the Right was organized by Jason Kessler, who his an out and open white supremacist. Anyone who says this was about free speech and monuments is an idiot or a sympathizer.

Here is a video of Jason Kessler getting his ass kicked by a middle aged woman 10+ years his senior after his embarrassing attempt to smooth over the murder of Heather Heyer with a powerful speech:

Now let's all lean back in our chairs and watch Verv pretend this was a simple protest held by people who only collect nazi memorabilia as a hobby and just happen to want to preserve monuments built to honor the Confederacy out of a true and genuine love of history.

You do know that Kessler famously posed with his black friend at Unite the Right 2,and emphasized endlessly that it isn't about racism, right?

And why did you post some video of a guy getting chased and attacked, not even trying to fight, and then describe it as him getting his ass kicked by an old woman?

It's like you can't even describe reality when it happens right before your eyes.

[Stormsmith]

(1) @Stormsmith , of the nearly forty injuries, how many were severe? How many were sprained ankles or lacerations after someone fell on top of them? Oh, I'm sure there were some other severe injuries than just Heyer, as there would be, but if the speed was truly significant, we'd have heard about it in detail. Instead, the media is providing very vague descriptions of the speed.

Do you not have a search engine?

The 21-year-old Ohio man is charged with first-degree murder, five counts of aggravated malicious wounding, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of failing to stop at an accident involving a death.

Assistant Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Jennifer Bowers specified that Heyer’s autopsy report concluded her cause of death was blunt-force injury to the chest. That report also found that Heyer's aorta artery split into two parts, that she suffered a distal femur fracture, abrasions and contusions on her lower extremity, and a pulmonary (lung) contusion from rib fractures.

Do you think they would omit the detail if it was going around 50 MPH? And don't you think the scene would be far more severe?

35 to 40 people is a lot. People's backs were broken, legs were broken etc. Some are still undergoing care. How much worse do you want it to be?

[SpecialOlympian]

You do know that Kessler famously posed with his black friend at Unite the Right 2,and emphasized endlessly that it isn't about racism, right?

Yes, we are aware that nazis are liars and willing to use useful idiots to accomplish their goals. What is your point? Is it that the violent ethnic purges that are the logical endpoint of everything he advocates are good and cool because he has a black friend?

[colliric]

I would have charged him. Yes.

I think he may have been thinking he was defending himself against agressors, but he killed her.

[Hindsite]

@Verv

So we agree that the car was going faster than you stated.

And the picture you show with the brake ligts supposedly on does not show the third brake light on: the one in the window at the top. Thus, the illumination of the taillights is either the taillights that are always on when the car is on, or the taillights seem illuminated by some trick of the light. Either way, the brakes are not on.

You are wrong. If you look closely you will see that the light inside the rear window is on. It just does not show up as much because it is in the middle of the day and the sun is out bright. Also I remember seeing a video in which a man with a stick with a flag of some type hit the back of the Dodge Challenger just before it sped up and hit the crowd. In fact it was posted on this forum along with all those other posts on this incident right after it happened. The MSM did not include that in their reporting and it is obvious as to why it was omitted. It also did not show all the people attacking his car after the accident before he sped off in reverse.

[Verv]

Do you not have a search engine?







35 to 40 people is a lot. People's backs were broken, legs were broken etc. Some are still undergoing care. How much worse do you want it to be?

So based on the quotations here, 8 people had injuries severe enough to warrant being included in the charges?

Right?

[Verv]

Yes, we are aware that nazis are liars and willing to use useful idiots to accomplish their goals. What is your point? Is it that the violent ethnic purges that are the logical endpoint of everything he advocates are good and cool because he has a black friend?

Aw, we have devolved to an anything goes situation.

We can't believe what they say with their own mouths or what they write.

We just get to label them Nazis and then believe whatever we want about them.

This was done to Commies during the red scare.

Do you approve of this for everyone, or just when your people do it against someone else?

In our western heritage, we value trying to be rational and not emotional. What do you make of this tradition?

[blackjack21]

You don't drive your car over people and expect anything but death.

That's a bit of a stretch. A car isn't considered a deadly weapon by itself, and people routinely survive being hit by cars.

Again... right-wingers defending the indefensible.

If right wingers can defend it, then it is not indefensible by definition.

