Think about the following scenario: Speed limit on interstate

>>137752166
>The minimum speed is 40mph
Where do you live?

>>137752166
No you're required to account for "conditions" and "prevailing speed of traffic"

>>137752166
No. Every state has a law on speed saying something like "at the speed limit or safest conditions allow, whichever is lowest".

A cop can ticket you over for going 10mph under the speed limit if conditions warrant.

translate this shit to kms.

>>137752354
>>137752674
Most states have minimum speed limits. For example, on interstate highways in Missouri it is 40mph.
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/missouri-speed-limits-laws-and-fines-by-valerie-mellema

In Florida it is 50mph.
http://www.123driving.com/flhandbook/flhb-speed-limits.shtml

>>137752841
The point isn't about the speed. But in Belgium it is 70km/h on highways.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4557/what-is-the-minimum-speed-limit

>>137752508
>No you're required to account for "conditions"
Exactly.

--

Was James A. Fields justified in disregarding the road conditions and ploughing through a group of people?

Will the "they weren't supposed to be there" defense hold up?

>>137752166

Analogies always suck. Food for thought if you get hit by a car, and you were on the road illegally, it's at least partially your fault.

>Was James A. Fields justified in disregarding the road conditions and ploughing through a group of people?
>Will the "they weren't supposed to be there" defense hold up?

On streets you're required to yield to people on the road, even if they're not supposed to be there.

>>137752166
no because you're supposed to only go as fast as conditions allow.

>>137752166
Fuck you faggot
>ROPE DAY

>>137753410
But he didn't hit a jaywalker or someone running across the street carelessly. When he turned onto the road he saw a group of people blocking the road.

>>137753521
>>137753682
Exactly.

/pol/ is doing itself a disservice by defending a terrorist.

>>137752841
>kms
>kilometers x seconds
That's not a unit dumbass.

>>137753113
You cant equate weather conditions to a road, effectively closed by demonstrators, during what was declared an unlawful assembly.

One of these is a force of nature, the other the nature of stupid humans

>>137753937

oh so its not illegal to jaywalk if you are part of a mob. How many people do I need to be with to no longer be commiting a crime by sauntering down random intersections?

I dunno, is your wife in labor and you're racing to the hospital? Are you alarmed by something you've seen out the window? Are you in a hostile environment? I would take many factors into consideration. Aren't we lucky we have a court system to do this for us

>>137754323
>You cant equate weather conditions to a road, effectively closed by demonstrators, during what was declared an unlawful assembly.
I'm not equating weather conditions, but road conditions. Disregard the weather, say there's an old person driving very slowly and below the minimum limit. Do you have the right to go the speed limit and hit their car?

>>137754369
>oh so its not illegal to jaywalk if you are part of a mob.
It is. But this isn't a case of he was driving on the road, the light is green but some dumbass decides to cross at that moment. He saw the group of people in front of him, he failed to stop. Vehicular manslaughter, end of story.

>>137754606
Your wife being in labour doesn't absolve you of guilt if you cause an accident. But you wouldn't know this because you're probably too young to drive.

>>137754945
>Do you have the right to go the speed limit and hit their car?
No, but you can legally pass them when the road markings indicate its legal to do so. Here is the problem with your analogy.......
One old man going 10 miles below the minimum speed doesnt effectively block an entire roadway. What these counter protesters did was shut down that street in an attempt to harass their political opponents AFTER getting them de-platformed.


Your attempts to draw an equivalency between the two is lackluster at best

>>137754945
also, why hide yourself on an anonymous board.....show your true colors and take off the pirate flag.

>>137753988
How fast is the International Space Station going?

>>137752166
No, because you weren't going with the speed of traffic who, by the way, were accounting for traffic conditions. If traffic on the interstate comes to a grinding halt all of a sudden and you hit a vehicle going 70 mph, you're in the wrong for not paying attention to account for driving conditions. 40 mph is this minimum driving condition, unless weather conditions change that. Then go slower.

If this wasn't intended for weak bait, you're retarded.

>>137755599
Did you really respond to him without figuring out where he was going with this?

>>137752841
>>137753988
No he was talking about kilomiles per second.

40mph is about 0.0000111 kms. Weird units those Europeans use.

>>137753113

Are you seriously trying to compare something we can't control such as weather to willing humans blocking the road?

We can't exactly put winter in court, can we?

File: 1477010252165.gif (87KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 255x255px

>>137753521
>On streets you're required to yield to people on the road, even if they're not supposed to be there.
Proof?

>>137752166
Well no not unless I want to veer off road and possibly die either from injuries as a consequence of my actions, or by the icy cold, still a consequence of my actions. Nature cannot control itself, but humans can. Why are humans on a road for cars?
Those people had no business being in that particular street. It's their fault for blocking traffic on a one-way. The only people they protest against are working-class citizens. Anyone dumb enough to equate uncontrollable weather conditions with voluntary attendance at a mob is an obvious troll.
Saged. Hidden.

>>137753113
no, but the
>they accosted and started hitting me with bats, and I paniced
will

>>137755952
>What Happens If You Hit a Pedestrian Jaywalking?

>If a pedestrian hit while jaywalking, theyare partly at fault as theywere breaking the law when theywere hit. However, this does not mean liability can’t be placed on the driver, as they may also be partially at fault depending on the circumstances.

>This is where the court system usescomparative faultto determine an award in a case. For example, if the driver had plenty of time to stop before hitting a jaywalker, a percentage of the fault may be placed on them. Also, if the driver was impaired,driving under the influence, or distracted, such as texting while driving, a higher percentage of fault may be placed on the driver as well. It is up to the court to determine what percentage each party was at fault and then modify the award accordingly.

>>137755690
It doesn't change the fact that OP is still retarded. You can only plough through pedestrians impeding traffic in the state of North Dakota. They passed a law authorizing this due to the Dakota protesting the oil pipeline. The problem I have with the law they passed is that the wording was wayyy too broad that drivers could technically get away with murder.

Want to legalize ploughing through protesters playing in the streets, get your representatives to legislate it to where it is legal. Until then, it is illegal.

>>137752166
No, and I'm certain it has been pointed out you have to make adjustments due to weather, that is the law.

>>137756418
So your statement
>you're required to yield to people on the road
is wrong as
>may also be partially at fault depending on the circumstances.
implies that there is a possibility of no fault.

For verification, see:
>http://www.postindependent.com/trending/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-vehicle/
>no charges have been brought against the driver, and none are expected.

>>137754945
>Do you have the right to go the speed limit and hit their car?
No. You have to take every precaution to avoid an accident, but there are such things as mitigating circumstances.

>>137756990
>it's up to the courts to decide.
>guy accelerates toward crowd of people with intent

Yeah, the courts will absolutely agree its intentional. Especially with all the video evidence.

>>137757108
>mitigating circumstances
Extenuating circumstances

>>137757299
Wait, so you can read minds? How else could you know his intent?

>>137757439
You don't need to know, just need to convince a judge and jury.

>>137757332
These are called mitigating and aggravating circumstances in courts in America

Speed limits aren't that strict. Technically you aren't allowed to go faster than is safe in current conditions. If you are in a blizzard with icy roads and near whiteout conditions, then going 70 would absolutely be considered speeding no matter what the sign says. There is such a thing as using your judgement.

>>137755364
>One old man going 10 miles below the minimum speed doesnt effectively block an entire roadway.
It does if it is a two-lane road, with the lane going in the opposite direction being filled with cars stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

>>137755494
Does it matter where I'm from?

>>137755599
> you're in the wrong for not paying attention to account for driving conditions.
Thank you for helping me prove a point.

>If this wasn't intended for weak bait, you're retarded.
ok

>>137755932
>Are you seriously trying to compare something we can't control such as weather to willing humans blocking the road?
No, the weather was just an example of why drivers would behave the way they do. Now that i think about it is completely unnecessary for this analogy. Drivers could be just driving slow to be assholes, that still doesn't give you the right to step on the gas and cause an accident.

>>137756009
>they accosted and started hitting me with bats, and I paniced
Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?

>>137756429
>Want to legalize ploughing through protesters playing in the streets, get your representatives to legislate it to where it is legal. Until then, it is illegal.
This.

>>137757108
>mitigating circumstances
He wasn't an ambulance driver trying to get a sick person to a hospital. If he didn't have intent to cause harm he would have backed out of the road (you know, the thing he did AFTER driving his car into a group of people).

>>137757749
>There is such a thing as using your judgement.
And that's exactly what the judge would say if James Fields tried to use the "I was merely driving down the road" defense.

>>137757650
In law, extenuating circumstances in criminal cases are unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the perpetration of the offense which, although an offense has been perpetrated without legal justification or excuse, mitigate or reduce its gravity from the point of view of punishment or moral opprobrium.

>>137757573
Beyond a reasonable doubt......So, looking at everything available, there is not one bit of doubt in your mind?? Did you witness the event? Were you there? Or might I suppose that you are pre-judging this individual despite the fact that our constitution explicitly says you are innocent until proven guilty?

>>137757945
>t does if it is a two-lane road, with the lane going in the opposite direction being filled with cars stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Again, how far are you going to have to extrapolate this? What if this? What if that?

That should immediately tell you that your argument is bad.

>Does it matter where I'm from?
Kind of yea, because it might explain your lack of understanding in regards to VA and US law. Also, why do you insist on being an identitarian and hide your nationality on a board thats already anonymous?

>>137758114
The videos show the guy driving slow, then accelerating into the crowd. Then he ran. Then he was found out to be a white supremest, and the crowd was anti-white supremest.

All together these pieces of evidence will remove all doubt.

>>137752166
>The minimum speed is 40mph
scenario discarded

also nobody is arguing people being on the road allows you to kill them if you can avoid it but it does mean the situation changes dramatically, from murder to something else you otter focking mohron

>>137758445
It also shows someone hitting his car with a bat. And then after the initial impact, it shows more people hitting his car with bats.

All these pieces of evidence put together form what is called "reasonable doubt"

>>137752166
>and when I cause an accident
There is your answer. Now KYS.
sage

>>137752166
>Food for thought
Unfortunately it's poisoned with stupid.

File: 1502862452185.jpg (261KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1200x800px

>>137753113
>Was James A. Fields
hahaha this was a bait and switch about based dodger?

