The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on August 14, 2017, 12:24:22 am
-
http://www.departmentofmemes.com/article/protesters-attacked-charlottesville-drivers-car-baseball-bat/
This was posted at tos, I link to it for commentary only.
-
What is the law in Virginia concerning protesters blocking the streets?
It seems there are laws out there somewhere stating you can run them down.
-
Erase the titles of the groups involved. If some maniac slammed his car into a group of people with the intent to kill, wouldn't you be beating on his car and doing whatever you needed to do to stop him from fleeing or backing up and running forward again?
Like I said, erase the titles and look at the situation from the perspective of the action alone, not what you feel about the victims.
Case in point, if it weren't this case but this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/truck-crashes-in-central-stockholm-sweden
Or this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4652076/Man-tries-drive-car-crowd-French-mosque-police.html
Or this one
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/car-drives-pedestrians-heidelberg-germany-9917011
And so on and so on...
-
Erase the titles of the groups involved. If some maniac slammed his car into a group of people with the intent to kill, wouldn't you be beating on his car and doing whatever you needed to do to stop him from fleeing or backing up and running forward again?
Like I said, erase the titles and look at the situation from the perspective of the action alone, not what you feel about the victims.
Case in point, if it weren't this case but this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/truck-crashes-in-central-stockholm-sweden
Or this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4652076/Man-tries-drive-car-crowd-French-mosque-police.html
Or this one
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/car-drives-pedestrians-heidelberg-germany-9917011
And so on and so on...
I agree with all this, but I was under the impression that his car was attacked prior to the attack, from the video. While I still think he's totally at fault, that makes me think just a little differently about what happened.
-
What is the law in Virginia concerning protesters blocking the streets?
It seems there are laws out there somewhere stating you can run them down.
You can't take a three block running start and slam into them on purpose. That is premeditated murder and if it was a muslim doing it, we would be screaming terrorism as ISIS has done the same thing several times recently (links above as an example). Some laws protect you if you are trying to flee danger and hit someone in the road or if they step out into a busy road. The laws don't give you carte blanche to gun it and run down people.
-
I agree with all this, but I was under the impression that his car was attacked prior to the attack, from the video. While I still think he's totally at fault, that makes me think just a little differently about what happened.
If you look at some of the videos that show him up the hill, he took a three block running start at them with no one around. He had many safe places to turn off or turn around or could have backed up. His actions in no way appear as to be someone in danger trying to flee. That was an attack not much different than recent Isis terrorist actions using vehicles to run into crowds.
-
Lots of stories with similar titles as this:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters
I don't know if any states actually passed any laws.
-
Nice, now we can join Klan Republic and attempt to justify murder by using an alt right site. (Note the Trump Frog emblem)
-
You can't take a three block running start and slam into them on purpose. That is premeditated murder and if it was a muslim doing it, we would be screaming terrorism as ISIS has done the same thing several times recently (links above as an example). Some laws protect you if you are trying to flee danger and hit someone in the road or if they step out into a busy road. The laws don't give you carte blanche to gun it and run down people.
Yeah. I know.
Going to be for an interesting trial. Doubt it will be held in Charlottesville, though.
-
Nice, now we can join Klan Republic and attempt to justify murder by using an alt right site. (Note the Trump Frog emblem)
There is one I saw posted in a thread from one of their favorite sites, The Daily Stormer, that attacks the young lady who was killed as, 'fat, childless... ' etc. They are disgusting. Obviously not going to post that here 'for discussion'.
-
I'm not justifying anything, and I still think he's a murderer. And he's also a disgusting Nazi.
But someone did hit his car before he did this.
-
I'm not justifying anything, and I still think he's a murderer. And he's also a disgusting Nazi.
But someone did hit his car before he did this.
So what? His car could have been targeted by someone with a baseball bat; that wouldn't justify or excuse using his car as a weapon the way he did.
-
There is one I saw posted in a thread from one of their favorite sites, The Daily Stormer, that attacks the young lady who was killed as, 'fat, childless... ' etc. They are disgusting. Obviously not going to post that here 'for discussion'.
The alt right are all about perpetuating "pure" bloodlines which is why so many of them are into incest porn.
-
Yeah. I know.
Going to be for an interesting trial. Doubt it will be held in Charlottesville, though.
They better not put him in Gen Pop if they want him to live to the trial.
-
So what? His car could have been targeted by someone with a baseball bat; that wouldn't justify or excuse using his car as a weapon the way he did.
I don't disagree with you, but isn't it good to know all the facts?
-
I don't disagree with you, but isn't it good to know all the facts?
Yes, but facts are curious things - not all of them are relevant, and emphasizing the irrelevant is often a tool for hiding or misrepresenting the relevant. What's relevant is that he intentionally used his car as a weapon to kill people. The fact that somebody hit his car before that is irrelevant.
-
Yes, but facts are curious things - not all of them are relevant, and emphasizing the irrelevant is often a tool for hiding or misrepresenting the relevant. What's relevant is that he intentionally used his car as a weapon to kill people. The fact that somebody hit his car before that is irrelevant.
I'm not emphasizing anything, just informing the forum. IMO, this is a relevant fact, even if doesn't exonerate him because you can bet his defense and his muttonhead defenders will bring this video up.
-
I'm not emphasizing anything, just informing the forum. IMO, this is a relevant fact, even if doesn't exonerate him because you can bet his defense and his muttonhead defenders will bring this video up.
If they were beating his car, the antifas should have been arrested as well.
-
Yes, but facts are curious things - not all of them are relevant, and emphasizing the irrelevant is often a tool for hiding or misrepresenting the relevant. What's relevant is that he intentionally used his car as a weapon to kill people. The fact that somebody hit his car before that is irrelevant.
Not in court.
The fight or flight instinct.
Be for an interesting trial. Betcha they make it a dog and pony show. And juries can be funny animals, too.
-
If they were beating his car, the antifas should have been arrested as well.
In that video, they were beating his car as he was in the middle of ramming them at high speed. They slowed the video down to make it look like he was driving casually, but the little snip they showed there was after he took a running start and was slamming into them at I would guess at least 40 if not faster.
Beating his car while he is ramming into them at high speed could easily be argued as self defense or an attempt to stop murder.
-
I'm not emphasizing anything, just informing the forum. IMO, this is a relevant fact, even if doesn't exonerate him because you can bet his defense and his muttonhead defenders will bring this video up.
That's fine. And I'll inform the forum that its paint color was black. And it had black tires, too.
-
That's fine. And I'll inform the forum that its paint color was black. And it had black tires, too.
You're hyperventilating. You might get a nosebleed.
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
Of course, then there's the question of why they, or the white supremacists, had bats in the first place.
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
Someone would have been very justified in putting a round in his head at that point.
-
Of course, then there's the question of why they, or the white supremacists, had bats in the first place.
If they were open carrying rifles, would that be OK?
No matter what you think about any group, they all have the right to be armed, it is what they do with the arms that makes their actions legal or illegal. Many on both sides were also open carrying rifles.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't have philosophy restrictions.
-
If they were open carrying rifles, would that be OK?
No matter what you think about any group, they all have the right to be armed, it is what they do with the arms that makes their actions legal or illegal. Many on both sides were also open carrying rifles.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't have philosophy restrictions.
I've said this in other videos: both sides come to these events looking for trouble. And they always find it.
-
I've said this in other videos: both sides come to these events looking for trouble. And they always find it.
Just like soccer hooligans. They live for it, it's an adrenaline rush.
-
If they were open carrying rifles, would that be OK?
No matter what you think about any group, they all have the right to be armed, it is what they do with the arms that makes their actions legal or illegal. Many on both sides were also open carrying rifles.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't have philosophy restrictions.
There were armed people there. Fortunately they had cooler heads and proved that holding a firearm doesn't mean you intend to use it.
-
Someone would have been very justified in putting a round in his head at that point.
Its really too bad no one did.
-
Yeah, right.
Advocating more murder.
That is freaking hilarious.
-
Erase the titles of the groups involved. If some maniac slammed his car into a group of people with the intent to kill, wouldn't you be beating on his car and doing whatever you needed to do to stop him from fleeing or backing up and running forward again?
Like I said, erase the titles and look at the situation from the perspective of the action alone, not what you feel about the victims.
Case in point, if it weren't this case but this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/truck-crashes-in-central-stockholm-sweden
Or this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4652076/Man-tries-drive-car-crowd-French-mosque-police.html
Or this one
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/car-drives-pedestrians-heidelberg-germany-9917011
And so on and so on...
@AbaraXas
Yeah, you may have this totally backwards.
From what I can see in the video clip provided, the driver has steered into the wrong place at the wrong time. A bunch of BLM and Antifa a-holes are blocking the road, and protesting angrily. One such angry protestor with a frickin' baseball bat approaches the man's car and smashes a tail light, probably startling the driver SIGNIFICANTLY.
If he suddenly slammed on the gas out of surprise or fear, and did not actually drive into that alley with the intent to harm, this is a whole different story.
-
You can't take a three block running start and slam into them on purpose. That is premeditated murder and if it was a muslim doing it, we would be screaming terrorism as ISIS has done the same thing several times recently (links above as an example). Some laws protect you if you are trying to flee danger and hit someone in the road or if they step out into a busy road. The laws don't give you carte blanche to gun it and run down people.
@AbaraXas
Do you have a link to the running start vids? I'm getting caught up...
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
Not sure this video shows a running start. Got anything better?
-
@AbaraXas
Hmmm... this video clearly shows the brake lights on when the driver passes at the 2:00 min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxpeVIuf4Uk
If he was "getting a running start," why would he hit the brakes just prior to smacking the crowd? Additionally, it does look like the lurches DOWN in the front just prior to getting hit with the bat, indicating that brakes were being applied.
Furthermore, by going through frame-by-frame, it would also appear as if the brake lights might have still been on until JUST prior to being struck with the bat, after which they go off as the car accelerates forward. This is evidenced by the reddish hue which is visible just prior to the strike, and the disappearance of the hue after the strike. This could be a trick of the sunlight or angles, but it is harder to tell if the brake lights were on or not at that point... unlike the 2 minute mark in which is very clear they are on (approx 2 sec prior to the car being struck).
So... brake lights on 2 seconds prior to being hit? Running start? Hmmmm. Not so sure.
(For the record, I do think this guy went down there specifically to challenge BLM and Antifa's roadblock, and shit went haywire. That makes him culpable. But if his car was struck, and this startled him to accelerate, then the person who swung that bat is ALSO culpable.)
-
@AbaraXas
Hmmm... this video clearly shows the brake lights on when the driver passes at the 2:00 min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxpeVIuf4Uk
If he was "getting a running start," why would he hit the brakes just prior to smacking the crowd? Additionally, it does look like the lurches DOWN in the front just prior to getting hit with the bat, indicating that brakes were being applied.
Furthermore, by going through frame-by-frame, it would also appear as if the brake lights might have still been on until JUST prior to being struck with the bat, after which they go off as the car accelerates forward. This is evidenced by the reddish hue which is visible just prior to the strike, and the disappearance of the hue after the strike. This could be a trick of the sunlight or angles, but it is harder to tell if the brake lights were on or not at that point... unlike the 2 minute mark in which is very clear they are on (approx 2 sec prior to the car being struck).
So... brake lights on 2 seconds prior to being hit? Running start? Hmmmm. Not so sure.
(For the record, I do think this guy went down there specifically to challenge BLM and Antifa's roadblock, and shit went haywire. That makes him culpable. But if his car was struck, and this startled him to accelerate, then the person who swung that bat is ALSO culpable.)
Sorry, you're not hating on whitey enough.
-
Lots of stories with similar titles as this:
'Common-Sense Legislation' Would Shield Drivers Who Run Over Protesters
I don't know if any states actually passed any laws.