At the very least, Fields is guilty of 2nd degree murder. That he chose to use a car to do it, is irrelevant.

I would agree with that. Clearly, the jury was persuaded that Fields was competent even with his history of mental health problems.

You guys all know it, but you are too cowardly to admit it here and instead spend your time trying to justify murder and apologize for neo-nazis.

A lot of people crossed state and county lines to go to Charlottesville, VA. Fields clearly was not the only one. My point is that the whole anti-fascist circus was organized by elected government officials and their lackeys. Many people who like Southern history and didn't want to see a statute of Robert E. Lee taken down have nothing to do with neo-Nazis. For example, I have nothing to do with neo-Nazis; yet, you continue to conflate me with them in spite of the fact that I'm an avid capitalist and pro-Israel. I understand why international socialists have problems with national socialists, and vice versa. You should sort that out between yourselves and leave the rest of us out of it.

- As the aborted rally broke up, there was a lot of chaos happening everywhere.

A lot of that chaos was sown, because the mayor of Charlottesville and the governor of Virginia wanted to counter those defending the Lee monument. So not only did they help organize a counter demonstration, but they had the police stand down, which led to the chaos. They have a lot of responsibility for the situation in Charlottesville.

A guy cosplaying as a Crusader with a Kekistani flag cape and Hitler mustache: He seemed normal to me.

Well, it may be normal to one who hallucinates with regularity.

I can't imagine how upset the righties on this board would be if some poor nazi got ran over.

Well, if the Nazi were unlawfully marching in the street while his fellow travelers were attacking some communist driver, I can see why something like that would happen. So naturally, we wouldn't be that upset.

He had previously mentioned driving his car into protesters on two separate occasions in the weeks preceding the attack.

Yeah? Did you speak with him? Clearly, he was nuts.

You know who you are making fun of, right, and for what, right..? A 19 year old kid who grew up without a father and with a mother who is severely disabled. He was diagnozed with bipolar disorder at age 7 and has been something of a difficult schizoid his whole life. He attends a rally that has devolved into pure chaos,

This is pretty much the back story, and the state had a big hand in making that part happen.

and after his vehicle has been attacked by Antifa, he makes a series of bad decisions in the heat of the moment while believing that he is at risk of grave harm and has nowhere to run...

This is where the debate begins. However, the point of the back story was that they wanted to create a situation where we'd all come to the conclusion that people on the right are all bad, probably neo-Nazi, and therefore we shouldn't support Donald Trump. Apparently, they are upset because after creating the conditions where people would get killed and someone got killed, we did not all jump to the conclusions they wanted us to jump to.

So, in spite of the fact that the state is trying to hide its complicity in the events in Charlottesville, VA, they still want us to assume everyone on the political right is a neo-Nazi and we should condemn them all. Instead, we have a sad pathetic mentally ill guy who is going to spend the rest of his life in jail, and a dead leftist that was walking in the middle of the street and got ran over and killed.

I don't see why we need to come to any broad sweeping conclusions about this.

If the things he believed were different, it'd be an entirely different story -- and one we wouldn't be talking about.

Yeah. Like if he were an illegal alien, he might have been charged with driving without a license and then deported.

Watch the video again, and maybe you'll see the viciousness of it. His car was attacked AFTER he killed and injured people.

Indeed. I found it interesting how the crowd had baseball bats at their immediate disposal and were easily able to break through the windows with one swing of the bat. Clearly, there were conditions for combat. Nobody is saying that what Fields did was good, upright or moral. However, the crowd he drove into clearly had some actors ready for violence. There is no disputing that.

The fact that he posted these images shows that he did, in fact, have the idea in his head.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point. I'm just noting that the people that struck Field's car with baseball bats weren't carrying baseball bats, because they were on their way to a baseball diamond to play some baseball. Let's not pretend that Fields drove his car into a bunch of people who were pure as the wind-driven snow, because that clearly isn't the case.

Again, the video evidence does not show his car being attacked before he drove into people.

The video evidence does clearly show people striking his car with baseball bats and shattering the rear window in one blow IMMEDIATELY after plowing into the crowd. That much is indisputable. This is like watching a fight between the Crips and Bloods and saying that one side is clearly bad. I don't have any sympathy with any of these people.