>>137758757
Too bad you're not allowed to run over innocent people just because someone hit your car with a bat.

>>137752166
no
the maximum speed is:
safe driving
up to max limit
and when maximum limit is maximum limit
then there's a minimum limit
not even our lawmakers are as dumb as you faggot
LITERALLY CAPTCHA: PEPE slowly

>>137758114
So we can agree he is guilty. Where the mitigating circumstances will come into play is when the judge decides how long of a time to give him. My money is on 25 to life.

>>137758418
>Again, how far are you going to have to extrapolate this? What if this? What if that?
You're the one trying to place a hypothetical situation into realistic terms.

You said one old man going 10mph below the speed limit doesn't effectively block an entire roadway. And yet there are a dozen scenarios where it does: a two lane road with a double line down the middle, a one-way street, an alleyway, etc. The scenario is that the roadway is blocked by cars, rather than people. And everyone agrees that running your car into other cars on the road, despite the circumstances, does not absolve you of guilt. Yet if the drives his car into a group of people he is somehow justified???

>because it might explain your lack of understanding in regards to VA and US law.
No country on Earth has a law that allows you to run over people on the road.

>>137758726
>The minimum speed is 40mph
>scenario discarded
>t. someone who has never driven a car
http://www.123driving.com/flhandbook/flhb-speed-limits.shtml
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/missouri-speed-limits-laws-and-fines-by-valerie-mellema

>>137758757
>And then after the initial impact, it shows more people hitting his car with bats.
Yes. After someone attacks you the natural response is to defend yourself.

If someone had pulled him out of the car and killed him, the mitigating circumstances in that case would be that he tried to kill them with his car.

>>137758848
>and when I cause an accident
>There is your answer. Now KYS.
That's exactly what James Fields did, he caused an accident. Or did you miss the part in the video where he hits people and causes a three-car chain crash?

>>137759210
Only seems like that to you because you're upside down.

>>137759653
Depends on the state actually
But keep acting totally ignorant to how our justice system works and the rights of the accused.

>>137759465
>bait and switch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
>It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point.

ITT:
>people are not justified to cause accidents when road conditions are made dangerous by other drivers
>people are justified to cause accidents when road conditions are made dangerous by pedestrians

>>137752166
Oregon has the Basic Speed Rule. I thought other states would have something similar as well.

>>137759686
>Yes. After someone attacks you the natural response is to defend yourself.
So, the initial impact against his car was sufficient to justify self defense? Or maybe now you can see how someone hitting his car with a bat caused him to panic??

You're getting there.......its taking way longer than it should, but your making progress.

File: 1494102435107.jpg (231KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1200x675px

>>137755825
>>137753988
>>137752841

Kms is short for kilometers. Since you use MILES per hour you should translate them to KILOMETERS per hour. Jesus, I swear you basement dwelling niggers won't amount to a thing.

File: Nokian_Hakkapeliitta_8_SUV[1].png (286KB, 580x360px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 580x360px

Question. Can americans use studded tyres?

>>137759839
Explain a law that allows you to run over people if a bat hits your car.

>>137757945
>Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?

The same reason THREE OTHER CARS WERE, they didn't know, and by the time he got close enough to see that there was no way through, his car was attacked.

>>137759686
Who the fuck is James Fields?

>>137760208
KMS does not mean Kilometers
KMS is an acronym, most commonly used by Amazon and other IT providers to describe a Key Management Service

Several representations of "kilometres per hour" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today; for example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations. The SI representations, classified as symbols, are "km/h", "km h−1" and "km.

And you called us stupid.

>>137752166

No, if it is foggy outside and you can't see a finger, are you allowed to drive 70mph? NO
It is called "conditions".

>>137760295
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-04-28/north-carolina-house-votes-to-protect-drivers-who-hit-protesters

Also, self defense.

>>137760240
Only during certain times of the year. Here in Oregon it is from November 1st through April 1st.

>>137760295
Castle Doctrine.
Some states expand Castle Doctrine to encompass the vehicle that you are in. Sadly VA does not which is why this case in much more nuanced than people would like to admit.

>>137760208
No one gives a shit about your homo units. Learn anglo or go home, we are the majority on 4chan buckaroo.

>>137752166
won't be a problem, snow is a thing of the past.

Al Gore said so.

>>137760240

I believe so, although that may vary by state. My grandad, who lived in Montana, always had studded tires for winter. Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure studs are okay everywhere but chains may or may not be, depending.

>>137760749
You are right, it varies state by state and even within the states that permit studs and chains, they are seasonal exceptions

>>137760208
>>137760478
This. If you want us to understand you, at least follow the international guidelines (we have an entire organization for that called ISO). "km" would've made sense, the 's' at the end is what threw everyone off.

File: do not block road.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>137759982
You're just mad I called your jewish trick out for what it is. Tell me again how charlottesville roads are just like icy highways.

>>137760208
KMS is short for kill myself which is what all metricucks should do. God bless America.

>>137752166
Basic Speed Law kiddo

>>137752166
Ice and snow don't form mobs with weapons intent on injuring or killing drivers

>>137754323
The demnostrators were at the bottom of a one way narrow street and the top of the street wasn't closed.

demonstrators were also surrounding two cars hiding them from the drivers view, the driver would have seen them had they not been hidden by the crowd.

the crowd chose to demonstrate in a dangerous area in a provocative manner. its on the onus of the crowd to peacefully demonstrate.

>>137760359
So your defense is that he was startled enough to drive into a crowd of people; as opposed to reversing and running?

Good thing youre not a lawyer, because you would be setting him up for premeditated murder charges

File: 54417cbbd6723.image.jpg (40KB, 480x364px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x364px

>>137752166
If you are driving faster then the conditions allow then you are at fault.

If you wreck at .000001mph you are still 100% at fault as the accident could have been prevented had you chosen a different course of action entirely.

>>137762044
Attack came from the back so yes, natural fleeing direction is forward. He did reverse as a last resort when forward direction got blocked.

>>137752166
USE THE HACKERS HIGHJACKED MY GAS PEDAL DEFENCE.
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-warns-car-hacking-real-risk/
This could also explain the helicopter crash.

File: protesters.jpg (94KB, 855x479px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 855x479px

>>137760359
>they didn't know, and by the time he got close enough to see that there was no way through, his car was attacked.
>he didn't see all those people in pic related
Yeah, the judge will throw this case out.

>>137760512
>No, if it is foggy outside and you can't see a finger, are you allowed to drive 70mph? NO
If people are on the road, and you can't go through, are you allowed to drive 70mph? NO

>>137760534
>North Carolina
Too bad this happened in Virginia.

>Also, self defense.
>one person hitting his car means that everyone in a 100m radius was out to get him
Nah.

>>137761129
Socrates is in the board sticky, by the way.

>>137761429
>You can't prove driver had the intent of harm
>The protesters had intent of injuring or killing drivers
Cognitive dissonance: the post

>>137761491
He should have adjusted is driving to the conditions, no matter what they were. If he was trying to "escape" why didn't he back away? Because his intent was to cause harm, then escape.

>>137762139
>If you are driving faster then the conditions allow then you are at fault.
Exactly.

>If you wreck at .000001mph you are still 100% at fault as the accident could have been prevented had you chosen a different course of action entirely.
Which is what he would have done had he wanted to avoid an accident. But his intent was to cause harm.


IN PRISON, HE WILL BE THE CROWD AND TYRONE'S DICK WILL BE THE CAR.

File: charlottesville-protests-car-crash-ht-jt-170813_12x5_992.jpg (117KB, 992x415px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 992x415px

>>137757945
> you're in the wrong for not paying attention to account for driving conditions. Thank you for helping me prove a point.

So since you like using natural weather conditions, here's an example. So what if you were driving down the interstate and a tornado touches down behind you heading on your direction (aka risk to your life, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this) do you genuinely feel you wouldn't be justified in hitting the cars in front of you if they refuse to move over? If the tornado was throwing rocks and bottles and baseball bats at you, would you not try to get as far away from it as possible, as fast as possible? If there was a tornado and someone stopped in the middle of the street, got out of their car, and started walking down the side of the road on the only pathway past the parked vehicle I would probably hit them in regards to my own safety.

On an unrelated note, You must at least look at the fact that he didn't drive up the sidewalk and into people, and see that his intent wasn't to hurt several people. If he had done that then his intent was unquestionable. The fact that he drove down the center of the road, into the back of a vehicle that was behind some idiot who parked and left their van unoccupied in the middle of the road at least gets rid of intent and should do the charge from murder2 to manslaughter. If you look at the pictures the van is empty, no one is driving it.

Not defending him, but two things. The first, if I was put into that situation, I would have probably tried getting the hell out of there as fast as I could too given the fear for his life, and two the charges won't stick if his defense are not complete idiots.

>>137752508
/thread

File: police stand down.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>137762914
>I invoked a philosophers name, therefore I am right.
Tell me again how charlottesville roads are just like icy highways.

>>137763139
>So what if you were driving down the interstate and a tornado touches down behind you heading on your direction (aka risk to your life, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this) do you genuinely feel you wouldn't be justified in hitting the cars in front of you if they refuse to move over?
If you ran over people while driving away from the tornado you'd be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

>and should do the charge from murder2 to manslaughter.
My point is that no matter how you spin this he is in the wrong. The pravailing opinion here seems to be that he should get off for this crime because he dindu nuffin.

He caused an accident, he caused a death and he caused harm. The debate now is how long he should spend in prison. There's no chance that he'll get acquitted.

>>137763329
>missing the point

>>137759982
>people are justified to cause accidents when road conditions are made dangerous by pedestrians
People are justified to defend their lives or attempt to move away from danger. Being an armed commie in front of a car driven by a man running for his life is your fault, not his.
tl;dr Hemlock is the cure for you.

>>137763699
>People are justified to defend their lives or attempt to move away from danger.
>move away from danger
>while driving into "danger"

>>137763699
>Being an armed commie in front of a car driven by a man running for his life is your fault, not his.
>running for his life
>not reversing out of the street

>be me
>be a 20yo autist
>drive my car towards a group of people who I know are violent
>drive my car towards a group of people who want to do me harm
>get attacked
>act surprised
Totally.

File: 1502388203793.jpg (74KB, 612x629px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 612x629px

>>137757945
>Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?