The measure was defeated in ND, but brought about by the Standing Rock protests which turned violent. I believe the intent of introducing it was mainly to keep the protesters from blocking vital road access for people who actually lived in the area (unlike many of the protesters who were actually from out of state).
-
@AbaraXas
So... brake lights on 2 seconds prior to being hit? Running start? Hmmmm. Not so sure.
I don't see brake lights until the driver switches to reverse
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
So how come you sanction hitting someone a reaction, not a provocation when you are wielding a baseball bat, but not the same when you are driving a car?
You have already said adrenaline can make you do stupid things when in a crisis mode. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,276015.msg1418691.html#msg1418691
One can also claim your car being struck puts you in a crisis mode and stupid things can happen as well.
-
They were hitting his car because he was trying to kill them.
-
They were hitting his car because he was trying to kill them.
His car was hit before that happened though, as the video shows.
-
His car was hit before that happened though, as the video shows.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I think you're siding with the wrong side. Perhaps if the guy wasn't already a Nazi the argument might have merit. His background and the speed at which he drove makes intent pretty clear.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I think you're siding with the wrong side. Perhaps if the guy wasn't already a Nazi the argument might have merit. His background and the speed at which he drove makes intent pretty clear.
I have one of those sneaking suspicions we're going to hear about a video that demonstrates he probably didn't drive down there with the intent to kill, but panicked.
It won't get as much press coverage as the meme "white nationalist uses vehicle just like a terrorist would," but it will at least be heard in court.
Not excusing the guy 100%, but I think his crime will wind up being manslaughter and not murder.
-
I have one of those sneaking suspicions we're going to hear about a video that demonstrates he probably didn't drive down there with the intent to kill, but panicked.
It won't get as much press coverage as the meme "white nationalist uses vehicle just like a terrorist would," but it will at least be heard in court.
Not excusing the guy 100%, but I think his crime will wind up being manslaughter and not murder.
I'm pretty sure he will be executed by the state or a fellow inmate, as he deserves.
-
I'm pretty sure he will be executed by the state or a fellow inmate, as he deserves.
The Aryan Brotherhood in prison will probably protect him in return for "services" rendered. :silly:
-
The Aryan Brotherhood in prison will probably protect him in return for "services" rendered. :silly:
Will they protect a killer of a white woman?
-
Not a peep about Black Lives Matter, Obama and 5 dead police officers.
-
Of course, then there's the question of why they, or the white supremacists, had bats in the first place.
Yes, let's start questioning the need to bear arms to defend onesself. At least in this case, the need was demonstrated without question.
-
My question is where did the baseball bats come from and who had them.....
-
I'm not justifying anything, and I still think he's a murderer. And he's also a disgusting Nazi.
But someone did hit his car before he did this.
And he loved it so much, he named it "Brad"? :laugh:
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Will they protect a killer of a white woman?
Maybe. She was collateral damage in pursuit of "the cause"
-
My question is where did the baseball bats come from and who had them.....
BAN BASEBALL BATS!
Baseball bats are the true cause of all this violence.
This country is OBSESSED with its baseball bats. In fact, this country has almost the highest baseball bat ownership percentage in the civilized world! WHY DO WE NEED SO MANY BASEBALL BATS???
-
Will they protect a killer of a white woman?
Probably not. She was on the other side and neonazis assume anyone not engaging in incest is having sex with non white and is a legitimate target.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I think you're siding with the wrong side. Perhaps if the guy wasn't already a Nazi the argument might have merit. His background and the speed at which he drove makes intent pretty clear.
I'm not siding with any side, I'm just pointing out the facts. I've already said I think he's guilty and should be in jail for murder.
-
I'm not siding with any side, I'm just pointing out the facts. I've already said I think he's guilty and should be in jail for murder.
Yeah - I'm interested in truth, here, not "the narrative."
"The narrative" is that "neo-nazis are bad."
The TRUTH is that these "white supremacists" and BLM have a lot in common - they are both arguing from the position of race. Both groups are provocative. Both have extremists who advocate violence.
RECENT history, however, has BLM provoking MORE violence. (And I won't even get into Antifa.) But we will get more of the narrative about how eeeeeevil the neo-nazis are.
They both suck, but we can't say that apparently. Some pigs are more equal than others.
On this particular incident, I have a theory on what the truth is: that this guy drove down there to challenge, but NOT to kill. Shit went haywire FAST when his car got struck and he reacted in a violent manner with his vehicle.
So, what are we looking at? Certainly not 1st degree murder. Nothing on the domestic terrorism front. Maybe 2nd degree murder, which they will try to make stick because they don't like the group he's associated with. But, if this were *just* a BLM rally, and this happened, he'd probably get charged with voluntary manslaughter and plea out to involuntary.
-
They both suck, but we can't say that apparently. Some pigs are more equal than others.
It's like saying "All Lives Matter". That's racist, don'cha know.
-
The alt right are all about perpetuating "pure" bloodlines which is why so many of them are into incest porn.
Funny coming from a poster who says some of the most despicable things about Always Trumpers because they don't have "pure" Conservative bloodlines. When you get a brief moment from banging out angry screeds against Donny and his supporters 24/7, you should take a look in the mirror.
-
It's like saying "All Lives Matter". That's racist, don'cha know.
Violence then started to spill into the real world. A man wielding a sword hunted and killed a black man in New York City. A member of an “alt-Reich Nation” Facebook group killed another black man in Maryland. A man opened fire on two immigrants at a bar in Kansas, killing one. A white supremacist in Portland murdered two men on a train who intervened when he harassed a Muslim and her black friend. And that’s not an exclusive list.
Meanwhile, the online hate campaigns roll on. Incredibly, key elements of the Trump coalition, including Trump himself, gave the alt-right aid and comfort. Steve Bannon, the president’s chief strategist, proclaimed that his publication, Breitbart.com, was the “the platform for the alt-right,” Breitbart long protected, promoted, and published Milo Yiannopolous – the alt-right’s foremost “respectable” defender – and Trump himself retweeted alt-right accounts and launched into an explicitly racial attack against an American judge of Mexican descent, an attack that delighted his most racist supporters.
In other words, if there ever was a time in recent American political history for an American president to make a clear, unequivocal statement against the alt-right, it was today. Instead, we got a vague condemnation of “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” This is unacceptable, especially given that Trump can be quite specific when he’s truly angry. Just ask the Khan family, Judge Curiel, James Comey, or any other person he considers a personal enemy. Even worse, members of the alt-right openly celebrated Trump’s statement, taking it as a not-so-veiled decision to stand against media calls to condemn their movement.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450433/alt-rights-chickens-come-home-roost
-
@Once-Ler
This statement alone should have been enough to bring Trump to the cameras and name Anglin and his related groups of neonazis as enemies of civil society.
(http://i.imgur.com/i6GMSVY.png)
On the bright side, Ivanka doesn't seem to have any compunction about naming them.
(http://i.imgur.com/h0XkDMW.png)
-
Funny coming from a poster who says some of the most despicable things about Always Trumpers because they don't have "pure" Conservative bloodlines. When you get a brief moment from banging out angry screeds against Donny and his supporters 24/7, you should take a look in the mirror.
:pondering: :whistle:
-
I wonder if anyone ever stopped to consider that the term alt right wasn't in use anywhere in the media in 2015 and early 2016? And that originally, alternative right was a term used by Steve Bannon to describe a new breed of young republican as apposed to the old guard.
It had nothing to do with race until the left appropriated it to mean anything from racist to anti Semitic, nationalist, white supremacist etc.
And republicans just meekly accept the theft of language to be used by the left as a political bludgeon. Welcome to PC hell, folks.
-
This will be your final warning.
(http://i.imgur.com/rigVvMC.png)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/rigVvMC.png)
I loled
-
@Once-Ler
This statement alone should have been enough to bring Trump to the cameras and name Anglin and his related groups of neonazis as enemies of civil society.
(http://i.imgur.com/i6GMSVY.png)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-duke-charlottesville-rally-trump-promises
“This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said. “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.” - David Duke in Charlottesville Aug 12th
There are some people who don't understand why the President needs to specifically condemn nazis. I don't want to get all History channel, or anything, but I'm what you might call a history fan, and I can tell you, the nazis were really bad people, very very bad, and I'm not the only one saying this. It is widely reported that they hate the Jews, and their approval numbers are even below Trump's. Most Presidents have not wanted to be associated with nazis in the past for logical and easy to understand reasons.
Trump seems unable or unwilling to clearly rebuke the nazis, and I wonder why?
-
How many real Nazis do you think there are in this country today?
-
How many real Nazis do you think there are in this country today?
http://www.khou.com/news/thousands-descend-on-charlottesville-for-unite-the-right-rally-counter-protest/463869251
at least 2000-6000 and one muscle car.
-
So what? His car could have been targeted by someone with a baseball bat; that wouldn't justify or excuse using his car as a weapon the way he did.
If he was using his car as a weapon, he would have swerved to hit more leftist fascist antifa/blm terrorist. The same antifa terrorist who threw IED's at a Trump rally in Berkley. These fascist, of which the deceased was one of... try to maim and injure.
This is what the young man found himself surrounded by, when attacked he accelerated to leave the area ..self defense is achieved by fearing for ones life. His political leaning, or personal views have nothing to do with it.
I consider it a case study in Instant Karma.
-
If he was using his car as a weapon, he would have swerved to hit more leftist fascist antifa/blm terrorist. The same antifa terrorist who threw IED's at a Trump rally in Berkley. These fascist, of which the deceased was one of... try to maim and injure.
This is what the young man found himself surrounded by, when attacked he accelerated to leave the area ..self defense is achieved by fearing for ones life. His political leaning, or personal views have nothing to do with it.
I consider it a case study in Instant Karma.
The video clearly shows he was not surrounded until he plowed into the people he hated so very very much.
-
If he was using his car as a weapon, he would have swerved to hit more leftist fascist antifa/blm terrorist. The same antifa terrorist who threw IED's at a Trump rally in Berkley. These fascist, of which the deceased was one of... try to maim and injure.
This is what the young man found himself surrounded by, when attacked he accelerated to leave the area ..self defense is achieved by fearing for ones life. His political leaning, or personal views have nothing to do with it.
I consider it a case study in Instant Karma.
Bullsh*t. He took a running head start and plowed into people. Just 'cause you don't kill the theoretical maximum doesn't prove you weren't trying to kill at all.
-
How many real Nazis do you think there are in this country today?
Former High school History teacher has come out and said the guy idolized Hitler and Nazism. My guess is that he found his own way to exterminate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAk_LzedfEc
-
I don't see brake lights until the driver switches to reverse
Here's another pic that is more clear, just prior to impact:
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-59939857/turbine/la-na-charlottesville-white-nationalists-rally-photos-20170812/750/750x422)
I see two things clearly...
1) Brake lights
2) Scared people
This leads me to a *possible* conclusion that he drove down aggressively to scare them, got whacked, and then either said, "Screw it," or got scared himself and reacted in the dumbest possible fashion.
Either way, he's guilty of something. I'm simply coming to believe that the action of smashing into people was not necessarily premeditated or he wouldn't be applying the brakes. There is also this quote from eyewitness Robert Armengol of the LA Times:
The front of the march had advanced less than half a block before a gray sports car appeared, moving south toward the demonstrators.
The car and its driver, hidden behind tinted windows, advanced slowly at first. [Police have since identified the driver as James A. Fields, 20, of Ohio, who was previously seen marching with Vanguard America, a fascist group.] Then, just a few feet in front of protesters, the vehicle accelerated suddenly, plowing into at least a dozen people in a gut-wrenching crash, sending bodies, shoes and personal belongings flying through the air.