If the guy wasn't a neo-nazi you wouldn't be here arguing in his favor and making a victim of him so I don't think that reasoning really helps your argument.

That happens all the time with illegal aliens. In many people's mind, James Fields is guilty of not being part of the right political faction. The rest of it is just window dressing for political theater. For the same reason, I don't characterize everyone who voted for Bernie Sanders as a violent assassin in view of what happened to Steve Scalise.

[Red_Army]

What business is it of yours @blackjack21 or anyone outside of Charlottesville what their elected officials decide to do with their public statues?

The statues as history stuff is bullshit. I wonder how many Russian statues @Verv threw himself in front of to protect in Poland

[annatar1914]

Clearly, there are unhinged and mentally challenged people who get involved, too involved, with politics along the entire political spectrum. Often they do it because of the gaping void in their own life, a hole in their soul so to speak. Cynical people use the stupid, insane, or murderous behavior of these sorts to score political points, or settle scores themselves, fanning the flames of a destroyed public civil discourse ever higher and higher. Crazy people on one side act, and the crazies opposed to them feel the need to do likewise, and opportunists and mercenaries abound feeding on the chaos and misery.

My own political journey has shown me that while few absolutely agree with me ideologically, there are those out there of almost every political persuasion who are sane, reasonable, and civil if not entirely friendly. Given what I believe about human nature, there's bound to be plenty of others though who can't rise to that level of civilization and humanism. Oh well, this message isn't for them, the deaf, dumb, and blind.

[Verv]

What business is it of yours @blackjack21 or anyone outside of Charlottesville what their elected officials decide to do with their public statues?

The statues as history stuff is bullshit. I wonder how many Russian statues @Verv threw himself in front of to protect in Poland

I'd not support removing the statue to dead soldiers even if it was made by commies or Nazis or Islamists because it's just bad form.

And i would go to a rally over any reason to defend my views from the left in a sensitive political environment and not feel a need to justify myself. Isn't this what democracy is all about, mate? Or do you not care because you're the totalitarian led and democracy is superfluous?

[Red_Army]

It was a statue of Robert E. Lee. How many statues of Lenin do you think belong in Poland? If you want to a go to a neo-nazi rally I don't think you have a lot of room to be calling people out for not being democratic. You are doing a great job playing the victim though. The left has been persecuted by the police far more than the right all through the nation's history - including now. Your sensitive political environment is just whining that most people don't support white nationalism for obvious reasons.

[Godstud]

@Verv When the brakes are applied, the whole rear light bar lights up. I guess that is why the tail-light defense didn't fly.

regardless, he was convicted of 1st degree murder, so your conjecture is misplaced.

If right wingers can defend it, then it is not indefensible by definition.

He was convicted so there obviously was no defense, aside from bullshit conspiracy theories, of course.

[blackjack21]

What business is it of yours @blackjack21 or anyone outside of Charlottesville what their elected officials decide to do with their public statues?

Like anyone in the United States, I have the right to express my opinion. It's not like it will be given much weight at the Charlottesville, VA city council. Why do you ask? There are people all over the world who express views on this case. Godstud isn't even on the same continent, for example. SpecialOlympian, who has stated that he thinks all white people should be killed, for some reason thinks that it is bad that Heather Heyer died even though she is white. You are in Alaska, and you seem to have very passionate feelings for the views of private citizens in Virginia. That should be okay. Or do you feel some sort of inner conflict over expressing your opinions about things outside of your immediate venue?

I wonder how many Russian statues @Verv threw himself in front of to protect in Poland

Poland was occupied by the Soviet Union. Robert E. Lee was from Virginia. So there is a little bit of difference there.

He was convicted so there obviously was no defense, aside from bullshit conspiracy theories, of course.

If he wasn't allowed a defense, he wasn't given a fair trial. I don't know what was said in court since there was a media blackout on the proceedings. His attorneys may appeal. Who knows what will transpire from here.

[JohnRawls]

The trial wasn't a criminal trial it was a political show trial.

Even the President of the United States himself got involved way before the trial even began and called Fields a murderer, gave permission for the media to call him both a murderer and a terrorist and suggested that jurors find him guilty of murder as quickly as possible.

How many lawyers do we have on the board reading this and keeping quiet on how over the top corrupt and third world tier this all is?