Honestly who knows. Maybe being from out of state, he didn't know the roads. Maybe his gps told him to go that way. Maybe it was a road that he was legally able to drive on in which he needed no excuse to be there that happened to be blocked by people illegally protesting.

Honestly nobody but him really knows, but I'd assume that since he's from out of state, his navigation, whether it be Google or dodge, told him to go that way.

If they started attacking his car up the road, there was no place for him to turn off and avoid the protesters.

>>137753113
>Will the "they weren't supposed to be there" defense hold up?
That's not his defense, retard. His defense is his car was attacked before he accelerated into anyone.

>>137764203
>one person in a group attacks me
>now I have the right to kill everyone in the group
That's not how self defense works.

>>137764029
He would have seen the hundreds of people on the road as soon as he got onto the road. He doesn't back up, he doesn't turn around, but continues driving towards the group of people.

This will fuck him in court and he's facing a life sentence.

File: map.jpg (108KB, 788x450px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 788x450px

>>137762914
look at a map you dumb fuck

File: 1476600107926.jpg (170KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 960x720px

>>137752166
No the speed limit is a max limit in perfect conditions. You need to slow down to adjust for conditions which include other traffic.

File: mape.jpg (139KB, 788x450px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 788x450px

>>137764556
He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. And rightfully so.

File: 1502347153646.jpg (45KB, 380x392px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 380x392px

>>137759686
>Yes. After someone attacks you the natural response is to defend yourself.

If someone had pulled him out of the car and killed him, the mitigating circumstances in that case would be that he tried to kill them with his car.

I can generously tell you that if I was in the same position, I wouldn't have stuck around and tried to make friends. And I also feel that anyone caught behind the vehicle as it was fleeing is accountable for their injuries, especially if they were the ones attacking it. An even mediocre defence could prove that he was fleeing for his life rather than fleeing the scene of the crime the second the bats and bricks started flying through his windows. If they haven't started attacking the vehicle, and he ran, then 100% he is guilty of hit and run. That's the thing though.... They attacked the hell out of his car giving him legal ground to get the hell out of there. If his defence can't get most of his charges dropped our at least reduced, he needs different defence

>>137752508
This. This is basic driving school 101.

>>137764011
>commies illegally congregate in an illegal demonstration in the middle of the road
>cops intentionally leave the road open AND direct the driver (and the Right) towards the commies
>commies surround his car and engage in attempted murder
>also commie got physically removed because too fat to dodge
Hemlock not working out I see. Have you considered bleach?

>>137765587
>And I also feel that anyone caught behind the vehicle as it was fleeing is accountable for their injuries, especially if they were the ones attacking it.
This is true and I agree 100%. The ones in front though are not accountable, he is.

>>137765754
>This. This is basic driving school 101.
Fucking exactly.

>>137765796
>cops intentionally leave the road open AND direct the driver (and the Right) towards the commies
So there was a conspiracy between the cops and the anti-right protestors to endanger the lives of Unite the Right people?
Interesting theory.

File: 1473884605625.jpg (34KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 655x527px

>>137753988
He obviously meant "kill myself" lad.

>>137761133
>translate this shit to kill myself
That's how I saw it too. What did he mean by this?

>>137765992
>Interesting theory
All you have to do is just listen to the commies, both the foot soldiers and their puppeteers. They're so confident they do it in the open.
So more than just interesting, it's proven.

File: 1500922482759.jpg (50KB, 480x466px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x466px

>>137763631
>if ran over people while driving away from the tornado you'd be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Which I believe is also the case in the situation. He will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. There was no intention proved by him not driving onto the sidewalk to attempt rio get as many people as possible, and his girlfriend wasn't in the crowd sleeping with antifa so murder of passion goes out the window. Only thing left is involuntary manslaughter.

>>137752166
You must drive at a "safe and reasonable speed", as dictated by the road conditions.

/Thread

>>137765530
It is an pedestrian walkway not proper street open for cars, faggot.
Try google streetview.

>>137752166
Slide thread of useless shit.

This is a new Shareblue technique to flood /pol/ with off topic posts.

Go die, OP kikesucker.

>>137752166

This is how your question is answered in Michigan. Your state likely has something similar.

Research the law.


When weather conditions change: The Basic Speed Law

When weather conditions change, the Michigan Basic Speed Law (MCL 257.627) requires drivers to “drive at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the highway and of any other condition then existing.”


Source: http://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/2013/02/11/what-are-the-michigan-speed-limit-laws/
Basically, don't be a fucking dumbass

>>137766455
So that's why there were other cars already there. Hmm.
>>137766430
Not picking a fight here but we all know the formulation "safe and reasonable speed" only exists so cops can make their fine quota.

>>137752508

This, you can be ticketed for driving to fast in unsafe weather conditions.

File: _cv.png (283KB, 975x760px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 975x760px

>>137765530
>>137764556
Also note that there is no more Lee Park in Google.

>>137752166
this OP reads like a typical west coaster. Most people can safely travel the speed limit in icy and wet conditions. Only on the west coast do people do half the speed limit when it rains

File: 1496733959411.jpg (77KB, 1159x1159px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1159x1159px

>>137765992
nigger, please
his car was struck by an antifa with a bat before he even accelerated, and that's just from the camera angles we have access to
the video clips conveniently begin right after he crossed the intersection, they were probably throwing shit at him before that
the kid's 20, he panicked and stepped on the gas, maybe he fucked up like women do all the time and hit the wrong pedal
after he killed the land whale they smashed his windows in with bats, so he backed up and fled
A C Q U I T T A L

>>137766927
IDK about other cars.

File: 1498622969435.png (354KB, 606x844px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 606x844px

>>137764494
>He would have seen the hundreds of people on the road as soon as he got onto the road. He doesn't back up, he doesn't turn around, but continues driving towards the group of people.

>This will fuck him in court and he's facing a life sentence.

That is not a counter defence. So because there were people on the road he should have avoided the road all together? Any time there are people on the road you should immediately back up and turn around? There are people on the road all the time. So you honestly believe no one should drive on the streets of New York because there are constantly people in the road crossing the streets? If anyone sees a protest boxing a street anywhere they should immediately turn around, even when it is not safe to do so?

The thing he has on his side is, the fact that his car was attacked without provocation. He has the reasonable expectation of driving down the road without being assaulted. Driving towards a group of people is not legal ground for the group of people to attack said driver.
He was simply driving down a road, where he was most likely directed visa navigation, and was assaulted without any provocation. Although accelerating into a group of people was obviously not the proper solution to being assaulted, it is what happened because of natural fight or flight instinct. Considering you are not going to reverse back into the direction you just got assaulted from.


On a side note, getting hit hard with a bat while inside a vehicle can sound pretty close to a gun shot going off. He may very well have assumed someone was shooting at him giving him an excuse for genuine fear for life.

File: the right way.jpg (99KB, 1159x1159px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1159x1159px

>>137767395

File: 1500056893152.png (524KB, 639x516px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 639x516px

>>137765530
Main st is not a street. It is a pedestrian walkway. That is what that little line means idiot. The other road shown is nothing more that a glorified alley and probably gated.

So you are implying he should have either illegally backed up down a one way street or turned onto a sidewalk illegally to avoid being unknowingly illegally assaulted by a group of people illegally crowding a street that he is legally driving down?

You aren't the brightest are you?

>>137768084
This.
And to add - reversing on one way street is not very legal afaik.

File: fool.png (2MB, 1599x772px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1599x772px

>>137766461
>everyone who doesn't share my opinion is part of a propaganda effort orchestrated by one group of people who also happen to be the very people I don't like

>>137766455
>>137769048
You're right. He couldn't have turned there. Why did he go down a street where he couldn't turn right or left, but only through protestors?

>>137768084
>So because there were people on the road he should have avoided the road all together? Any time there are people on the road you should immediately back up and turn around?
When it's that large of a group of people blocking the road, yes. Your car is a deadly machine that can cause injury and death to pedestrians. As a driver you have to be aware of this fact and act accordingly. He decided to use his car as a deadly weapon, and he will pay for it.

>Although accelerating into a group of people was obviously not the proper solution to being assaulted, it is what happened because of natural fight or flight instinct.
They will try the panicked kid defense, but it is not going to work. If you're afraid of people causing you harm you don't go towards those people, you go away from them.

>>137769048
>So you are implying he should have either illegally backed up down a one way street or turned onto a sidewalk illegally
Breaking a traffic law and getting a fine is preferrable to killing and injuring people and getting a life sentence, yes.

There aren't very many situations where you can ram your car at speed into a group of people and be absolved of guilt. This isn't one of them.

File: 20170816_130857-1200x2133.jpg (537KB, 1200x2133px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1200x2133px

>>137765530
>>137769048
Also just to reiterate and further prove this, here is a shot from street view of both directions of "main st" showing without a doubt that out it's an intended pedestrian walkway only.

>>137770490
That's very obviously not the same street he was on.

>>137753113
They attacked his car faggot.

>>137770077
> Why did he go down a street where he couldn't turn right or left, but only through protestors?
Because this is a fucking street meant for car traffic. Are you retarded or what?

>>137752166
Flow of traffic means if everyone is going 30 because of ice you better be going 30

>>137760748
Al Gore has obviously not been in the Charlottesville area lately. There were snowflakes in the street as high as 5'3".

File: 1479055533080-1200x1730.jpg (273KB, 1200x1730px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1200x1730px

>>137770077
>When it's that large of a group of people blocking the road, yes. Your car is a deadly machine that can cause injury and death to pedestrians. As a driver you have to be aware of this fact and act accordingly. He decided to use his car as a deadly weapon, and he will pay for it.

He didn't decide to. He panicked after being attacked. The responsibility falls on pedestrians in your situation. They should be aware that vehicles are deadly weapons and shouldn't block streets. Secondly the fault falls onto the lanky fairy haired faggot protester that attacked his car in the first place. I doubt he would have driven into the group if not first provoked.

>Breaking a traffic law and getting a fine is preferrable to killing and injuring people and getting a life sentence, yes.
>There aren't very many situations where you can ram your car at speed into a group of people and be absolved of guilt. This isn't one of them.