So, according to some, he wasn't moving at impact speed until just a moment before ramming into the crowd. Did he accelerate before or after getting smashed? Was he always planning on hitting the crowd or was it a reaction?
This, of course, does not justify his actions in any way. Unless new video surfaces from inside the car showing that he is trying to flee and is fearful of being attacked, but somehow gets funneled into that position... That, in my mind, would change the charge to Involuntary Manslaughter. I doubt we'll ever see anything like that, so we'll never know what his true intent was just prior to the crash.
One thing is becoming clear to me, though: he *did* slow down just prior to accelerating. We may never know why.
Either way, he goes to jail for a very long, long time. No person should ever put himself in that position unless being chased and getting cornered.
-
The most recent video clip that I saw was someone hitting the car on the bumper and the driver flooring it.
-
Here's another pic that is more clear, just prior to impact:
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-59939857/turbine/la-na-charlottesville-white-nationalists-rally-photos-20170812/750/750x422)
I see two things clearly...
1) Brake lights
2) Scared people
This leads me to a *possible* conclusion that he drove down aggressively to scare them, got whacked, and then either said, "Screw it," or got scared himself and reacted in the dumbest possible fashion.
Either way, he's guilty of something. I'm simply coming to believe that the action of smashing into people was not necessarily premeditated or he wouldn't be applying the brakes. There is also this quote from eyewitness Robert Armengol of the LA Times:
So, according to some, he wasn't moving at impact speed until just a moment before ramming into the crowd. Did he accelerate before or after getting smashed? Was he always planning on hitting the crowd or was it a reaction?
This, of course, does not justify his actions in any way. Unless new video surfaces from inside the car showing that he is trying to flee and is fearful of being attacked, but somehow gets funneled into that position... That, in my mind, would change the charge to Involuntary Manslaughter. I doubt we'll ever see anything like that, so we'll never know what his true intent was just prior to the crash.
One thing is becoming clear to me, though: he *did* slow down just prior to accelerating. We may never know why.
Either way, he goes to jail for a very long, long time. No person should ever put himself in that position unless being chased and getting cornered.
Another possibility is that he intended 'power packing' it, holding the car with the brakes (left foot) and using the accelerator to squeal tires to get the mob to move. If his foot slipped, the car would surge forward suddenly.
The problem with that is the video I did see (about half of them won't play) showed the vehicle headed down the street a ways before the impact.
-
Another possibility is that he intended 'power packing' it, holding the car with the brakes (left foot) and using the accelerator to squeal tires to get the mob to move. If his foot slipped, the car would surge forward suddenly.
The problem with that is the video I did see (about half of them won't play) showed the vehicle headed down the street a ways before the impact.
I see no evidence in any video or picture that he "power packed" it.
-
I see no evidence in any video or picture that he "power packed" it.
Nor did I, and the only way that would be a possibility is if he has stopped, applied the accelerator and his foot slipped off the brake as the power came up before the tires broke loose. Without evidence, that would be difficult to establish, but I had to mention it as a possibility to be eliminated.
-
Another possibility is that he intended 'power packing' it, holding the car with the brakes (left foot) and using the accelerator to squeal tires to get the mob to move. If his foot slipped, the car would surge forward suddenly.
The problem with that is the video I did see (about half of them won't play) showed the vehicle headed down the street a ways before the impact.
Or he was having second thoughts at the last minute and then said screw it. But yea he didn't go screaming down that street like a muslim terrorist would have.
-
The desire to protect a degenerate POS from the full consequences of his actions on this thread is disgusting.
-
The desire to protect a degenerate POS from the full consequences of his actions on this thread is disgusting.
@Oceander
So as a lawyer you don't believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty?
-
@Oceander
So as a lawyer you don't believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty?
Oh, are we in court? Are you the judge, the jury, the defense attorney?
No. So stop pretending.
-
Oh, are we in court? Are you the judge, the jury, the defense attorney?
No. So stop pretending.
@Oceander
Well then perhaps you can give us an illustration on how we are "protecting" this guy from the consequences since we aren't any of those things? OR are you just talkin out your butt?
-
My question is where did the baseball bats come from and who had them.....
The offshoot group called Peanut Butter Jelly Time.
-
The desire to protect a degenerate POS from the full consequences of his actions on this thread is disgusting.
Can we just have the friggin' trial? All this speculation is pointless, the truth will come out.
And if he's guilty, he fries.
-
My question is where did the baseball bats come from and who had them.....
@mystery-ak
Both sides had weapons. Weapons I've seen were clubs, bats, soda cans of concrete, frozen water bottles, spray can flame throwers, pepper spray that I've read of so far.
-
The desire to protect a degenerate POS from the full consequences of his actions on this thread is disgusting.
See what you want.
I want the truth, and if that requires eliminating any/everything else, so be it.
I can guarantee you any defense attorney worth his ambulance chaser card will come up with a host of scenarios to establish reasonable doubt and beat whatever charges of malice they can, and that will affect what the man is charged with in order to avoid a not guilty verdict or hung jury.
So here we are, looking at all the possibilities and eliminating the ones which do not fit the evidence, basically removing reasonable doubt by refuting possible scenarios which could have led to the death and injuries involved in the event.
The rest is for the courts to decide. The presumption of innocence remains in effect, even for heinous acts, until the verdict is delivered. You, of all people, I would think would have recognized that, given your profession.
We aren't making any moral defense of what went on, but then legal defenses and morality are often unrelated. It is the legal aspect we are trying to game out.
-
And if he's guilty, he fries.
Kinda doubt it. If they do find he took off for fear of his life because he was attacked, they may drop down to vehicular homicide and assault. If there is a riot in progress, all bets are off. He'll serve a bunch of time.
There is also the possibility he is crazy, in which case he goes to a mental institution.
-
Can we just have the friggin' trial? All this speculation is pointless, the truth will come out.
And if he's guilty, he fries.
I'd imagine they'll have a hard time finding a jury. That'll be a mess. If he isn't found guilty I'd imagine there will be riots.
-
See what you want.
I want the truth, and if that requires eliminating any/everything else, so be it.
I can guarantee you any defense attorney worth his ambulance chaser card will come up with a host of scenarios to establish reasonable doubt and beat whatever charges of malice they can, and that will affect what the man is charged with in order to avoid a not guilty verdict or hung jury.
So here we are, looking at all the possibilities and eliminating the ones which do not fit the evidence, basically removing reasonable doubt by refuting possible scenarios which could have led to the death and injuries involved in the event.
The rest is for the courts to decide. The presumption of innocence remains in effect, even for heinous acts, until the verdict is delivered. You, of all people, I would think would have recognized that, given your profession.
We aren't making any moral defense of what went on, but then legal defenses and morality are often unrelated. It is the legal aspect we are trying to game out.
His membership in the nazi party group will be problematic for this scenario.
-
I'd imagine they'll have a hard time finding a jury. That'll be a mess. If he isn't found guilty I'd imagine there will be riots.
The tinfoiler in me thinks that if there are any 'inconvenient facts' that would come out in a trial, this guy won't live to see it.
-
There is also the possibility he is crazy, in which case he goes to a mental institution.
That's another way to get out of having a trial.
-
Nor did I, and the only way that would be a possibility is if he has stopped, applied the accelerator and his foot slipped off the brake as the power came up before the tires broke loose. Without evidence, that would be difficult to establish, but I had to mention it as a possibility to be eliminated.
Fair enough.
-
@bolobaby
@Smokin Joe
I like the analysis bolobaby.
I'd add an observation, for what it's worth...
That Challenger is a performance car. Of course it was going fast a block or two away. If I was behind the wheel of such a car, I'd be honkin on it all the time.
A guy that owns such a car is going to be proud of it, and care for it. It's a pseudo-classic.
It is a caution flag for me when folks say he took THAT car, likely his baby, and intentionally (with premeditation) caused it's destruction.
I'd never do that. If I meant to do it, I'd buy a $400 beater-with-a-heater, a big tuna-boat of some kind, that I didn't care a bit about, and stash my ride nearby for the get-away.
I think you are right-on to question the knee-jerk motive that has been assigned.
JMO
-
His membership in the nazi party group will be problematic for this scenario.
No argument here. It will.
-
@bolobaby
@Smokin Joe
I like the analysis bolobaby.
I'd add an observation, for what it's worth...
That Challenger is a performance car.
That one isn't. He had the 2010 base model with V-6. Not rated highly.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2010-dodge-challenger-se-v6-short-take-road-test
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/dodge/challenger/2010/
http://www.carbuzz.com/m/Article.aspx?Id=40543
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
That video was strange. It seemed to show the car traveling slowly through the crowd, finally stopping and then backing up. Is that what happed or did they just reverse the video?
-
I wonder if anyone ever stopped to consider that the term alt right wasn't in use anywhere in the media in 2015 and early 2016? And that originally, alternative right was a term used by Steve Bannon to describe a new breed of young republican as apposed to the old guard.
It had nothing to do with race until the left appropriated it to mean anything from racist to anti Semitic, nationalist, white supremacist etc.
And republicans just meekly accept the theft of language to be used by the left as a political bludgeon. Welcome to PC hell, folks.
Thanks for the post. I've been trying to figure out what the heck people mean by alt right. You've shed some light.
-
That video was strange. It seemed to show the car traveling slowly through the crowd, finally stopping and then backing up. Is that what happed or did they just reverse the video?
@Emjay
It seems he drove slowly down the street. Braked at one point almost to a stop and then accelerated into the crowd. He stopped when he hit the other car and then backed out at a pretty high rate.
At least that's my interpretation
-
Per my previous post, here is a video close up to show just how fast he ran into those people, and they were hitting the car with the bat during and after the attack. The hitting was a reaction, not a provocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFR-iHmTWVo
Problem is, they are attacking his car with bats AFTER the collision – which would explain why he reversed out of there at high-speed. Various still photos posted here show the car undamaged as it approached. In this video, you can tell he was arriving at some speed, as the tires 'chirp' when he goes through the dip in the intersection. Someone on the side of the road hits his car with a flagpole, as it goes by. That may have prompted the speed up.
Unedited - some language....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WoxiLH2mh-w
-
Problem is, they are attacking his car with bats AFTER the collision – which would explain why he reversed out of there at high-speed. Various still photos posted here show the car undamaged as it approached. In this video, you can tell he was arriving at some speed, as the tires 'chirp' when he goes through the dip in the intersection. Someone on the side of the road hits his car with a flagpole, as it goes by. That may have prompted the speed up.
Unedited - some language....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WoxiLH2mh-w
Funny how they are mad at the cops for not being there. Before the event they are all about anarchy.
-
That one isn't. He had the 2010 base model with V-6. Not rated highly.
Sure sounded like it had pipes to me in one of the vids... doesn't matter. My observation remains.
I am no ruling out crazy, it just doesn't seem to me that a guy would do that intentionally, wrecking his own car, miles away from home.
It doesn't make sense. Maybe he was just that fanatical. Maybe something else.
-
Sure sounded like it had pipes to me in one of the vids... doesn't matter. My observation remains.
I am no ruling out crazy, it just doesn't seem to me that a guy would do that intentionally, wrecking his own car, miles away from home.
It doesn't make sense. Maybe he was just that fanatical. Maybe something else.
You can believe his electronic devices have been seized and they are combing through his communications to see if there are any discussions of intentions prior to the event. Unless they have something like that or a statement from him, they're going to be hard-pressed to prove intent. My guess is negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
-
If you look at some of the videos that show him up the hill, he took a three block running start at them with no one around. He had many safe places to turn off or turn around or could have backed up. His actions in no way appear as to be someone in danger trying to flee. That was an attack not much different than recent Isis terrorist actions using vehicles to run into crowds.