I have 2 degrees maz. Well almost, one is being finished right now. One of them is law.

Your explanations are bullshit for common law or continental european law systems. Like it or not, he did commit murder and any sane judge or jury will understand that there was intent to kill people or to do harm to them. The chances of him being found "Not Guilty" in any court is around "0,000001%".

Like what exactly is not clear?

1) What he at the crime seen? (Yes, he was. He was seen in the car by a lot of people and cameras)
2) Was it his car? (Yes, as i understand it is officially registered to him)
3) Did he have motive ? (Yes, he expressed it in phone calls/posts and he also attended a rally that was counter protested by the guys he attacked)
4) Did he have intent ? (Yes, again phone calls, posts etc. Not to mention the whole video of him ramming the crowd and not pressing breaks before hitting them is a big sign of intent in itself even without all of the previous things)
5) Is there causation ? (Did his actions lead to death? Well, obviously it did. This was the reason that some people claimed the heart attack bullshit but no jury or judge will buy this BS unless its a 3rd world corrupt monkey court)

[One Degree]

I have 2 degrees maz. Well almost, one is being finished right now. One of them is law.

Your explanations are bullshit for common law or continental european law systems. Like it or not, he did commit murder and any sane judge or jury will understand that there was intent to kill people or to do harm to them. The chances of him being found "Not Guilty" in any court is around "0,000001%".

Like what exactly is not clear?

1) What he at the crime seen? (Yes, he was. He was seen in the car by a lot of people and cameras)
2) Was it his car? (Yes, as i understand it is officially registered to him)
3) Did he have motive ? (Yes, he expressed it in phone calls/posts and he also attended a rally that was counter protested by the guys he attacked)
4) Did he have intent ? (Yes, again phone calls, posts etc. Not to mention the whole video of him ramming the crowd and not pressing breaks before hitting them is a big sign of intent in itself even without all of the previous things)
5) Is there causation ? (Did his actions lead to death? Well, obviously it did. This was the reason that some people claimed the heart attack bullshit but no jury or judge will buy this BS unless its a 3rd world corrupt monkey court)

Murder one requires ‘planning’. It is very rare to be even be charged in these circumstances. Why did you leave this out? Obviously, with your training, you know this is the real issue. Did he plan it and deliberately carry it out? That seems highly unlikely.

[JohnRawls]

Murder one requires ‘planning’. It is very rare to be even be charged in these circumstances. Why did you leave this out? Obviously, with your training, you know this is the real issue. Did he plan it and deliberately carry it out? That seems highly unlikely.

There can be different charges/grades for Murder in a law system (I won't argue the semantics of words here).

Voluntary murder, involuntary murder etc.(Here is the place where linguistic part kicks in) As i understand american system has many classifications like any continental european system. Bottom line is, he is guilty.

Also your explanation is a bit rudimentary. Planning shows intent but it does not mean that intent requires planning to be shown because there can be intent without planning in the classical sense. Quote me a precedent in the American Legal system please where it is clearly stated that planning must be present to show intent. (I live in Europe after all, so i am not exactly fluent with american court precedents)

[One Degree]

There can be different charges/grades for Murder in a law system (I won't argue the semantics of words here).

Voluntary murder, involuntary murder etc.(Here is the place where linguistic part kicks in) As i understand american system has many classifications like any continental european system. Bottom line is, he is guilty.

Also your explanation is a bit rudimentary. Planning shows intent but it does not mean that intent requires planning to be shown because there can be intent without planning in the classical sense. Quote me a precedent in the American Legal system please where it is clearly stated that planning must be present to show intent. (I live in Europe after all, so i am not exactly fluent with american court precedents)

The basic disagreement here seems to be the injustice of finding him guilty of murder one, not whether he should have been guilty of a lesser offense. It is impossible to have ‘intent’ without some planning. How do you intend to do something without planning it in your mind first? I have no idea what case originally decided this.
Everyone in the US should be aware that similar incidents of people being struck by vehicles seldom result in a charge of first degree murder. The rareness of the charge and the political overtones gives good reason to believe the trial was a farce.
Admittedly, I was not at the trial. I will just join others in asking “where are the details in the media?” It is very surprising we are not being given the details to show ‘intent’ was beyond ‘Reasonable doubt’.