This implies the guy knew the group was going to assault him unprovoked. Once again, protesters or not, you have the right to assume you can drive down a street and be free from assault. It is not your responsibility to assume the group isn't peaceful. Isn't that considered profiling? Isn't that racist? They were the ones illegally blocking the road. They were the ones who illegally assaulted him unprovoked. They were the ones who continued to assault him after the accident.

He will not go free from charges. It is just about reducing the charges to what they should be instead of throwing the book at him like the prosecutor has vowed to. He is guilty of possibly involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment. The thing is they have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. My opinion is this will end up like another George Zimmerman case. Horrible witnesses, lack of proof of intent, lack of proof of innocence of the protesters, proof of unprovoked assault. Proof of no legal alternative route, and proof of genuine fear for his life.

>>137753113
Minimum speeds in normal weather condition, you're supposed to slow down since at 40mph with a frozen road you wouldn't be able to control properly your car.

It's called common sense.

>>137770998
It is a shot from Google street view looking down main street from 4th st. 4th is what he was driving down, main st is what's shown. This was in response to the other guy suggesting in >>137765530 that he should have turned down main st to avoid the protesters. This was me proving main st is a pedestrian walk way only.

>>137752166
No. Fuck you. This is a slide thread.
Heard of flow of traffic. If everybody is going 90 in a 70 it's okay. You'll get slapped with a wreck less driving charge and speeding and probably something else. You know this you dumbass.

>>137772958
Sorry, didn't follow that.
And why do you have to explain (in hindsight) the ways in which he could have avoided unintentionally harming someone since it's pretty clear what could have prevented it all - the commies should have been obeying the law and the cops should have enforced it instead of being the mayor's hired thugs.

>>137752166
that wouldn't be justified, otherwise people would be able to drive glorified battering rams through rush hour.

>>137752166
legally, yes, you did nothing wrong in your stupid hypothetical

>>137771324
>They attacked his car faggot.
>someone in a group of people hits your car
>you now have the right to run them all down

>>137771343
When he saw that the road was blocked, he should have turned. Like here: >>137770077

>>137772455
>The responsibility falls on pedestrians in your situation.
Except cars are faster than humans.

>Once again, protesters or not, you have the right to assume you can drive down a street and be free from assault.
HE FUCKING SAW THAT THE ROAD WAS BLOCKED. The dude isn't blind.
>this is a road for cars
>there's people in the way
>this is a road for cars, I'll just go through
Are Americans able to adapt to a situation or do you solve every problem heuristically?

>lack of proof of innocence of the protesters
They're not the ones on trial.

>proof of unprovoked assault. Proof of no legal alternative route, and proof of genuine fear for his life.
Not a chance.

>>137772677
Just like you're supposed to slow down when people are in the road.
>It's called common sense.

>>137774488
>otherwise people would be able to drive glorified battering rams through rush hour.
or glorified battering rams through crowds of people

>>137774515
>t. child

>>137752166
in va we have a code section for "driving to fast for conditions"

>>137752166
No you retard. Use common sense

File: hey.jpg (22KB, 251x255px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 251x255px

>>137752166

Depends on the State.

Most have a flow of traffic rule attached to their reckless driving law. For example, even if you are going "the speed limit", you cannot operate your vehicle in a manner that is hazardous to other drivers.

Trust me, Lawyers love mental games like this, and it only takes one ass hat to exploit a legal loop hole for it to get filled in short order.

The answer to your question is no. You are going to jail nigger.

But why the fuck would you want to cause an accident in the first place, dumbass?

>>137774634
The road was not blocked, there were some people walking on it. A good honking of horn can fix it in most situations as to remember them that there are sidewalks for that purpose.

But the retards on road decided to attack the car ... and paid for it.

>>137772455
>Once again, protesters or not, you have the right to assume you can drive down a street and be free from assault. It is not your responsibility to assume the group isn't peaceful.
It is your responsibility to notice that the road is blocked by people on the road. "They weren't supposed to be there" is not a defense.

>They were the ones illegally blocking the road.
So? The fact is they were there and he saw them. He had an opportunity to leave (>>137770077) but didn't, this means he drove down a one way street with the intent to 1) get stuck, 2) cause harm. It's not rocket surgery, the prosecution will have a field day.

>They were the ones who illegally assaulted him unprovoked.
We only saw that one guy hit his bumper with a flag when he was already in the crowd with his car. Still, "getting attacked" by someone hitting your bumper does not give you the right to kill people. How is this concept so hard to understand?

>They were the ones who continued to assault him after the accident.
You're right, they should have asked him if he was alright and offered help. I'm sure that's what you would have done had you been in the same situation.

>>137774984
>You are going to jail nigger.
Yes, he is.

>>137775114
>The road was not blocked, there were some people walking on it.
Did you watch the video? There are clearly hundreds of people right in the street.

But, lets say you're right, and the people weren't blocking the road. Why didn't he see the car that was parked in the road, the car he smashed into. Because the car was parked illegally he has the right to hit and push it out of the way with his car, right?

Or is he just a moron who drives into things? Maybe they can use the "Your honor, my client is a complete retard" defense. The evidence? He is a part of the alt-right.

>>137775035
>But why the fuck would you want to cause an accident in the first place, dumbass?
Because of your intent to cause harm.

>>137775114
In prison, he will be the crowd. :^)

File: 1493178999921m.jpg (143KB, 1024x605px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x605px

>>137774634
>HE FUCKING SAW THAT THE ROAD WAS BLOCKED. The dude isn't blind.

Just because the road happens to be blocked isn't some magical immediate outcome determiner. Roads get blocks, they become unblocked. Protesters disperse. Accidents move.

You still refuse to understand that the fault lies on the protesters. They never should have assaulted him, end of story, full stop. He never would have plowed into then had they not. And if he had, then yes he is guilty of every charge and more. He has the proof of unprovoked assault against him, proof of no legal alternative route to avoid the crowd, proof of genuine fear for his life. The protesters have proof of illegal blocking of the road, illegally assaulting an innocent bystander.

Since we are all assuming anyways, why not assume he was directed that way because of navigation, a blockade on market street, or traffic. Maybe he was forced down that road by some factor we are not aware of or even considering. We won't know until more facts come out. All we can go off of is what we know. He turned down a one way street that happened to be blocked by protesters, there was no alternate route street he had made the turn, he was then assaulted by said protesters unprovoked, he accelerated away from the unprovoked attack into a crowd.

Pic unrelated.

>>137775996
> Why didn't he see the car that was parked in the road
Because retards on the road blocked his view when he tried to flee an assault (the car was hit by bat first and then he tried to flee, remember?)

>>137770998
read the map moron

>>137752166
The law has an addendum for dangerous conditions, you know.

File: plow.png (290KB, 504x485px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 504x485px

>>137776404

File: 1502572179571.gif (2MB, 245x132px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x132px

>>137775996
>it is your responsibility to notice that the road is blocked by people on the road. "They weren't supposed to be there" is not a defense.

I'm sure he noticed the road was blocked, that doesn't mean he couldn't proceed to the location of the blockage and wait for it to clear. You aren't obligated by any law I'm familiar with to immediately find another route the second you are aware of a road blockage composed of people in front of you. Does that mean every person that has ever been blocked by protesters broke the law, and not the idiots blocking them? Died this mean that the guy in the grey car who was hit is also at fault because he also proceeded down the road knowing there were protesters there?

Long story short, just because protesters are blocking a road doesn't mean your obligated to go elsewhere, you are perfectly within your rights to wait for them to move. You are also perfectly within your rights to assume that you will not be assaulted by said protesters.

>>137752841
3 mi is 5 km. Do the math, nerd.

File: 1479925694567.jpg (74KB, 750x447px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 750x447px

>>137775996
>He had an opportunity to leave (>>137770077 #) but didn't, this means he drove down a one way street with the intent to 1) get stuck, 2) cause harm. It's not rocket surgery, the prosecution will have a field day.

There you go again assuming premeditation. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his intent was to purposely get stuck and cause harm. All evidence points away from that except inside your head.

What it proves is he drove down a one way street, everything past that is simply conjecture.

Also what is rocket surgery? Are you purposely being retarded or are you just pretending?

>>137775996
>We only saw that one guy hit his bumper with a flag when he was already in the crowd with his car. Still, "getting attacked" by someone hitting your bumper does not give you the right to kill people. How is this concept so hard to understand?

Who ever said this gave him the right to kill people? What I am saying is that the death was an accident caused by the actions of the protesters, not that he was justified in his actions.

>You're right, they should have asked him if he was alright and offered help. I'm sure that's what you would have done had you been in the same situation.

I get the point you are trying to make, but it's irrelevant. He never should have been attacked in the first place. I do genuinely believe that the accident was a direct result of the attack.

If he had just decided to ram the crowd, then swing away. But if you can't even give the benefit of a doubt that because he was attacked and panicked, that the accident is not entirely his fault.

>>137776828
>Because retards on the road blocked his view
>>137775114
>The road was not blocked
So which is it?

>>137776582
>Just because the road happens to be blocked isn't some magical immediate outcome determiner. Roads get blocks, they become unblocked. Protesters disperse. Accidents move.
So his plan was to wait until protesters dispersed? He was willing to sit in his car, on that one way street, for hours and just sit there and wait? But then the evil mob attacked him. That's what you think happened?

Why can't you just accept this is a terrorist act? Not even moderate muslims defend muslim terrorist attacks, yet here you are.

>>137777650
>Long story short, just because protesters are blocking a road doesn't mean your obligated to go elsewhere, you are perfectly within your rights to wait for them to move.
Wait, not drive towards them. Now you're moving the goalposts. He didn't stop in the road and waited, at no point in any video is his car at full stop (which would mean he waited)

>>137752166
>Does this give me the right to speed through the highway going 70mph and when I cause an accident say "they weren't allowed to be going that slow in the first place"?

rear ending them would still put you at fault, if you plan on crashing without other ppl involved just do what your insurance can handle

>>137780581
Blocking view does is not equal to blocking road. Pedestrian on the road is not blocking it.
Traffic laws state that car has the right of way on the designed road. So he proceeded carefully as the view was blocked. Retard hit his car with bat (assaulted), he tried to flee as the walkers on road turned out to be bloodthirsty mob not peaceful walkers.
Do you drive car?

File: 1479672972567.webm (2MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x300px

>>137780581
> just admit it's terrorism
In order for it to be a terrorist attack, that have to prove premeditated intent. They aren't even implying that in their initial charges of 2nd degree murder.