There is the possibility he didn't realize there were cars in the street and he thought he could scatter people like a flock of pigeons with out the intention of hurting anyone. But the people down there had no place to go to avoid him and he had no way to avoid them at that point.
-
Problem is, they are attacking his car with bats AFTER the collision – which would explain why he reversed out of there at high-speed. Various still photos posted here show the car undamaged as it approached. In this video, you can tell he was arriving at some speed, as the tires 'chirp' when he goes through the dip in the intersection. Someone on the side of the road hits his car with a flagpole, as it goes by. That may have prompted the speed up.
Unedited - some language....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WoxiLH2mh-w
Great analysis of the video.
-
The desire to protect a degenerate POS from the full consequences of his actions on this thread is disgusting.
Well said.
-
You can believe his electronic devices have been seized and they are combing through his communications to see if there are any discussions of intentions prior to the event. Unless they have something like that or a statement from him, they're going to be hard-pressed to prove intent. My guess is negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
Sure... all that, except I don't rightly care to predict where it will end up. I'm just going to reserve judgement till I know a little more. The vids are inflammatory and not particularly evidence beyond the deed itself. I will wait for something resembling an official report.
If this was done with malice aforethought, I will join the hue and cry.
-
Can we just have the friggin' trial? All this speculation is pointless, the truth will come out.
And if he's guilty, he fries.
Or he will be rail roaded as some disgusting lawyers desire.
-
How many real Nazis do you think there are in this country today?
Counting, you me , everyone else posting here according to kasick/msn/...and the left.... 66 million Nazis.
-
The video clearly shows he was not surrounded until he plowed into the people he hated so very very much.
Actually, every vid I have seen show's he was surrounded by leftist antifa/blam terrorist . Including an attack before he accelerated to get away.
Maybe you prefer him dragged out of his car by these antifa/blam terrorist.. another Reginald Denny?
I do not care what his personal views are... the lefts antifa/blm have proven how violent they are ..coast to coast. This man has civil rights too as well as Constitutional rights.
Personally, given the facts I see.. I will not jump on the MSN antifa/BLM bandwagon, and railroad justice on this.
-
I think he will get off.
-
I think he will get off.
Depends where they try him.
-
I think he will get off.
Unless some camera hound lawyer like Geragos or someone like that steps forward, there will probably be a plea deal. There's usually someone who steps in when cases are so high profile.
-
Unless some camera hound lawyer like Geragos or someone like that steps forward, there will probably be a plea deal.
Most likely, what.. they charged him with second degree murder? That is a very far reach. At most it is vehicular manslaughter. Most likely a plea to negligent homicide.
Or the disgusting will prevail, and he will be hung on the Mall at noon with a statue of General Lee tied to his feet.
Sad really, as he is most likely innocent of any charge.... but self preservation.
-
Unless some camera hound lawyer like Geragos or someone like that steps forward, there will probably be a plea deal. There's usually someone who steps in when cases are so high profile.
Most likely, what.. they charged him with second degree murder? That is a very far reach. At most it is vehicular manslaughter. Most likely a plea to negligent homicide.
Or the disgusting will prevail, and he will be hung on the Mall at noon with a statue of General Lee tied to his feet.
Sad really, as he is most likely innocent of any charge.... but self preservation.
Agreed. The guy is being railroaded. They need a face to pin the event on. I hope he gets off.
-
Agreed. The guy is being railroaded. They need a face to pin the event on. I hope he gets off.
No way. He's guilty of SOMETHING, I'm just not sure what yet. It's a question of intent.
In order for me to say "he should get off" the vehicle would have had to have been breached. That *obviously* did not happen, therefore his actions are clearly excessive and criminal.
Again - to me, it's a question of whether or not it was a heat of the moment reaction, in which case the crime is Involuntary Manslaughter.
Edit: And, actually, there is a very good argument that he shouldn't have gone down that street in the first place, which could easily escalate the charge to Voluntary Manslaughter. Premeditation is required for greater charges, and I have yet to see any evidence of that.
-
Angry Crowd with Bats and stuff blocking the street....I'm running their butts over. He's Not guilty
-
Angry Crowd with Bats and stuff blocking the street....I'm running their butts over. He's Not guilty.
One of the problems he's going to have is the fact the other cars were surrounded, moving, and not being damaged by the crowd. It'll be interesting to see what statements the vehicle occupants give about the situation as things progress.
In this 2013 incident, the driver was not charged and found to be acting in defense of his own and his family's safety. The motorcyclists were found to be engaging in unlawful and unsafe behavior, causing the incident. We'll see how things bear out in this case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I5NjtAY8rSQ
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/10/01/nypd-suspects-sought-in-attack-on-suv-driver/
-
Angry Crowd with Bats and stuff blocking the street....I'm running their butts over. He's Not guilty
Yep.
-
One of the problems he's going to have is the fact the other cars were surrounded, moving, and not being damaged by the crowd. It'll be interesting to see what statements the vehicle occupants give about the situation as things progress.
In this 2013 incident, the driver was not charged and found to be acting in defense of his own and his family's safety. The motorcyclists were found to be engaging in unlawful and unsafe behavior, causing the incident. We'll see how things bear out in this case.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I5NjtAY8rSQ
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/10/01/nypd-suspects-sought-in-attack-on-suv-driver/
He would have no prior knowledge of that. Only the treat..well known and presented here too by the violent leftist antifa/blam(they shoot).
As for the cars stopped.. you bring up an interesting point, were they owned by leftist and used as a blockade?
-
All I ever need to ever see.
(http://fampz.abroaderperspect.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/denny-beating2.jpg)
(http://i.makeagif.com/media/5-22-2015/Ebz2Oe.gif)
-
Agreed. The guy is being railroaded. They need a face to pin the event on. I hope he gets off.
Don't know you except by what I see of you on these pages and I gotta tell you, some of the things you say are bizarre. I never know when you're being serious though. Seriously. So I would appreciate it if you could give a heads up when you're being sincere, a warning if you will. I suggest when you're about to say something with a straight face that you tag the front of the comment with /s. That would spare me a lot of unnecessary disorientation and confusion. Thanks in advance.
-
Don't know you except by what I see of you on these pages and I gotta tell you, some of the things you say are bizarre. I never know when you're being serious though. Seriously. So I would appreciate it if you could give a heads up when you're being sincere, a warning if you will. I suggest when you're about to say something with a straight face that you tag the front of the comment with /s. That would spare me a lot of unnecessary disorientation and confusion. Thanks in advance.
AC. I am pleased to meet you. But puzzling and disorientating and confusing you is the nature of my game.
-
AC. I am pleased to meet you. But puzzling and disorientating and confusing you is the nature of my game.
:beer:
-
AC. I am pleased to meet you. But puzzling and disorientating and confusing you is the nature of my game.
Solves the debate about who killed the Kennedys.
-
Solves the debate about who killed the Kennedys.
When after all it was you and me.
-
All I ever need to ever see.
(http://fampz.abroaderperspect.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/denny-beating2.jpg)
(http://i.makeagif.com/media/5-22-2015/Ebz2Oe.gif)
Irrelevant, counselor, poignant, but irrelevant.
The facts:
He was operating the vehicle. The assumption he was in full control will be a matter for the court.
His vehicle plowed into a crowd with significant force, and either in that impact or in extricating his vehicle (presumably under his control) people were injured and one died of those injuries she sustained.
Motive is a matter for the court to ascertain, and whether there was intent, rationality was crippled by fear, or there was an accident are findings yet to be made.
At a minimum, without political complications, I see involuntary vehicular manslaughter. At the other end of the spectrum, Murder 1. The final charges, and I predict either a conviction or a ruling of insanity, will likely fall in between. I do not think the young man will walk.
-
One of the problems he's going to have is the fact the other cars were surrounded, moving, and not being damaged by the crowd. It'll be interesting to see what statements the vehicle occupants give about the situation as things progress.
Hate to say it, but if the drivers of the other cars were minorities then perhaps the crowd gave them a pass. White males did get singled out more than once that day.
https://www.youtube.com/v/qFR-iHmTWVo
Do I think the kid was guilty. Good chance of it. Do I think he took a 3 block run and start at them, nope, In 3 blocks I can get my little truck with half the horsepower 4X that speed. But he did seem he was definitely going faster than what was safe in a crowd to drive that final block.
I am like a lot of folks here, if he wanted to do more damage he could of simply swerved to the side. Was he in his right mind, who knows, obviously someone that belongs to such a group is not right to begin with. But he sure straightened up enough to back up at speed with some driving flair.
Evidence shows a lot of stuff will have to be explained if he expect not to do some major time. He might of hotheaded it into the area, but only at the last second completely lose his cool after being hit with the bat, but that is a stretch.
P.S. Don't waste your time calling me a Nazi Trump sympathizer. I am just throwing thoughts out to be bounced around. Bite me if I tick you off.
-
P.S. Don't waste your time calling me a Nazi Trump sympathizer. I am just throwing thoughts out to be bounced around. Bite me if I tick you off.
A little confused as to what I may have posted previously that would lead to to believe I may, but OK.
-
A little confused as to what I may have posted previously that would lead to to believe I may, but OK.
FWIW, I think sometimes posts-comments are generalized, and not meant as a comment directly to another poster even though they are quoted.
I thought @Sighlass was talking to me. :laugh:
-
FWIW, I think sometimes posts-comments are generalized, and not meant as a comment directly to another poster even though they are quoted.
I thought @Sighlass was talking to me. :laugh:
Exactly! Happens often.
-
At a minimum, without political complications, I see involuntary vehicular manslaughter. At the other end of the spectrum, Murder 1. The final charges, and I predict either a conviction or a ruling of insanity, will likely fall in between. I do not think the young man will walk.
YEP. I don't think it's a walk. Nor that it should be (barring some extenuating circumstance like an epileptic fit or something).
-
Do I think the kid was guilty. Good chance of it. Do I think he took a 3 block run and start at them, nope, In 3 blocks I can get my little truck with half the horsepower 4X that speed. But he did seem he was definitely going faster than what was safe in a crowd to drive that final block.
I am like a lot of folks here, if he wanted to do more damage he could of simply swerved to the side. Was he in his right mind, who knows, obviously someone that belongs to such a group is not right to begin with. But he sure straightened up enough to back up at speed with some driving flair.
Evidence shows a lot of stuff will have to be explained if he expect not to do some major time. He might of hotheaded it into the area, but only at the last second completely lose his cool after being hit with the bat, but that is a stretch.
That's about right Sighlass.
-
Trump already said he was a murderer.
-
A little confused as to what I may have posted previously that would lead to to believe I may, but OK.
@edpc @bigheadfred Yeah, it was undirectional by the time I got around to stating it, I did read the previous sections of the debate and someone said something and I didn't remember who or even what, but just saying I post what I think no matter what someone thinks about it. Just didn't want to get tied down in what I consider as schematics stuff. We all throw out opinions, some I agree with, some I don't, but the side muck sometimes goes center stage for no good reason IMHO.
IOWs don't sweat it, it wasn't personal.
-
My question is where did the baseball bats come from and who had them.....
How about how come this dirtbag has an aerosol can with him at a rally? Seems premeditated as much to kill or maim as any baseball bat. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHDsTOuUwAAT4u9.jpg:small)
-
Bullsh*t. He took a running head start and plowed into people. Just 'cause you don't kill the theoretical maximum doesn't prove you weren't trying to kill at all.
Think this guy was trying to kill anybody? Not a defensive weapon, but an offensive weapon.
Wonder how he could justify bringing an aerosol can with him to a rally if he was not contemplating premeditated murder or assault?(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHDsTOuUwAAT4u9.jpg:small)
-
All I ever need to ever see.