Once again are implying it will take hours for them to disperse. How do you know this? In the pictures they seem to be moving down the street away from the direction he came.

I refuse to accept it as terrorism because absolutely nothing far had pointed to it, except what little pointless conjecture you have been pushing. Honestly there is no way of knowing either way until more about this incident actually comes out.

>Wait, not drive towards them. Now you're moving the goalposts. He didn't stop in the road and waited, at no point in any video is his car at full stop (which would mean he waited)

He was never given the opportunity to stop. He was attacked while still proceeding toward the group. You are not obligated to stop as far back as possible from a protest. It wasn't until attacked that he visibly sped up.

>>137780581
> Wait, not drive towards them.
Yes, you can drive towards them, you can honk your horn to remember them that they are violating the traffic law and should move to sidewalk. You can drive behind them all the way with their speed. You can call cops on them and so on. But THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK YOU and YOUR CAR.

>>137778817
>They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his intent was to purposely get stuck and cause harm. All evidence points away from that except inside your head.
>What it proves is he drove down a one way street, everything past that is simply conjecture.
It's a one way street. fact
There are no places to turn left or right on that stretch. fact
There were people in his way, blocking the road. fact
He drove towards them. fact

What more can you possibly want? He drove himself into that situation.

Things we can safely assume: He's from out of state, so he wasn't "going about his business downtown". He knew there was a protest going on downtown.

What possible reason did he have to be downtown, in his car? To get to where Unite the Right protest was going on he didn't have to go the way he was going. In fact, he was driving away from the UtR gathering.

>>137779530
>What I am saying is that the death was an accident caused by the actions of the protesters, not that he was justified in his actions.
His defense will have a hard time proving or showing an alternative reason for his being there.

>He never should have been attacked in the first place.
He never should have gotten himself into that situation in the first place. As I said I don't think they can use stupidity as a defense.

>>137779530
>But if you can't even give the benefit of a doubt that because he was attacked and panicked, that the accident is not entirely his fault.
Yes, but "panic" is not a defense. If he isn't able to control himself he shouldn't be given a license to drive a car. What if he "panicked" next to a kindergarten because someone set off fireworks by his car?

What if I have a gun and I pass by a group of people and one of the group throws a plastic bottle at me. Do I have the right to open fire on them? Cars are deadly weapons.

Not using common sense and adjusting your speed to account for the conditions does not excuse you from anything

>>137782294
If he says that he just wanted to drive down this road this will be reason enough.
He drove down a public road assuming that walkers on the road give him way not attack him. But they attacked while he was carefully closing on them.

File: crowd.jpg (161KB, 856x482px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 856x482px

>>137781615
>Blocking view does is not equal to blocking road.
If there is enough people to block your view of the car that is parked, that means that there is enough people to block the road.

>>137781615
>Pedestrian on the road is not blocking it.
One? No. A hundred? Yes. How do you not understand this concept?

>>137775114
>The road was not blocked, there were some people walking on it.
PIC FUCKING RELATED (I can't believe I forgot about the aerial view). Hopefully now you will shut the fuck up.

>>137782799
>If he says that he just wanted to drive down this road this will be reason enough.
THE ROAD IS FUCKING BLOCKED. He can't say he wanted to drive down, because there's nowhere to drive.

>>137782799
>But they attacked while he was carefully closing on them.
>carefully
Proof needed.

>>137752166
No you moron. There is something that trumps that, it is called the "basic speed law". And sometimes, you can get out of speeding tickets by citing the basic speed law proving that it was safe and reasonable to do what you were doing and there was a lack of adequate signage.
Not to bright are you young fag?.

>>137781970
>Once again are implying it will take hours for them to disperse. How do you know this? In the pictures they seem to be moving down the street away from the direction he came.
No, in pictures they seemed to be blocking the road.

Why aren't any of the other cars moving?

>>137781970
>He was attacked while still proceeding toward the group. You are not obligated to stop as far back as possible from a protest.
But WHY was he going there? Where was he hoping to go?

Check pic related here: >>137783109
https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=11m25s

None of the other cars on the roads are moving. They have stopped and are waiting for protesters to leave.

At no point did he stop. He got onto the road and drove towards them. There is absolutely no good reason for him to do so.

>>137752508
SPBP

>>137783109
There is no difference - one or hundred or 6 gorillion. All of them violate traffic code and should step aside and let the car pass not act as retards. There is no such thing as legal blockade by civilians on public roads (if road is not closed by authorities for some event). Get fucked.

>>137783109
He was closing carefully, he reduced speed and was ready to stop when need arises. Did you miss the vid? He drove way below the speed limit when retard hit him with bat.

>>137782294

>What more can you possibly want? He drove himself into that situation.

What situation? There wasn't a situation. There were protesters blocking an intersection, that after the fact turned out to be violent. There was no way of knowing this because you have the right to assume you can travel down a street without being assaulted. As >>137781985 said, he had every right to be there, and they assaulted him first.

Just because he was involved in the opposing group doesn't prove intent of murder. Since when it's being accused of political wrong think prove intent to murder other than in the deluded minds of those in the special snowflake left?

>His defense will have a hard time proving or showing an alternative reason for his being there.
>He never should have gotten himself into that situation in the first place. As I said I don't think they can use stupidity as a defense.

There was never a situation to get himself into. He was simply driving away from an event. The moment he was assaulted is when it turned into "a situation", not before. He had every right to be there in that road, they had no right to assault him because of wrong think. This is honestly the fault of that skinny lanky communist faggot that first hit his car. I'm thinking he will face some charges as well if they can find him.

>Yes, but "panic" is not a defense. If he isn't able to control himself he shouldn't be given a license to drive a car. What if he "panicked" next to a kindergarten because someone set off fireworks by his car?

What if I have a gun and I pass by a group of people and one of the group throws a plastic bottle at me. Do I have the right to open fire on them? Cars are deadly weapons.

Panic is 100% a defense. It abolishes their implication of intent. And yes if I was in his situation and they started attacking me, and I had a gun, I would 100% start opening fire.

Fireworks and actually attacking are totally different, so your example is pointless.

>>137783740
>All of them violate traffic code and should step aside and let the car pass not act as retards.
That doesn't give you the right to run people over, you understand that, right?

>There is no such thing as legal blockade by civilians on public roads (if road is not closed by authorities for some event).
There is also no such thing as a legal ramming of pedestrians you dumb fuck.

>>137783938
>he reduced speed and was ready to stop when need arises.
The need arises? You mean like a hundred people in your way? That's not a need to stop?

If someone walks in front of the targets at a shooting range, you don't have a legal right to murder them.

>He drove way below the speed limit when retard hit him with bat.
Where was he driving? There's nowhere for him to drive. This is not a good hill for you to die on.

>>137784071
>What situation?
>There wasn't a situation.
>There were protesters blocking an intersection
You contradicted yourself in the next fucking sentence. lol

>There was no way of knowing this because you have the right to assume you can travel down a street without being assaulted.
No way of knowing, except seeing it with his own eyes.

>Since when it's being accused of political wrong think prove intent to murder other than in the deluded minds of those in the special snowflake left?
No, it's not his ideology that proves intent. It's the whole driving your car into a group of people that proves it.

>>137784071
>There was never a situation to get himself into. He was simply driving away from an event.
>driving away
>into a crowd of people

>He had every right to be there in that road, they had no right to assault him because of wrong think.
How could they have possibly known his political ideology? There are no markings on his car.

>This is honestly the fault of that skinny lanky communist faggot that first hit his car. I'm thinking he will face some charges as well if they can find him.
You're either very young, or very stupid, or both.

>>137784071
>Panic is 100% a defense. It abolishes their implication of intent.
He had no good reason to be in the "enemy camp". He was there to provoke, or to cause some shit, he definitely wasn't there to extend an olive branch.

>And yes if I was in his situation and they started attacking me, and I had a gun, I would 100% start opening fire.
Someone throwing a plastic bottle at you does not give you the right to murder them.

Someone hitting your bumper with a bat does not give you the right to accelerate your car into a group of people.

This guy is doing life for murder. And you will blame the Jewish media, or the libtard jury or whatever. You will blame everyone but the guy who committed the crime. Very mature. Isn't that what BLM does when cops shoot a black dude? Blame everyone else except the guy who got shot while committing the crime?
>inb4 that's completely different

File: charlottesville-protests-car-crash-ht-jt-170813_12x5_992-1600x669.jpg (302KB, 1600x669px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1600x669px

>>137783509
>Why aren't any of the other cars moving?

Because the idiot driving the red minivan pushed and left his vehicle in the middle of the intersection. Look at the picture s7 the time if the accident, the van is empty.

>But WHY was he going there? Where was he hoping to go?

Where was he going to go? Idk, home?

>None of the other cars on the roads are moving. They have stopped and are waiting for protesters to leave.

See pic related

>At no point did he stop. He got onto the road and drove towards them. There is absolutely no good reason for him to do so.

Once again I've said before, he was never given the opportunity to stop. He was attacked as he was proceeding to the point they were protesting which caused him to panic. He had an absolute right and reason to be there, he was on a legal roadway with a legally registered vehicle, it was the protesters that technically and legally had no right to be there. As >>137781985 said, you can legally drive up to them, honk your horn, even follow them at their speed, and show them you're there so they'll move. They are the ones in a location they shouldn't be, not the driver. They although, have no legal right to attack you, which is exactly what they did.

>>137785012
Need to stop arises when you are about to hit someone. Not tens of meters or yards before (this is when thug hit his car with bat).

He run people over when he was fleeing from the mob who attacked his car. Question is - why those people were not stepping aside and let him pass? Were they part of the mob and were they about to attack him too?

Were those that got ran over intentionally trying to stop him as to enable thugs to attack him? Seems so to me.

There is such thing as legally ramming thugs who try to murder you.

File: IMG_2914.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>it's a particularly icy day

what the fuck is ice

>>137785709
> There is such thing as legally ramming thugs who try to murder you.
It is called self defense.

>>137785547
>Because the idiot driving the red minivan pushed and left his vehicle in the middle of the intersection. Look at the picture s7 the time if the accident, the van is empty.
So he was expecting the minivan to move out of the way magically?

>Where was he going to go? Idk, home?
To Ohio? But he just got there. Why would he drive all that way just to leave again?

>He had an absolute right and reason to be there, he was on a legal roadway with a legally registered vehicle, it was the protesters that technically and legally had no right to be there.
>As >>137781985 said, you can legally drive up to them, honk your horn, even follow them at their speed, and show them you're there so they'll move.
Your picture shows a car in the way, as well. Was honking the horn supposed to move the car, too?

Also, in the video he doesn't honk the horn.

>>137785709
>Need to stop arises when you are about to hit someone.
Or a parked car? >>137785547

>He run people over when he was fleeing from the mob who attacked his car.
Running away into parked cars? >>137785547

>Question is - why those people were not stepping aside and let him pass?
Where was he going to pass? The road was blocked by two parked cars. Or is that not a blocked road and parked cars move out of the way magically when you have a legal right to be there? >>137785547

>>137785943
>It is called self defense.
So when one person 'attacks' you (hits your car) you now have the legal right to indiscriminately run people over?

And remember, his car was hit up the road, no one from the crowd actually attacked him until after he ploughed into them.

File: mob armed.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>137785483
>He had no good reason to be in the "enemy camp". He was there to provoke, or to cause some shit, he definitely wasn't there to extend an olive branch.
Who are you to tell somebody what road they can drive down? I hope you get rundown next.

>>137752166
Someone has never driven in snow

>>137786599
You probably don't want to drive down a road where two parked cars are blocking the way.>>137785547 cause you know, you can't go anywhere that way. It's effectively a dead end.

>I hope you get rundown next.
I hope you grow up. But we both know both things are very unlikely.

>>137785012
>That doesn't give you the right to run people over, you understand that, right?

>There is also no such thing as a legal ramming of pedestrians you dumb fuck.

I apologise, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm having a hard time finding where anyone is advocating for the legal right to "ram pedestrians" as you are claiming.


Honestly you continue to pick and choose parts of my and others posts to continue attempting to buffer your colluded view point, while ignoring all the points where we actually prove you wrong. You didn't come for a "food for thought" discussion as your OP claims, you just came to attempt to push your conjecture onto everyone who'd be dumb enough to listen.

You refuse to acknowledge any point that goes against your own opinion. You continue to believe this is our attempt to claim legality in his actions. You continue to believe he had no right be there even when presented with proof of the contrary. You continue to believe the protesters "dindu nuffin" even when presented with proof of the contrary. Now you are stuck in a corner so deep you have resorted to name calling, calling me young and stupid because you can't refute my point.

I'm done trying to talk legal sense into you, because you didn't come here for that. I honestly can't wait for the day he is aquitted, because I can only imagine the amount of butthurt you will be faced to feel.

>>137785483
>He had no good reason to be in the "enemy camp". He was there to provoke, or to cause some shit, he definitely wasn't there to extend an olive branch.

He was there to drive. How do you refuse to see this?

>>137786543
> So when one person 'attacks' you (hits your car) you now have the legal right to indiscriminately run people over?
If you have gut feeling that those who try to stop you work together with those who attack you then yes. It can save your life and aftermath will be in the court.

Are you ever driven a car? He did not see the cars left onto road (they are not parked, they are tow away material and not supposed to be there) because the mob blocked his visibility. Had they used the sidewalks then yes, he could see the cars.

His car was hit _before_ he ploughed into mob (who were or were not cooperating with thug(s) who attacked his car) after accelerating away from the thug who hit his car. Do a test, sit into your car and let someone hit it with bat. Sounds nice?

>>137786599
This.

>>137752166
No because you are not driving to the accordance of road conditions and weather conditions.

>>137787393
>I apologise, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm having a hard time finding where anyone is advocating for the legal right to "ram pedestrians" as you are claiming.

>>137785709
>There is such thing as legally ramming thugs who try to murder you.

>to continue attempting to buffer your colluded view point, while ignoring all the points where we actually prove you wrong.
So he didn't drive his car into a group of people at speed? Reality isn't up for debate. I don't know what kind of postmodernist neoliberal world you live in, but the fact that he rammed his car into a crowd of people and two parked cars is not up for debate.

You're one of the ones who keeps inventing stories of him panicking and "fleeing for his life". Of driving down a road which was blocked.

>You continue to believe he had no right be there even when presented with proof of the contrary.
I never said "right", I said reason. He had no reason to go there because the road was blocked. It doesn't matter why it was blocked, or that it was blocked illegally, it matters that it was blocked.

>I'm done trying to talk legal sense into you, because you didn't come here for that. I honestly can't wait for the day he is aquitted, because I can only imagine the amount of butthurt you will be faced to feel.
>legal sense
>acquittal of murdering 1 person and injuring 19 others
Pure delusion.

The fact is he drove his car into people. Ultimately, it doesn't matter why because obviously it wasn't self defense. The crowd wasn't attacking him before he rammed into them.

>>137787552
>>137787552
>He was there to drive. How do you refuse to see this?
The road was blocked by two parked cars and people walking on the road. >>137785547

There wasn't anywhere for him to go. Why do you refuse to ackowledge this?

>>137787839
That's my whole point. If road conditions are that the road is blocked by parked cars and people, you don't drive into the blockade at speed.

>>137788445
He drove his car into mob accelerating away from thug(s) who were already attacking him. And he has every reason to believe that the mob he was about to plough into was working together with thugs who attacked him.

And this is all on the video. Get fucked in court, morons.

>>137789068
And yet when the time came to flee, he reversed out of the street without any problems. Why didn't he just do that in the first place if he was "running for his life"?

That little bit doesn't fit neatly into your narrative.

The common tactic of libtard prosecutors to overcharge the defendants will make sure that he walks (see latest cops put on trial under absurd charges).
Just dropping this here.

>>137789068
>>137788445
Also note that the speed with what he hit the abandoned cars on the road was not enough to pop open airbag in his car. He did not floor it while accelerating away to save his life. He is a caring person, actually. I hope he gets good legal assistance and stupid landwhales pick their company more carefully from now on. They can turn into "civilian casualties".

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

>>137752166
>Does this give me the right to speed through the highway going 70mph and when I cause an accident say "they weren't allowed to be going that slow in the first place"?

Not in Norway. It's not allowed to go much faster than the general traffic on icy days.

>>137789726
He fled forward at first, away from the thugs. And then backward (because he hit a car that he now could see because there was no more mob blocking visibility), away from the thugs. In both directions his car was hitting someone from the surrounding mob.

>>137752166

No it does not. Questions of this type are covered by the concept of negligence, both criminal and civil. Essentially any damage you do will be analyzed through the rubric of whether, given the circumstances and the reasonable person’s apprehension of the situation, you acted with reasonable care. There are other criteria, but without getting too technical, that is what it boils down to.

Did you act reasonably given the situation? In your hypothetical, likely no. You knew that traffic typically slowed down in those conditions, and that traveling much faster than normal could have resulted in an accident.

Typically speaking, pointing out a legal technicality is not going to help you out if you cause serious harm/death. Criminal negligence is very broad and the definition can vary from case to case, so do yourself a favor and don’t do anything stupid unless you want to wind up broke or in prison.

>>137789765
>Also note that the speed with what he hit the abandoned cars on the road was not enough to pop open airbag in his car.
His bumper was ripped off and his front was smashed, the airbag should have opened. Maybe he deactivated it, proving intent. We'll see when the trial begins.

>He is a caring person, actually.
This has got to be bait.

>>137790319
What's more likely?

That this is just a kid who got lost in the midst of the people he hates and then panicked and ''''''''''''accidentally'''''''''''' ran people over

OR

That this is a violent schizophrenic who decided that he was going to attack "commies"?

>911 transcripts show that Fields’ mom, Samantha Bloom, had called 911 twice in the past, saying that he beat her and threatened her with a knife, AP reported. Florence Police Department records said a call was made in 2011. She said her son was holding a 12-inch knife. An earlier call from 2010 showed Bloom saying the Fields had smacked her head and locked her in a bathroom. He did this because she told him to stop playing video games, she said in the call. She said in the call that he was taking medication to control his temper.

>Derek Weimer, a high school teacher of Fields’, said that Fields was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been on anti-psychotic medication, Richmond.com reported.
https://archive.fo/yB04Y

https://archive.fo/NtbOw

Keep defending him as a good boy who dindu nuffin, even though he beat his own mother (who is a paraplegic) and threatened her with a knife.
>Meanwhile, an uncle, under the condition of anonymity, told The Washington Post that Fields’ mom had raised Fields alone as a single mom after his dad died. She’s a paraplegic, his uncle said.
https://archive.fo/0elOP

>>137790319
See: >>137790911
>Typically speaking, pointing out a legal technicality is not going to help you out if you cause serious harm/death.

Why is it so hard to understand that what he did was wrong, illegal and criminal and that he will pay for it?

>>137791381
Lol nice looks like he could just pay the mentally unstable route justifying his unusual actions. Cheers for the info cunt eyes.

>>137791381
Bumpers and front are supposed to take some damage even when you hit pedestrians in order to give them some better chance. But for airbags to open there is generally speed threshold you have to cross before hitting an obstacle. IDK exactly how his car is engineered but I have reason to believe he did not exceed that limit.

Of course he is caring person, if he was not caring about human lives when trying to save his life he had floored it and hit abandoned cars with enough speed to pop open the airbags.

What he did is self defense (badly judged, maybe but he had every reason to believe that the mob he was hitting was working together with thugs attacking him). Thug hit his car first, before he fled into mob, there is evidence about it.

>>137791381
It is irrelevant what is more likely. His car was hit first, when he was carefully driving along the road and not trying to smash into pedestrians. After thug attack he fled the thug(s) who hit his car and wanted to harm him.

File: dindunuffin.png (207KB, 498x675px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 498x675px

>>137792052
>crazy people are heroes of the alt-right

>>137792533
>I have reason to believe he did not exceed that limit.
Did you investigate the crash? lol What reasons do you have?

>>137792533
>if he was not caring about human lives when trying to save his life he had floored it and hit abandoned cars with enough speed to pop open the airbags.
Except he did floor it. You can hear the engine rev up in the video. I don't know why the airbag didn't open, it really should have. You know if it turns out he deactivated the airbag it would prove intent.

Wish I could be there to see your face when he gets 25 to life.