(http://fampz.abroaderperspect.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/denny-beating2.jpg)
(http://i.makeagif.com/media/5-22-2015/Ebz2Oe.gif)
Anyone in this video that beat that man got to trial and convicted?
-
Anyone in this video that beat that man got to trial and convicted?
Yes - four of them......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny
-
Yes - four of them......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny
I read that. Seems for almost beating a man to death, the sentences were very light, except for one of them, who received a ten year sentence but got off in 4. That thug should have been in longer, as he was convicted of murder of another human. Her remains in jail.
-
I read that. Seems for almost beating a man to death, the sentences were very light, except for one of them, who received a ten year sentence but got off in 4. That thug should have been in longer, as he was convicted of murder of another human. Her remains in jail.
He has some issues with tinnitus and vision, but physically recovered fairly well from such damage. He doesn't bear the assailants any ill will. He's a better person than I am.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KLT3TUultt0
-
Think this guy was trying to kill anybody? Not a defensive weapon, but an offensive weapon.
Wonder how he could justify bringing an aerosol can with him to a rally if he was not contemplating premeditated murder or assault?(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHDsTOuUwAAT4u9.jpg:small)
No, I don't think he was planning to murder someone; however, if he ended up causing someone's death using that thing, he'd still get convicted of murder for it.
As far as premeditation goes, it can happen in the last few seconds before the fatal act is done. It doesn't take much to find premeditation.
-
He has some issues with tinnitus and vision, but physically recovered fairly well from such damage. He doesn't bear the assailants any ill will. He's a better person than I am.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KLT3TUultt0
Yeah. He is. As a truck driver, there went his career with the vision issues. I would have been waiting for those boys when they got out.
-
No, I don't think he was planning to murder someone; however, if he ended up causing someone's death using that thing, he'd still get convicted of murder for it.
As far as premeditation goes, it can happen in the last few seconds before the fatal act is done. It doesn't take much to find premeditation.
Of course he would be convicted of murder using a flamethrower. That is a clear willful act. An act of terrorism, and certainly one of denying Civil rights. He was under no threat, he was the one making the treat.
Just like the ones who attacked the man in the car.....they were the aggressors. They are called antifa/blm. Fascist leftist terrorist.
I see no "premeditation" on the part of the innocent driver...only reacting to the willful terroristic violence of the antifa/blm mob. Personally I , feel he not only acted as a reasonable person would in that environment. But also acted with admirable restraint.
-
IOWs don't sweat it, it wasn't personal.
No problem. I fix broken medical equipment for a living. People yell at me all the time.
-
No problem. I fix broken medical equipment for a living. People yell at me all the time.
Only when the oxygen is working again..... :smokin:
-
Of course he would be convicted of murder using a flamethrower. That is a clear willful act. An act of terrorism, and certainly one of denying Civil rights. He was under no threat, he was the one making the treat.
Just like the ones who attacked the man in the car.....they were the aggressors. They are called antifa/blm. Fascist leftist terrorist.
I see no "premeditation" on the part of the innocent driver...only reacting to the willful terroristic violence of the antifa/blm mob. Personally I , feel he not only acted as a reasonable person would in that environment. But also acted with admirable restraint.
I see premeditation on the part of the driver - the last minute, when he made the decision to use his car as a weapon. He formed sufficient intent to kill at that point to make him guilty of murder.
That you continue to defend this rotting piece of sh#t absolutely astounds me. What happened, you can't find the new tor router address for the stormfront website?
-
No, I don't think he was planning to murder someone; however, if he ended up causing someone's death using that thing, he'd still get convicted of murder for it.
As far as premeditation goes, it can happen in the last few seconds before the fatal act is done. It doesn't take much to find premeditation.
So not premeditated, bringing an can of hairspray or deodorant to a protest? Right.......
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHDsTOuUwAAT4u9.jpg:small)
What everyone is missing is the beautiful flower. So happy.... and in full bloom. A happy place. 888high58888
-
That you continue to defend this rotting piece of sh#t absolutely astounds me. What happened, you can't find the new tor router address for the stormfront website?
Opps..... Trigger warning.....
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9d/1a/69/9d1a693dcb8d83ae47e480702a4c6589--paint-horses-dale-evans.jpg)
Sorry 'Bout that Oceander, I surely did not mean to ruffle your ANTIFA sensibilities. See Oceander..we can both do that, but why? Understand that decent people do disagree with you.
-
What everyone is missing is the beautiful flower. So happy.... and in full bloom. A happy place. 888high58888
The guy does not look happy...maybe a case of Cross pollination........ ****sheep****
-
Opps..... Trigger warning.....
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9d/1a/69/9d1a693dcb8d83ae47e480702a4c6589--paint-horses-dale-evans.jpg)
Sorry 'Bout that Oceander, I surely did not mean to ruffle your ANTIFA sensibilities. See Oceander..we can both do that, but why? Understand that decent people do disagree with you.
@Fantom
Personally, I completely get the fact that decent people disagree.
But defend Nazis? No. And hell no.
-
Personally, I completely get the fact that decent people disagree.
But defend Nazis? No. And hell no.
I'd rather have them out there and known. It gives me an opportunity to know who they are, what they stand for, and who to avoid. Antifa, on the other hand, hide like cowards behind masks and hoodies. If their cause of fighting fascism and racism is so noble, why conceal yourself?
-
The guy does not look happy...maybe a case of Cross pollination........ ****sheep****
He was dusted.
-
@Fantom
Personally, I completely get the fact that decent people disagree.
But defend Nazis? No. And hell no.
I have no proof he was a Nazi. Even so, if he was .. he still has rights. As I have yet to see any burning/looting or shooting cops from whomever the white rally participants are, and plenty of violence from the leftist fascist antifa/blam(they shoot). Including throwing IEDS at innocent peoples.
Well, whatever his personal views are, I will look at the facts that he was being attacked and responded appropriately...like any reasonable person surrounded by violent/mob would.
I will not "kneejerk" at the leftist meme of calling anyone they hate a Nazi.
Sorry if that bothers you.
-
I can only hope he is tried in court for his actions and not his ideology. Nor should the ideology of the court enter in. Juries, on the other hand, can be strange animals and do make judgments based on their ideology rather than the facts. This should be an interesting trial.
-
I can only hope he is tried in court for his actions and not his ideology. Nor should the ideology of the court enter in. Juries, on the other hand, can be strange animals and do make judgments based on their ideology rather than the facts. This should be an interesting trial.
Points to motive. Any worthwhile prosecutor will bring in witnesses who have heard him make threats based on views and include any postings he may have online.
-
I have no proof he was a Nazi. Even so, if he was .. he still has rights. As I have yet to see any burning/looting or shooting cops from whomever the white rally participants are, and plenty of violence from the leftist fascist antifa/blam(they shoot). Including throwing IEDS at innocent peoples.
Well, whatever his personal views are, I will look at the facts that he was being attacked and responded appropriately...like any reasonable person surrounded by violent/mob would.
I will not "kneejerk" at the leftist meme of calling anyone they hate a Nazi.
Sorry if that bothers you.
@Fantom
Oh, okay, I just pulled Nazi out of the air because that's what I label everybody. Yeah.
What bothers me is conservatives defending a Nazi, or at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them. The information is out there if you want it. But it seems we've descended to the point that we'll defend anyone, no matter how heinous, as long as BLM or Antifa is standing on the other side.
-
Points to motive. Any worthwhile prosecutor will bring in witnesses who have heard him make threats based on views and include any postings he may have online.
More to character maybe. A really good defense attorney would try to dedemonize the demonizing of the prosecution. There would be the question of relevance. In the plea deal. Or in the instructions to the jury for a lesser included charge.
-
@Fantom
Oh, okay, I just pulled Nazi out of the air because that's what I label everybody. Yeah.
What bothers me is conservatives defending a Nazi, or at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them. The information is out there if you want it. But it seems we've descended to the point that we'll defend anyone, no matter how heinous, as long as BLM or Antifa is standing on the other side.
To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them.
Everyone?
(https://theunwrittenrecord.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/forrest-wallace.jpg)
-
More to character maybe. A really good defense attorney would try to dedemonize the demonizing of the prosecution. There would be the question of relevance. In the plea deal. Or in the instructions to the jury for a lesser included charge.
So far, it's the public defender for him. They're generally looking for plea deals. However, it would not surprise me if some camera hound, high-priced attorney took the case, due to its high profile nature.
-
@Fantom
Oh, okay, I just pulled Nazi out of the air because that's what I label everybody. Yeah.
What bothers me is conservatives defending a Nazi, or at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them. The information is out there if you want it. But it seems we've descended to the point that we'll defend anyone, no matter how heinous, as long as BLM or Antifa is standing on the other side.
Strip the politics out of the events.
I can't defend intentionally running down anyone in the street without that being a clear response to a lethal threat, and as far as I can tell, there was no lethal threat being posed by those that guy hit.
As for the rest, it becomes a question of who had the permit to have their little shindig, and who did not. Apparently, one group did, the other did not.
If they had a permit, they had the Right to have that assembly, peacefully, without breaking any laws. That does not, nor should it imply that the message involved, that their symbols will not be offensive to anyone, as long as they do not break any laws, they are within their right to show those without molestation.
When people start threatening, hurling containers of bodily fluids and noxious substances, or projectiles, or otherwise molesting those who are abiding by the law, those people have infringed on the Rights of the people thus attacked, regardless of which groups are involved. Those people attacked, by statute and convention, have a Right to defend themselves, proportional to the nature of the attack, and hopefully with less onerous means than the attackers' methods. For the most part, defensive devices appear to have been used by the group which was attacked, (although a shield can be used offensively, its primary purpose is to protect, not offend, and if used in an offensive manner (other than to the sensibilities over its decoration), the subject of that must be at close quarters indeed, provided the user retains possession of the shield).
Those utilizing projectiles, thrown containers of bodily fluids, fire, and finally clubs and other means could attack from further away, and apparently did.
As has been said my right to swing my fist ends where someone else begins. That isn't dependent on ideology, political party, religion, color, etc., it applies to everyone.
Whether or not we like it, one group attacked another.
Even more onerous is that those charged with keeping the peace pushed the two groups into further confrontation.
Worse yet, is that that appears to have been done for political gain by the carpetbagger in charge in Richmond, or on his orders.
I don't like any of the groups involved, they soil, imho, the very memory commemorated by the monuments to Southern Heritage they allegedly were there to protest or promote the removal of. But in legal terms, in terms of Rights, one group appears to have had theirs violated by the other, and wherever those chips may fall that does not imply any approval of the ideologies involved.
-
@Fantom
Oh, okay, I just pulled Nazi out of the air because that's what I label everybody. Yeah.
What bothers me is conservatives defending a Nazi, or at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them. The information is out there if you want it. But it seems we've descended to the point that we'll defend anyone, no matter how heinous, as long as BLM or Antifa is standing on the other side.
Do you identify as a Leftist? Because my post specifically mentioned that leftist call everyone they disagree with "Nazis". I mean, it is ok..sorta' ...to out oneself. :tongue2:
Placing that snark aside.
Perhaps my first reply to you was too short on where I am coming from, and conceptualization. This is often a problem on the net.. we do not generally take enough time.
Lets look at your argument, last first as is my wont.
For the sake of argument, lets say that this driver was Hitlers nephew. Can you really make the argument that "Nazis" are anything but a very small disenfranchised group with no real power? The leftist fascist attack dogs..antifa/blam(they shoot, six cops just today) are not a far greater threat to freedom in America..for all People.
They have the power of the democrat/media/propaganda behind them. I would not further that nonsense.