Also, check out the picture I just made. Feel free to save and share.

>>137792984
>His car was hit first, when he was carefully driving along the road and not trying to smash into pedestrians.
The fact that the road was blocked (by parked cars, pedestrians, fallen trees, fat people sunbathing, WHATEVER) shows that there is no REASON for him to be driving down that road. So that means his intent was not to go from point A to B, his intent was something else. Maybe he was looking for a place to park or maybe he was going to eat at a restaurant on that street or maybe he is a violent schizophrenic who forgot his meds at home in Ohio.

>>137793372
If car is accelerating the engine revs up, it is built so. If you floor it it revs up way more.
Pedestrians can not block roads. Pedestrians step aside and let the car pass. And abandoned cars were not visible from his driver position.

Maybees do not fly in just court.
And pedestrians who do not step aside to let the car pass become into mob working together with violent thugs who attacked his car.

>>137793372
> Did you investigate the crash? lol What reasons do you have?
I just happen to know how airbags are engineered and work in general.

>>137794145
>If car is accelerating the engine revs up, it is built so. If you floor it it revs up way more.
Yes, he accelerated into the crowd, not away from it.

>Pedestrians can not block roads. Pedestrians step aside and let the car pass.
in a perfect world. As people in this thread have repeatedly said, drivers are supposed to adapt to the conditions on the road, whatever they are. And the fact that he didn't, but still drove into the crowd after seeing they were there and not moving will be enough to prove intent to cause harm.

>>137794320
>I just happen to know how airbags are engineered and work in general.
>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (US Department of Transportation, 2003, p.5), “Air bags are typically designed to deploy in frontal and near-frontal collisions, which are comparable to hitting a solid barrier at approximately 8 to 14 mph.”
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/2014/pdf/Air%20Bag%20Deployment.pdf

Next you will tell me he wasn't going faster than 14mph.

>>137794909
He accelerated into mob that tried to block his way away from thugs attacking him.
He adapted to conditions, he slowed down, was not hitting anybody UNTIL HE WAS ATTACKED. And this attack changed the rules.

He wasn't most probably going much over 30 km/h, otherwise there would be many more dead bodies. Abandoned car is not solid barrier, btw.

Fortunately there is video recording of this and if there are autists around who want to measure distances covered by frame we can get quite exact number.

>>137793372
he didu nuffin

>>137795901
>And this attack changed the rules.
It really didn't. If one person attacks you, you don't get to run over a bunch of people with the excuse "I was running away". That's not how the law works.

>He wasn't most probably going much over 30 km/h, otherwise there would be many more dead bodies
30 km/h is around 19mph. Call it 20 mph.

He hits the first car with enough force to push it and another car in front of it. The airbag should have been deployed. Why it wasn't will definitely be investigated.

>>137796693
If mob tries to block your way to enable thugs to attack you the mob will take the beating too. Soft beating in our case.

Are you ever been in a car crash at ~30 km/h? This is exactly what happens. At 40+ km/h the damage is way bigger.

File: damage.jpg (61KB, 638x407px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 638x407px

>>137797459
>If mob tries to block your way
The mob was there long before he turned into that street. Don't twist this and say the mob somehow formed when they saw a gray Dodge.

>Are you ever been in a car crash at ~30 km/h?
Yes. I've been in several car crashes.

>This is exactly what happens. At 40+ km/h the damage is way bigger.
Regardless, the airbag should have deployed when hitting a parked car at 20mph.

Look at that damage in pic related. The front is smashed, the front bumper is hanging off and the hood began to crumple. The airbag should have deployed. His either malfunctioned or he turned it off. If he turned it off that proves intent. When the trial starts we'll know more.

>>137797459
Man you should stop arguing with the other guy he's full blown retarded. He has no idea about how real life works or that people have gotten away with worse stuff under more suspect circumstances.

>>137796693
you actually do, thats how the law works

Otherwise the mafia could jsut pay people to stand in front of your car and beat you up and kill you.

food for thought.

>>137798452


>Yes. I've been in several car crashes.

So you admit you have no idea how to drive.

>>137798757
>you actually do, thats how the law works
Defense is going to have a hard time proving he was attacked and that he was fearing and running for his life.

There is no evidence of him being attacked before he rams into the crowd. If there is, I'd like to see it.

>>137798903
>So you admit you have no idea how to drive.
>being in a car crash means you were the one driving
>being in a car crash means you are the one at fault
You Aussies really are fucking retarded, aren't you?

>>137798452
The mob slowed him down and enabled thug attack, yes. The mob already ruined the day for two companies from those two abandoned cars.

Hitting the parked car at 20mph very rarely deploys airbags. There are masses of cars involved and surface friction states and other things to consider of course. If the first car he hit were the red truck (heavier) then probability they have deployed at 20 mph is much higher.

>>137752166
The question matches the banner

>>137799191
1. Any good driver can see a crash about to happen and avoid it.

2. If you're dumb enough to get in a car with someone that can't drive you're an even bigger retard.

Complete idiot confirmed

File: truth_about_dead_commies.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>137799191
As you wish.

>>137760208
Km's
you euroniggers forget one apostraphe and it ruins the whole thread

>>137755595

A couple km/s.
Not kms.

Go back to middle school and learn the difference between multiplication and division.

>>137799689
>1. Any good driver can see a crash about to happen and avoid it.
hahahaahaha

Confirmed for never having driven a car. Another aussie, as well, stop posting, morons, you're embarrassing yourselves.

>>137800039
>not speeding
>video slowed down
Are you being serious right now?

>>137752166
>slowing down because it's icy
Do people really do that? Ice or no ice the speed limit stays the same.

>>137800374
So you deny a good driver can avoid crashing?

Man you are trying hard aren't you?

You know you have to be 18 to post here.


Also you were just saw evidence of the car being struck and disregarded it. You're the only embarssement here.

File: 1325161207226.jpg (161KB, 990x659px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 990x659px

>>137759465
you forgot one

>>137800374
People casually step out of the way as car gradually slows. Not speeding at all.

This one was slowed to show thug hitting the car.
But there are raw versions too. Someone pls post.

>>137800374
I love how you pick very small portions of posts to reply to, and completely ignore any part of a post that you know you can't argue against. It's fucking pathetic and really obvious when you make so many posts.

>>137800725
>So you deny a good driver can avoid crashing?
No, you dumb faggot. Not all crashes can be avoided. For example, getting T-boned at an intersection by someone running a red light.
>inb4 180+ degree vision and hand-brake pulling to dodge the car


>Man you are trying hard aren't you?
>You know you have to be 18 to post here.
I'm going to guess you're about 16. Your dad let you drive a couple of times in the desert you call Australia and now you think you know everything there is about driving. Listen kid, the fact that you think all crashes can be avoided shows how inexperienced you are. The simplest kind of collision like someone rear-ending you is something you can't avoid no matter how good of a driver you are. You better learn that accidents happen and wearing a seatbelt, plus not exceeding the speed limit too much can save your life. So don't be a fool and think you can avoid crashes, because that attitude endangers not only you, but other people as well.

>Also you were just saw evidence of the car being struck and disregarded it.
It was struck after the car was already heading for the crowd. Estonia poster claims there was an 'attack' off-video that prompted the driver to attempt to 'flee' the scene by driving towards the crowd.

>>137800968
>This one was slowed to show thug hitting the car.
After the car was already heading into the crowd. Where is the video of the attack that made him drive into the car to 'escape'?

>>137801602
I can't quote every single part of a post because there is a 2000 characted word limit. I answer the relevant part of the post. And the fact that this thread has had over 200 posts, with many being mine shows that I am trying to answer everything.

Tell me what I've missed.

>>137801602
>>137802603
The argument for the defense of the dindu rests on:
>1) He was driving down the street going somewhere.
I demonstrated the street was blocked by parked cars and pedestrians, therefore he had no reason to go down that was as there was nowhere to go. Pictures: >>137785547 >>137783109

>2) He was attacked which provoked him to drive into the crowd.
There is only a video >>137800039 showing someone hitting his car AFTER he had already driven towards the crowd.

>3) He panicked and he tried to escape by driving through the crowd
Again, this seems unlikely because when he actually tried to escape he had no problems backing up the street and leaving.

Furthermore, >>137791381 shows that he was a violent schizphrenic that couldn't control his temper (he was on medication for it), so it is likely he didn't panic, but got angry and decided to lash out. Or worse, he went there with intent to cause harm, being a white supremacist and neo-nazi.

>>137802603
Car was not heading into the crowd until it was hit as you see on that video.
Pedestrians just stepped aside onto sidewalk to let the car pass as it should be and car was driving slow enough to allow them to do so. A-OK until thug hit car with bat and mob started to swarm the car.

>>137802603
>I answer the relevant part of the post
No you don't you intentionally skirt around the relevant part of the post. get the fuck out of here kid.

>>137802763
You can drive towards the crowd on the road all the way you want. It is your legal right.

>>So you deny a good driver can avoid crashing?
>No, you dumb faggot. Not all crashes can be avoided. For example, getting T-boned at an intersection by someone running a red light.
>>inb4 180+ degree vision and hand-brake pulling to dodge the car

Did you just try to inb4 looking left and right as you approach an intersection? Fucking christ you must be a fucking moron, have you driven a car ever you stupid cunt? You're a danger to everyone around you if you have a license.


I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of what you said because you're clearly menatlly ill.

>>137752166
make this post again after you get your learners permit, then come back, write it again, and just delete it all halfway through, because you know what you are

i need dating advice

>>137753113

this analogy is not valid at all

an illegally formed violent mob that is brandishing clubs is not the same thing as an icy road

there are cases where people have driven through a mob and been acquitted, because an angry mob, especially an armed one, is a dangerous thing

we shall see the outcome of his case, but schizophrenia and the conditions of the violent mob indicates to me that he will not be indicted for any degree of murder, and probably not even manslaughter

>>137759653

>Person is hitting your car with a bat
>Innocent.

Not how that works. Also the fatty was blocking his vehicle so they could hit it with bats. Making her an accomplice to the crime.

>>137803147
>Car was not heading into the crowd until it was hit as you see on that video.
Yes, it was, because it is a one way street and the crowd was in front of him, so if he was moving forward (and he was) he was heading into the crowd.

>>137803335
I asked you to tell me what I've missed and all you've done is repeated yourself.