Now onto the Rally... would you be so kind to show me the info that it was a Nazi rally? Not that it matters much as they were peaceful until attacked by far worse. Most pictures/vid I have seen show people I would call pretty much normal. I am sure there were a few nutters/skinheads and such. But on par, a tiki march with faces barred ... a peaceful march at that, is far more commendable than masked leftist antifa/blam(they shoot) fascist attacking.
Likewise, to use your logic, the woman killed in this was one of the lefts fascist terrorist as she was there to support them, whether or not she actually had a bat, flamethorwer or IED's. Useful fool or no, she was one of the lefts terrorist who caused this violence.
One of the things that disturbs me, and leads me to write on this , is the media vids..granted I have only caught a few on fox..figure the rest are even more deceitful.
Deceitful, how one might ask. Well... I see the end where the car hits the cars that are blocking the road(antifa/blam blockade?) I see the car backing up quickly. What I don't see is the attack at the beginning on the car/driver nor the part where the antifa/blam terrorist come running up in pursuit with baseball bats and attack.
Strange, they edit all that out..."peaceful counter protestors"...my ass.
failure to tell the truth..in fact mask the truth for a narrative, is a sure way to make me consider the narrative is false.
-
So far, it's the public defender for him. They're generally looking for plea deals. However, it would not surprise me if some camera hound, high-priced attorney took the case, due to its high profile nature.
Also, this public defender could see this as a springboard. Flinging him over the public defender-city/county prosecutor-incompetent magistrate cycle found throughout these United Staes, and into a position of legitimate attorney. A career defining chance.
-
Also, this public defender could see this as a springboard. Flinging him over the public defender-city/county prosecutor-incompetent magistrate cycle found throughout these United Staes, and into a position of legitimate attorney. A career defining chance.
True enough, but all those guys eat lunch at the same places...sometimes together.
-
Also, this public defender could see this as a springboard. Flinging him over the public defender-city/county prosecutor-incompetent magistrate cycle found throughout these United Staes, and into a position of legitimate attorney. A career defining chance.
Not out of the realm of possibility and I truly believe everyone deserves the best defense they can get. However, I can't imagine the threats someone would get if they got him acquitted.
-
So far, it's the public defender for him. They're generally looking for plea deals. However, it would not surprise me if some camera hound, high-priced attorney took the case, due to its high profile nature.
Is there any defense fund set up? I would donate just to make sure this is not swept "under the rug".
Would love to see a full airing of all vids and discovery of antifa/blam financers.
-
True enough, but all those guys eat lunch at the same places...sometimes together.
They eat lunch together all the time. Bosom buddies. I think this trial should be moved. Probably off planet. He can also request competent legal counsel. Someone with the experience to handle a case such as this and not be stuck with the next name on the PD list.
If he is such a Nazi the boys over at Stormfront should get him an attorney.
-
Is there any defense fund set up? I would donate just to make sure this is not swept "under the rug".
Would love to see a full airing of all vids and discovery of antifa/blam financers.
A lot of people may feel the same way, but would fear having the donation list hacked and doxxed.
-
Not out of the realm of possibility and I truly believe everyone deserves the best defense they can get. However, I can't imagine the threats someone would get if they got him acquitted.
I can. I've seen that movie before.
-
I can. I've seen that movie before.
ummm....the best offense...???
LOL
Sure.....everyone knows the best defense is a good offense. ^-^
Siri heard what she wanted to hear. I should know better than to trust it and proofread better. Fortunately, we have a modify feature here.
-
A lot of people may feel the same way, but would fear having the donation list hacked and doxxed.
Amazing right, the power of the fascist left.
And some people kneejerk whenever the lefts yells "Nazi"..how high they jump.
-
Apparently, if you reread my last post, I misread yours. :laugh:
-
Yes, @edpc, WE can control the narrative...
-
Apparently, if you reread my last post, I misread yours. :laugh:
No, you were correct. It originally said offense. :thud:
I went 'back in time' with the modify feature use.
-
No, you were correct. It originally said offense. :thud:
I went 'back in time' with the modify feature use.
ssshhh!!! there may be others listening
I went back in time and edited your original post in my reply. It now says defense. A couple more edits and we could be...we could be...CNN
-
@Fantom
Oh, okay, I just pulled Nazi out of the air because that's what I label everybody. Yeah.
What bothers me is conservatives defending a Nazi, or at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them. The information is out there if you want it. But it seems we've descended to the point that we'll defend anyone, no matter how heinous, as long as BLM or Antifa is standing on the other side.
Who is we? And who are you mad at now? Is it still Trump and are you saying Trump defended Nazis? Simply because Trump said there is blame on both sides?
I hope you're not denying that there was blame on both sides.
-
To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them.
Everyone?
(https://theunwrittenrecord.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/forrest-wallace.jpg)
@bigheadfred
Okay, let me amend that. If you're taking part in a Nazi rally/marching with them/willing to ally yourself with those "traditional-minded Americans", as someone put it to me recently, you may not BE a Nazi. But you're nobody I would have to dinner or even allow on my front porch. Then again, you may be open to some of their well-known agenda, and if you're willing to march alongside them in that case, yeah, you're no better and you might as well have a membership card.
I recognize George Wallace in that photo, but otherwise I don't know the significance of it.
-
@bigheadfred
I recognize George Wallace in that photo, but otherwise I don't know the significance of it.
:silly: :silly:
-
Well, raccoons tried to get on our back porch - mama just chased 'em off with a broom...
-
@bigheadfred
Okay, let me amend that. If you're taking part in a Nazi rally/marching with them/willing to ally yourself with those "traditional-minded Americans", as someone put it to me recently, you may not BE a Nazi. But you're nobody I would have to dinner or even allow on my front porch. Then again, you may be open to some of their well-known agenda, and if you're willing to march alongside them in that case, yeah, you're no better and you might as well have a membership card.
I recognize George Wallace in that photo, but otherwise I don't know the significance of it.
I have a feeling some of the people at that event were there to protest the removal of a statue only. The picture is from "Forrest Gump". A person too stupid to realize what he was getting into.
-
Strip the politics out of the events.
I can't defend intentionally running down anyone in the street without that being a clear response to a lethal threat, and as far as I can tell, there was no lethal threat being posed by those that guy hit.
As for the rest, it becomes a question of who had the permit to have their little shindig, and who did not. Apparently, one group did, the other did not.
If they had a permit, they had the Right to have that assembly, peacefully, without breaking any laws. That does not, nor should it imply that the message involved, that their symbols will not be offensive to anyone, as long as they do not break any laws, they are within their right to show those without molestation.
When people start threatening, hurling containers of bodily fluids and noxious substances, or projectiles, or otherwise molesting those who are abiding by the law, those people have infringed on the Rights of the people thus attacked, regardless of which groups are involved. Those people attacked, by statute and convention, have a Right to defend themselves, proportional to the nature of the attack, and hopefully with less onerous means than the attackers' methods. For the most part, defensive devices appear to have been used by the group which was attacked, (although a shield can be used offensively, its primary purpose is to protect, not offend, and if used in an offensive manner (other than to the sensibilities over its decoration), the subject of that must be at close quarters indeed, provided the user retains possession of the shield).
Those utilizing projectiles, thrown containers of bodily fluids, fire, and finally clubs and other means could attack from further away, and apparently did.
As has been said my right to swing my fist ends where someone else begins. That isn't dependent on ideology, political party, religion, color, etc., it applies to everyone.
Whether or not we like it, one group attacked another.
Even more onerous is that those charged with keeping the peace pushed the two groups into further confrontation.
Worse yet, is that that appears to have been done for political gain by the carpetbagger in charge in Richmond, or on his orders.
I don't like any of the groups involved, they soil, imho, the very memory commemorated by the monuments to Southern Heritage they allegedly were there to protest or promote the removal of. But in legal terms, in terms of Rights, one group appears to have had theirs violated by the other, and wherever those chips may fall that does not imply any approval of the ideologies involved.
@Smokin Joe
Yes, but none of that is what I take issue with or what my posts have been addressing. As much as I despise a Nazi, yeah, his free-speech rights are no different than anyone else's. That's a given and something that should go without saying, to my mind at least.
My problem is the knee jerk impulse to jump to the defense of a Nazi because Antifa/BLM is standing on the other side. Saying the guy should walk free, or a defense fund should be set up, or he was just a nice young man who was afraid his car's paint job would be damaged (yes, that WAS posted), is inexcusable.
One poster was told about the guy's physical abuse of his handicapped mother---hitting her, pulling a knife on her---and the response was, "Well, maybe he was headed in the wrong direction."
Yes, just a bit...to the point of murder.
It's just more kneejerk binary thinking that says, well, Antifa and BLM are over here, and no one can be as bad as them, so let me come in for the opposite side.
The problem is, someone CAN be as bad. Nazis are in that category. They ALL suck, they all deserve each other. It's not that hard.
-
I have a feeling some of the people at that event were there to protest the removal of a statue only. The picture is from "Forrest Gump". A person too stupid to realize what he was getting into.
@bigheadfred
If you're protesting something and Nazis show up, you leave. You don't ally yourself with them or be willing to give the appearance that you are.
-
I have a feeling some of the people at that event were there to protest the removal of a statue only. The picture is from "Forrest Gump". A person too stupid to realize what he was getting into.
@bigheadfred
Oh, okay, when I glanced at it, I didn't see Tom Hanks. I don't think I could sit through that movie again.
-
@bigheadfred
If you're protesting something and Nazis show up, you leave. You don't ally yourself with them or be willing to give the appearance that you are.
NO! You do not allow them to control you! Not ever!
If you throw a party and uninvited guests appear do you shut down the party or just remove the uninvited?
-
Who is we? And who are you mad at now? Is it still Trump and are you saying Trump defended Nazis? Simply because Trump said there is blame on both sides?
I hope you're not denying that there was blame on both sides.
"Who are you mad at now?"
@Emjay, I'm not about to waste my time indulging your personal issues with me, so you might as well stop chumming.
-
@bigheadfred
Oh, okay, when I glanced at it, I didn't see Tom Hanks. I don't think I could sit through that movie again.
Welll, you kinda made my point. I think there were people at that rally who thought, oh look, Nazis. And didn't equate that they would be seen as Nazis themselves.
I agree that people should try not to be associated with extremist groups.
I admit I have zero experience with rallies or organized protests. I find on many occasions, as far as I am concerned, two is a crowd.
-
NO! You do not allow them to control you! Not ever!
If you throw a party and uninvited guests appear do you shut down the party or just remove the uninvited?
Great point @Bigun !
-
NO! You do not allow them to control you! Not ever!
If you throw a party and uninvited guests appear do you shut down the party or just remove the uninvited?
@Bigun
Look, people here talk about their grandparents going overseas to fight the Nazis. I was born to considerably older than usual parents. When I was in grade school, kids thought my mother was my grandmother. My father spent three years of his life as a teenager fighting those bastards in WWII. I didn't have my parents with me very long because of the age factor, but soon after my father's death, and against my husband's smart advice, I watched a History Channel film of the Battle of the Bulge, which my very young father at the time was in the middle of. I wish I hadn't, because now I can't forget the sounds and sights of what he went through. He came home with PTSD, as we know it today.
I will not smear the memory of my father who spent three years in hell for the sake of political tribalism or who "controls" whom. It's a matter of decency.
-
Welll, you kinda made my point. I think there were people at that rally who thought, oh look, Nazis. And didn't equate that they would be seen as Nazis themselves.
I agree that people should try not to be associated with extremist groups.
I admit I have zero experience with rallies or organized protests. I find on many occasions, as far as I am concerned, two is a crowd.
@bigheadfred
Well, if they had half sense, they should have been able to figure out they might be viewed as associated with them, if they're in there marching with them. Pretty basic.
-
@Smokin Joe
Yes, but none of that is what I take issue with or what my posts have been addressing. As much as I despise a Nazi, yeah, his free-speech rights are no different than anyone else's. That's a given and something that should go without saying, to my mind at least.
My problem is the knee jerk impulse to jump to the defense of a Nazi because Antifa/BLM is standing on the other side. Saying the guy should walk free, or a defense fund should be set up, or he was just a nice young man who was afraid his car's paint job would be damaged (yes, that WAS posted), is inexcusable.
One poster was told about the guy's physical abuse of his handicapped mother---hitting her, pulling a knife on her---and the response was, "Well, maybe he was headed in the wrong direction."
Yes, just a bit...to the point of murder.
It's just more kneejerk binary thinking that says, well, Antifa and BLM are over here, and no one can be as bad as them, so let me come in for the opposite side.
The problem is, someone CAN be as bad. Nazis are in that category. They ALL suck, they all deserve each other. It's not that hard.
What perhaps upsets me the most, is that any/every group who protests the destruction of monuments now will be colored with the actions of one troubled/demented/effed up person behind the wheel of a car and a handful of people parading around waving flags which had nothing to do with the war, or which are at most the co-opted symbols of Armies in the field. I did not see one of the Confederate political flags in any image of the riots, and frankly, I doubt that the participants on either side would have known the Flag of the Confederate States of America from any other.
All of these jerks have not just made it more difficult to retain our history, they have accelerated the destruction thereof.
An example is this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-monuments-history-trump-baltimore_us_5995a3a6e4b0d0d2cc84c952 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-monuments-history-trump-baltimore_us_5995a3a6e4b0d0d2cc84c952) by an historical illiterate who doesn't realize the first casualties on both sides in the War weren't in South Carolina, but Baltimore, MD.
The writer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jane-dailey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jane-dailey) is an Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago and is apparently unaware that the invasion of Baltimore, and Maryland by the PA and Mass Militias was greeted with rioting in the streets in opposition to another States' armies invading Maryland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861)
(Each State had its own Militia (army) prior to the War. There was a relatively small Federal Army, something well debated in The Federalist Papers, established partly to prevent the invasion of one state by another.)
People were killed on both sides: (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) )Maryland's territory surrounded the United States' capital of Washington, DC and could cut it off from the North.[94] It had numerous anti-Lincoln officials who tolerated anti-army rioting in Baltimore and the burning of bridges, both aimed at hindering the passage of troops to the South. Maryland's legislature voted overwhelmingly (53–13) to stay in the Union, but also rejected hostilities with its southern neighbors, voting to close Maryland's rail lines to prevent them from being used for war.[95] Lincoln responded by establishing martial law, and unilaterally suspending habeas corpus, in Maryland, along with sending in militia units from the North.[96] Lincoln rapidly took control of Maryland and the District of Columbia, by seizing many prominent figures, including arresting 1/3 of the members of the Maryland General Assembly on the day it reconvened.[95][97] All were held without trial, ignoring a ruling by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Roger Taney, a Maryland native, that only Congress (and not the president) could suspend habeas corpus (Ex parte Merryman). Indeed, federal troops imprisoned a prominent Baltimore newspaper editor, Frank Key Howard, Francis Scott Key's grandson, after he criticized Lincoln in an editorial for ignoring the Supreme Court Chief Justice's ruling.[98]
A glimpse of the Election map of 1860 shows where the State's sentiments lay, despite the concerted efforts of historians to diminish the egregious violation of the State by Union forces by calling Maryland a "Border State" or even claiming it was loyal to the Union.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/ElectoralCollege1860.svg/348px-ElectoralCollege1860.svg.png)
The State remained militarily occupied until well after the war, until after its very Constitution had been replaced.
The author of the Huffpo article goes into tirades about things that happened in Alabama and Mississippi to "justify" the removal of statues 1000 miles away, where first blood was shed in a war that would kill some 1.2 million Americans, more than any other war in our history. God forbid that such ignorance hiding behind credentials will be used to further lead Americans away from the reality of the past.
Of 84 listed monuments in Baltimore https://data.baltimorecity.gov/Culture-Arts/Monuments/cpxf-kxp3 (https://data.baltimorecity.gov/Culture-Arts/Monuments/cpxf-kxp3) only 4 were removed.
Despite the following:
Negro Heroes of the U.S Monument
Billie Holiday monument
Frederick Douglas monument
Thurgood Marshall monument
giving equal representation to blacks, if you will.
Yet four monuments in a City which had strong Southern ties, to those who were Confederates, were removed by the current management from the place where first blood was shed in the war, not just by armies, but by citizens fighting to keep their homes from being invaded. That is bad enough, but the removal was not to deflect controversy, nor to preserve the monuments as works of art, but as is rumored, to destroy them.
Things were far more complicated than the fable presented as a simplistic picture of events (at best, patently ignoring the complexities leading up to conflict at worst), goes without saying.
That's my grievance, admittedly, that in all this protest, the original issue of preserving monuments to our history, warts and all, has been lost. How can anyone learn from history if they don't know it?
So the destruction continues, if anything, accelerated by the cowardice of spineless politicians who will not call for an end to violence, who perhaps sympathize with those who would rewrite or erase our history, spurred by the diabolical or the ignorant, and thus diminishing the accomplishments of those whose ancestors rose from bondage as well, who could have walked past those monuments not in anger, but with the smug knowledge that they, indeed, had overcome.
-
"Who are you mad at now?"
@Emjay, I'm not about to waste my time indulging your personal issues with me, so you might as well stop chumming.
I understand. You've already wasted a lot of time with people here who are stupid enough to think that we don't call others 'nazis' without some evidence.
Everytime you tried to bolster your argument, you made it worse.
I still think your whole problem started with Trump. He said there was blame on both sides. And that is so obvious, it didn't need to be said but I'm glad he said it.
So, now we have nazis roaming the streets. Get the children to safety.
-
Here is a video for you all. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-tL6LXHaO4&t=5s
-
What perhaps upsets me the most, is that any/every group who protests the destruction of monuments now will be colored with the actions of one troubled/demented/effed up person behind the wheel of a car and a handful of people parading around waving flags which had nothing to do with the war, or which are at most the co-opted symbols of Armies in the field. I did not see one of the Confederate political flags in any image of the riots, and frankly, I doubt that the participants on either side would have known the Flag of the Confederate States of America from any other.
All of these jerks have not just made it more difficult to retain our history, they have accelerated the destruction thereof.
An example is this Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-monuments-history-trump-baltimore_us_5995a3a6e4b0d0d2cc84c952 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-monuments-history-trump-baltimore_us_5995a3a6e4b0d0d2cc84c952) by an historical illiterate who doesn't realize the first casualties on both sides in the War weren't in South Carolina, but Baltimore, MD.
The writer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jane-dailey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jane-dailey) is an Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago and is apparently unaware that the invasion of Baltimore, and Maryland by the PA and Mass Militias was greeted with rioting in the streets in opposition to another States' armies invading Maryland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861)
(Each State had its own Militia (army) prior to the War. There was a relatively small Federal Army, something well debated in The Federalist Papers, established partly to prevent the invasion of one state by another.)
People were killed on both sides: (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) )
A glimpse of the Election map of 1860 shows where the State's sentiments lay, despite the concerted efforts of historians to diminish the egregious violation of the State by Union forces by calling Maryland a "Border State" or even claiming it was loyal to the Union.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/ElectoralCollege1860.svg/348px-ElectoralCollege1860.svg.png)
The State remained militarily occupied until well after the war, until after its very Constitution had been replaced.
The author of the Huffpo article goes into tirades about things that happened in Alabama and Mississippi to "justify" the removal of statues 1000 miles away, where first blood was shed in a war that would kill some 1.2 million Americans, more than any other war in our history. God forbid that such ignorance hiding behind credentials will be used to further lead Americans away from the reality of the past.
Of 84 listed monuments in Baltimore https://data.baltimorecity.gov/Culture-Arts/Monuments/cpxf-kxp3 (https://data.baltimorecity.gov/Culture-Arts/Monuments/cpxf-kxp3) only 4 were removed.
Despite the following:
Negro Heroes of the U.S Monument
Billie Holiday monument
Frederick Douglas monument
Thurgood Marshall monument
giving equal representation to blacks, if you will.
Yet four monuments in a City which had strong Southern ties, to those who were Confederates, were removed by the current management from the place where first blood was shed in the war, not just by armies, but by citizens fighting to keep their homes from being invaded. That is bad enough, but the removal was not to deflect controversy, nor to preserve the monuments as works of art, but as is rumored, to destroy them.
Things were far more complicated than the fable presented as a simplistic picture of events (at best, patently ignoring the complexities leading up to conflict at worst), goes without saying.
That's my grievance, admittedly, that in all this protest, the original issue of preserving monuments to our history, warts and all, has been lost. How can anyone learn from history if they don't know it?
So the destruction continues, if anything, accelerated by the cowardice of spineless politicians who will not call for an end to violence, who perhaps sympathize with those who would rewrite or erase our history, spurred by the diabolical or the ignorant, and thus diminishing the accomplishments of those whose ancestors rose from bondage as well, who could have walked past those monuments not in anger, but with the smug knowledge that they, indeed, had overcome.
"Lost Causers" argument, Maryland never voted to secede, I will go with conventional historians and that's why they are said to be a border state, that or for other reasons, not obscure arguments by Lost Causers. There were certainly, many in Maryland who did not want to become involved, it be not wanting to be a part of a White Supremacist immoral society or other.
-
I understand. You've already wasted a lot of time with people here who are stupid enough to think that we don't call others 'nazis' without some evidence.
Everytime you tried to bolster your argument, you made it worse.
I still think your whole problem started with Trump. He said there was blame on both sides. And that is so obvious, it didn't need to be said but I'm glad he said it.
So, now we have nazis roaming the streets. Get the children to safety.
Yes, @Emjay, some politician/ tv show host colors my viewpoint more than my father's wartime experiences. And describing his service to his country, and what he sacrificed to fight that scum, not only fails to bolster my argument but makes it worse.
Bite me, you old wretch. And bite my father's in his grave while you're at it.
-
"Lost Causers" argument, Maryland never voted to secede, I will go with conventional historians and that's why they are said to be a border state, that or for other reasons, not obscure arguments by Lost Causers. There were certainly, many in Maryland who did not want to become involved, it be not wanting to be a part of a White Supremacist immoral society or other.
Of course they didn't. Virginia took too long, the Northern Militias invaded and 1/3 of the legislature had been imprisoned. The eventual vote that did occur was under the guns of the Union troops, and the legislature was replaced before that. A huge number of Marylanders left to fight for the South. It was an OCCUPIED state, not a 'border' state. If you want to play on mixed loyalties, look at Virginia, which was carved into two states.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/PresidentialCounty1860Colorbrewer.gif/600px-PresidentialCounty1860Colorbrewer.gif)
Lincoln responded by establishing martial law, and unilaterally suspending habeas corpus, in Maryland, along with sending in militia units from the North.[96] Lincoln rapidly took control of Maryland and the District of Columbia, by seizing many prominent figures, including arresting 1/3 of the members of the Maryland General Assembly on the day it reconvened.[95][97] All were held without trial, ignoring a ruling by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Roger Taney, a Maryland native, that only Congress (and not the president) could suspend habeas corpus (Ex parte Merryman). Indeed, federal troops imprisoned a prominent Baltimore newspaper editor, Frank Key Howard, Francis Scott Key's grandson, after he criticized Lincoln in an editorial for ignoring the Supreme Court Chief Justice's ruling.[98]
Ironically, Frank Key Howard was imprisoned in Ft. Mc Henry, without charges. In 1863 Howard wrote about his experience as a political prisoner at Fort McHenry in the book Fourteen Months in the American Bastille;[32] two of the publishers selling the book were then arrested.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861)
Land of the free, indeed.