>>137803446
>You can drive towards the crowd on the road all the way you want. It is your legal right.
It is your legal right to be on the road, it is not your legal right to drive INTO the crowd. The crowd in front was not attacking the car. The guy who hit the car was behind him. That does not give him the right to plough the people in front.

>>137803827
>Did you just try to inb4 looking left and right as you approach an intersection?
Again, you show how young and stupid you are. Because I specifically said:
>For example, getting T-boned at an intersection by someone running a red light.
If someone runs a red light, as you're crossing the intersection, by the time you notice them it is too late. You would know this if you drove more than a few km through the desert with your dad. What your dad told you about looking left and right at an intersection is good advice and you should listen to him, however once you start driving in traffic you will notice that theory is different from practice. Only experience can teach you that, which you will gain eventually.

>>137804222
>missing the point

>>137804447
The point isn't about the icy roads. The point is that road conditions change, and you can't say "but the law says I can do this and that", you still have to adapt to the conditions of the road. And one of the main responsibilities of you as a driver is to watch out for pedestrians and avoid them, not run into them.

This is vehicular manslaughter at the very least. And my money is that if he's offered manslaughter his lawyers will tell him to take the plea bargain. If it goes to trial they will prove intent, based on his violent past.

>>137752166
>Too fast for conditions.

That's a charge. You're a moron. Give back your license you newfag driver.

>>137805349
>missing the point

>>137805197

1) it's a one way street

2) he was going the speed limit

3) he was pressing the breaks as he was approaching the crowd

4) after antifa started clubbing his car is when he accelerated

5) antifa surrounded his car and started collectively clubbing his windows in after he crashed

Sorry, but violent armed mobs don't get much legal rights, and make this situation (even if internally the kid intended to smash into people) legally much easier for the defense. Prosecution is going to have quite the time proving intent and getting a serious charge to stick against a schizophrenic.

>>137805197
> he was heading into the crowd.
Cars have brakes, anon.
> It is your legal right to be on the road, it is not your legal right to drive INTO the crowd.
This is why I said TOWARDS.

But if a mob tries to stop you and starts attacking you game changes.

>>137805197
>Again, you show how young and stupid you are. Because I specifically said:
>>For example, getting T-boned at an intersection by someone running a red light.
>If someone runs a red light, as you're crossing the intersection, by the time you notice them it is too late. You would know this if you drove more than a few km through the desert with your dad. What your dad told you about looking left and right at an intersection is good advice and you should listen to him, however once you start driving in traffic you will notice that theory is different from practice. Only experience can teach you that, which you will gain eventually.

Okay so for someone to run a red and hit you as you cross an intersection they would need to enter it at a fairly similar time to you or they would have to be speeding excessivly. Both of these things can be avoided simply by looking before you enter. Maybe they don't teach you that when you get a learners permit in fucking loompa land. I dont know how much more simple I can make this for you mate. If someone completly randomly runs up your arse from standstill with no tell tail signs obviously that cant be avoided as there is no way to recognise it. However I said a good drive can recognise when a crash is going to happen such as someone on their phone in a car behind you or a tailgater.


Your arguments are weak as fuck.

>>137806306
>1) it's a one way street
>2) he was going the speed limit
Agreed.

>3) he was pressing the breaks as he was approaching the crowd
Evidence?

>4) after antifa started clubbing his car is when he accelerated
One hit can hardly be called "clubbing".

>5) antifa surrounded his car and started collectively clubbing his windows in after he crashed
Yeah, because he ploughed into people. Were they supposed to ask him if he was alright?

>>137806433
>But if a mob tries to stop you and starts attacking you game changes.
What reason did the mob have to try and stop him? Why was it so important for them to stop this car? You're assuming they were just waiting for a car to smash. If this is true, why weren't they smashing the other cars that were there?

>>137806700
>Okay so for someone to run a red and hit you as you cross an intersection they would need to enter it at a fairly similar time to you or they would have to be speeding excessivly. Both of these things can be avoided simply by looking before you enter.
In cities with buildings or trees your view will be obstructed. That's why I said you see it when it's too late, after you have already entered the intersection and then someone runs through a red light (because they haven't seen you either because of the same buildings or trees, or they were drunk, or just crazy). You are not going to slow down when approaching an intersection when the light is green and hundred thousand times you're at an intersection nothing will happen. But all it takes is one person to act irresponsibly.

Cars are operated by humans, who are unpredictable and erratic. Yes, you can avoid many crashes by being alert. But you also have to understand that accidents happen and it's important to wear a seatbelt. Because it will save your life. It saved mine.

>>137807994
> What reason did the mob have to try and stop him? Why was it so important for them to stop this car? You're assuming they were just waiting for a car to smash. If this is true, why weren't they smashing the other cars that were there?

They slowed his car and attacked it - this is what happened. Retards are often not reasonable at all.

>>137752166
You do know speed limits are for IDEAL CONDITIONS don't you?

>>137807994

>evidence

video evidence shows breaks

One hit is all that's necessary for the defense to combine with schizophrenia to blow the charges out of the water. Schizophrenia and a violent, armed illegally formed mob is a great setup for an easy defense. All he'll have to do is say that he felt paranoid and full of fear and anxiety because of the large scary armed mob that was surrounding him and that when he heard clubs start to hit his car he panicked and hit the acceleration by accident, and then the defense is going to stuff intent, and build up acquittal over mental health and a fear/panic that relieves the defendant of guilt.

the mob being armed fucks the prosecution up really bad and makes their job extremely difficult

>>137807994
>You are not going to slow down when approaching an intersection.


It is literally in the vic roads learner tip book and I do slow down as I enter an intersection which would be the difference between a good and a bad driver.

"• Slow down before entering
intersections "

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media/files/formsandpublications/licences/road_to_solo_driving_part_1_the_challenges_of_driving_english.pdf

>>137752166
>Does this give me the right to speed through the highway going 70mph and when I cause an accident say "they weren't allowed to be going that slow in the first place"?
you can be given a ticket for "going the speed limit" when roads are slippery. you are supposed to slow down and increase your following distance.
highways are frequently jammed during rush hour and slow down to a crawl. you dont get tickets for going too slow when road conditions require it.

>>137808472
>They slowed his car
>with their bodies
Those crafty commies.

>and attacked it
how dare they get angry at him ramming them!

>this is what happened
That's what you say happened.

>>137808735
>missing the point

>>137808967
>All he'll have to do is say that he felt paranoid and full of fear and anxiety because of the large scary armed mob that was surrounding him
Prosecution: "Then why were you there?"

>>137809697
>It is literally in the vic roads learner tip book and I do slow down as I enter an intersection which would be the difference between a good and a bad driver.
>"• Slow down before entering
>intersections "
>https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media/files/formsandpublications/licences/road_to_solo_driving_part_1_the_challenges_of_driving_english.pdf

You have poor reading comprehension. It is talking about 1) turning at an intersection and 2) intersections without traffic lights (as the accompanying pictures show).

My example was someone running a red light and T-boning you so it's 1) going straight through and not turning, and 2) there are traffic lights.

>>137757945
>Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?
This is where the "they weren't supposed to be there" comes in. He had every right to go down that street. They had no right to block it, and certainly no right to attack his car, which they did BEFORE he ever hit anyone.

>>137754945
>Vehicular manslaughter, end of story.
at best, but not 2nd degree murder

the woman who died wasn't even in his line of sight or killed by his car directly, it's like crashing into a scaffolding and accusing him of murder because a pedestrian walking under it was crushed in its collapse

>>137753521

>On streets you're required to yield to people on the road, even if they're hitting your car with bats

?

>>137752166
>jew york plates.
>BUH YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED.
You need to slow the fuck down cunt when its snowy or wet.
Prove me wrong cunt.

>>137810533

hopefully prosecutors still overcharge and lose

so we can get Zimzam 2.0

File: OP.PUTTS.FROM.THE ROUGH.jpg (20KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x270px

>>137752166
OP is a fucking faggot. Where are the fucking mods these days. This shit belongs on B with the rest of the retarded bullshit. Especially OP, you fucking reddit imgur bitch, get the fuck off pol.

>>137752166
No, because you're supposed to adjust you speed due to weather conditions. Even if you're doing the speed limit but it's an ice storm, a cop can still give you a ticket. That's what I was taught in my Driver's Ed class anyway. May be different depending on state/country, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

File: trumpprotest.jpg (133KB, 1420x946px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1420x946px

>>137810404
>He had every right to go down that street. They had no right to block it,
There were two parked cars blocking the road as well. Not much you can do about those except accept that they're there and act accordingly (i.e. not go down that street because it's blocked).

Look at pic related, that's anti-Trump protesters blocking a highway. Why aren't people ramming them? Oh yeah, because they're not violent schizophrenics who want to hurt them.


>>137810533
There were also 19 people injured.

>>137810623
Yes, when road conditions change you change your driving. Like when there's a hundred people and two parked cars in the road you don't drive into them.

>>137810686
>hopefully prosecutors still overcharge and lose
He's gonna plead guilty to a lesser charge. There's no way he can win in a trial.

>>137810785
>I want more nazi threads! waah!
Cry more, pussy.

>>137810253
Retard, he rammed them AFTER he was attacked. And he slowed down because mob was on the road.

Look again at the video I posted.

>>137812011
The cars were not parked man there were people driving them and they were moving.

>>137812011
People on the road are road condition you can change. Like direct them to the sidewalk.

File: parked.jpg (338KB, 1600x669px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1600x669px

>>137812124
Watch the video in full speed.
https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=11m20s

You can see he's driving into the crowd before the guy hits the car. People are jumping out of the way.

>>137812346
>The cars were not parked man there were people driving them and they were moving.
Look again, there's clearly no one in the driver's seat.

>>137812439
>People on the road are road condition you can change. Like direct them to the sidewalk.
Yes, people shouldn't be on the road. But if they are you can't just run them over.

>>137812905
Nope, nobody is hit before they hit his car. He accelerates good 20 meters before hitting anyone and brakes before accelerating..

It can not be seen from his car that there is nobody on the drives seat on those abandoned cars on the road.

If people are on the road on wrong places they get ran over quite often. This is natural selection. And often drivers are cleared of any wrongdoing after they hit pedestrians in such scenarios.