So what happened after the confrontation in Baltimore? After the April 19 riot, some small skirmishes occurred throughout Baltimore between citizens and police for the next month, but a sense of normalcy returned as the city was cleaned up. Mayor Brown and Maryland Governor Hicks implored President Lincoln to send no further troops through Maryland to avoid further confrontations. However, as Lincoln remarked to a peace delegation from the Young Men's Christian Association, Union soldiers were neither birds to fly over Maryland, nor moles to burrow under it.[24] On the evening of April 20 Hicks also authorized Brown to dispatch the Maryland state militia for the purpose of disabling the railroad bridges into the city—an act he would later deny. One of the militia leaders was John Merryman, who was arrested one month later, and held in defiance of a writ of habeas corpus, which led to the case of Ex parte Merryman.[25]
On April 19, Major General Robert Patterson, commander of the Department of Washington (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia), ordered Brigadier General Benjamin Franklin Butler, with the 8th Massachusetts, to open and secure a route from Annapolis through Annapolis Junction to Washington. The 8th Massachusetts arrived by ship at Annapolis on April 20. Gov. Hicks and the Mayor of Annapolis protested, but Butler (a clever politician) bullied them into allowing troops to land at Annapolis, saying, "'I must land, for my troops are hungry.'—'No one in Annapolis will sell them anything,' replied these authorities of the State and city. Butler intimated that armed men were not always limited to the necessity of purchasing food when famished."[26]
The 8th Massachusetts, with the 7th New York, proceeded to Annapolis Junction (halfway between Baltimore and Washington), and the 7th New York went on to Washington, where, on the afternoon of April 25, they became the first troops to reach the capital by this route.[27]
There were calls for Maryland to declare secession in the wake of the riot. Governor Hicks called a special session of the state legislature to consider the situation. Since Annapolis, the capital, was occupied by Federal troops, and Baltimore was harboring many pro-Confederate mobs, Hicks directed the legislature to meet in Frederick, in the predominantly Unionist western part of the state. The legislature met on April 26; on April 29, it voted 53–13 against secession,[28][29] though it also voted not to reopen rail links with the North, and requested that Lincoln remove the growing numbers of federal troops in Maryland.[30] At this time the legislature seems to have wanted to maintain Maryland's neutrality in the conflict.[30]
Many more Union troops arrived. On May 13, Butler sent Union troops into Baltimore and declared martial law. He was replaced as commander of the Department of Annapolis by George Cadwalader, another Brigadier General in the United States Volunteers. Lincoln subsequently had the mayor, police chief, entire Board of Police, and the city council of Baltimore imprisoned without charges, as well as one sitting U.S. Congressman from Baltimore.[31] The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who was also a native of Maryland, ruled on June 4, 1861 in ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but Lincoln ignored the ruling...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861)
Nope, the legislature did not vote to secede, nor, as a practical matter, could it. The actions taken by the Union troops and northern Militias were far from amicable, instead were the actions of an invading and hostile invader.
Occupied countries seldom get to vote their invader to leave, and if so, only are punished until replaced.
The State was already occupied. Either out of hesitation, cowardice or perfidy, Hicks did not call the Militia to muster, nor did the legislature vote to secede, as to do so would have meant immediate imprisonment and the forfeiture of all personal title and fortunes, if not their lives. For all the publicity given Southern POW camps (esp. Andersonville) and prisons, more POWs died in the Northern POW camps despite the relative abundance of food and clothing in the North than died in the Southern camps: war crimes trials are only for those who lose.
-
@Bigun
Look, people here talk about their grandparents going overseas to fight the Nazis. I was born to considerably older than usual parents. When I was in grade school, kids thought my mother was my grandmother. My father spent three years of his life as a teenager fighting those bastards in WWII. I didn't have my parents with me very long because of the age factor, but soon after my father's death, and against my husband's smart advice, I watched a History Channel film of the Battle of the Bulge, which my very young father at the time was in the middle of. I wish I hadn't, because now I can't forget the sounds and sights of what he went through. He came home with PTSD, as we know it today.
I will not smear the memory of my father who spent three years in hell for the sake of political tribalism or who "controls" whom. It's a matter of decency.
@CatherineofAragon
Three of my mother's brothers were there with your dad! Get over your damned self!
-
"Lost Causers" argument, Maryland never voted to secede, I will go with conventional historians and that's why they are said to be a border state, that or for other reasons, not obscure arguments by Lost Causers. There were certainly, many in Maryland who did not want to become involved, it be not wanting to be a part of a White Supremacist immoral society or other.
You and you revisionist historians can all go to hades as far as I'm concerned.
-
Of course they didn't. Virginia took too long, the Northern Militias invaded and 1/3 of the legislature had been imprisoned. The eventual vote that did occur was under the guns of the Union troops, and the legislature was replaced before that. A huge number of Marylanders left to fight for the South. It was an OCCUPIED state, not a 'border' state. If you want to play on mixed loyalties, look at Virginia, which was unconstitutionally carved into two states.
If I may be so bold!
-
Yes, @Emjay, some politician/ tv show host colors my viewpoint more than my father's wartime experiences. And describing his service to his country, and what he sacrificed to fight that scum, not only fails to bolster my argument but makes it worse.
Bite me, you old wretch. And bite my father's in his grave while you're at it.
"Bite me, you old wretch"
Wow, true personality unmasked at last.
You are not the only person with parents who fought in wars.
My ancestors fought for the South... and also for the North. And against Nazis. And against communists.
I won't sink to your level with the insults.
-
I had an uncle at the Bulge too..no one in the family was allowed to mention it or ask him any thing about it...I guess he too suffered from PTSD of their time....All of my ancestors were mostly military serving this country in one branch or another.
All of us here have one thing in common..our love and respect for the military and all those who serve...let's not forget that!
-
If I may be so bold!
You may, indeed! 888high58888
-
@CatherineofAragon - that said old wretch, bite me.....
Thanks for ruining Amazing Grace for me. :0001:
-
@CatherineofAragon
Three of my mother's brothers were there with your dad! Get over your damned self!
Right, my Father was in the 45th....north Africa, Sicily, Italy-Anzio.
I still don't see much in the way of NIZIIIIIIISSSS at that event. What I do see is fascist leftist communist..I wonder how many here have brothers/Fathers who have faught them these last 60 years.
-
What's relevant is that he intentionally used his car as a weapon to kill people.
That , of course, is an opinion....not fact. Pounding the table again I see, counselor.
-
That , of course, is an opinion....not fact. Pounding the table again I see, counselor.
Nope. That is a fact. He held the brakes, waited, then gunned it. Brian Daly intent fits here perfectly.
-
Nope. That is a fact. He held the brakes, waited, then gunned it.
Then there would be burnout marks on the pavement...right. Or did he just hit the brakes because he was hit, then accelerated away from know dangerous antifa/blam terrorist?
That car was certainly capable of going much faster. Looks like you are just trying to make a narrative that facts do not support.
-
Then there would be burnout marks on the pavement...right. Or did he just hit the brakes because he was hit, then accelerated away from know dangerous antifa/blam terrorist?
That car was certainly capable of going much faster. Looks like you are just trying to make a narrative that facts do not support.
No, there wouldn't be burn out marks on the pavement. Those would only be there if he held it long enough to actually do that.
Face it. You're trying to justify the unjustiable and excuse the inexcusable.
-
I'm pulling for the Driver. He freaked. Innocent.
-
I'm pulling for the Driver. He freaked. Innocent.
Troll.
-
Then there would be burnout marks on the pavement...right.
That car was certainly capable of going much faster.
For some reason, everyone thinks he had the full power Hemi V8. His vehicle was the 2010 base model V6. Not a true muscle car.
-
Troll.
Lawyers and Trolls. Same thing.
-
No, there wouldn't be burn out marks on the pavement. Those would only be there if he held it long enough to actually do that.
Face it. You're trying to justify the unjustiable and excuse the inexcusable.
So you admit he did not "powerjack" the car .. that was what you intimated in your earlier post. He just "hit the brakes".. to react to what, the leftist mob in front of him... the one which had been violently and still was violently attacking a permitted rally. Then gassed at after what stimuli.... maybe the attack on him?
Not even really gassed it, as that car will leave tire tracks on a moderate acceleration.
No, you are the one trying to do the inexcusable and railroad someone you think you "HATE"........NAZZZIIIIIII, even though that narrative is something less than truthful... I imagine.
-
Take a step back and look at the big picture. An event to focus the mindset of America. Staged by leftists. A governor and mayor, for two. I am not getting sucked into their narrative.
Do you get it? A staged event with the added flavor of tragedy. All to advance the leftist fascist/communist agenda. The takedown of America.
-
Anyone know why New Jersey got all the toxic waste dumps and New Yawk got all the lawyers????
-
For some reason, everyone thinks he had the full power Hemi V8. His vehicle was the 2010 base model V6. Not a true muscle car.
Thanks for that info, yet it still has 250 horse and about the same torque. Not exactly a Geo metro.
P.S. I REALLY would have been P.Oed had the leftist antifa/blam terrorist messed up a real car. That would require the death penalty for all of them.
-
Lawyers and Trolls. Same thing.
:smokin: Not That was funny.... but yes, they do the same job..different forums usually.
-
The event organizer "was" a supporter for obama and a writer for CNN.
Witness Brennan Gilmore is/was a CIA Operative. So, Brennan Gilmore just happens to be in the right place in the right time to film the Charlottesville hit and run then speaks to the media about the "nazi racists" attacking the "peaceful demonstrators" as "domestic terrorism". Turns out this "anti-racist" was previously a CIA spook under State Dept cover running Special Ops to suppress native uprisings in Central Africa.
The mayor of Charlottesville worked for Obama's State Department.
-
:smokin: Now That was funny.... but yes, they do the same job..different forums usually.
We come together here. Eat the finger samitches. Mingle and such. Drink some wine, eat some cheese and catch some rays.
-
We come together here. Eat the finger samitches. Mingle and such. Drink some wine, eat some cheese and catch some rays.
What an eclectic collection of misfits. Seems I am at the right place.
-
So you admit he did not "powerjack" the car .. that was what you intimated in your earlier post. He just "hit the brakes".. to react to what, the leftist mob in front of him... the one which had been violently and still was violently attacking a permitted rally. Then gassed at after what stimuli.... maybe the attack on him?
Not even really gassed it, as that car will leave tire tracks on a moderate acceleration.
No, you are the one trying to do the inexcusable and railroad someone you think you "HATE"........NAZZZIIIIIII, even though that narrative is something less than truthful... I imagine.
:bigsilly:
troll
-
:bigsilly:
troll
You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Good to know I've made my bones though. ****slapping
-
You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY4cnMmo9qw
Good to know I've made my bones though. ****slapping
:bigsilly:
C'mon troll, you can do better than that.
-
Stop it...just stop it!
-
:bigsilly:
C'mon troll, you can do better than that.
Your tapping out is accepted. :smokin:
-
Stop it...just stop it!
You want to know something funny?
When I go to bed at night I think I am the sanest person in the asylum.
-
You want to know something funny?
When I go to bed at night I think I am the sanest person in the asylum.
You probably are.
-
You probably are.
FWIW, that little interchange got me laughing.
-
You probably are.
Mayhap.
No hard feelings on my side Oceander. I've taken no offense, I hope the likewise is true.
Just a sharing of fun, pun and maybe ..insight/truth. :beer:
-
FWIW, that little interchange got me laughing.
Glad to contribute!
-
Mayhap.
No hard feelings on my side Oceander. I've taken no offense, I hope the likewise is true.
Just a sharing of fun, pun and maybe ..insight/truth. :beer:
:beer: