Charlottesville Driver Innocent?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Konduit

Well this video shows him from a little farther down the street.

Notice that he's driving down an open street before hitting those people. Nobody seems to be attacking him at all. In fact there are very few people even around at this point.

Then when he reverses back from the direction he started from you can see nobody is even there. Nobody with bats. Just an empty street.

He wasn't being attacked by anyone. He did the attacking. He's a f*cking murderer. He decided to plow his car into a crowd of people because he's a psycho. Even the Fox News guy says according to witnesses it was intentional.

edit on 14-8-2017 by mOjOm because: I forgot to include the video. oops.

That video is very damning, in my opinion.

I could have been a bit sympathetic for him if he were in a situation in which he was being attacked by a mob while he was in his car, but that does not appear to be the case at all.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah.

He was "coasting" so much that you can hear the undercarriage scrape when he comes "coasting" off of that speed bump pedestrian crosswalk intersection.

He didn't look like he was coasting to me. He looked like he was driving IMO.

Oh there's no doubt about it, he was driving... at high speed, much higher than he should have when driving over a pedestrian crosswalk intersection with speed bumps on either end.


He wasn't "coasting" as Konduit put it:

Not going to keep arguing about this, but it clearly shows that he was coasting until his car got hit, then pumped the gas. It's up to the courts to decide.

To me it looked like he waited until people were right behind him before he backed up. Like he waited for them to get closer, maybe?

originally posted by: RomeByFire
You people (OP) make me want to puke.

You think and feel like the driver is innocent because YOU do not understand the "why," as to this situation.

Here's a hint. He's a self-identifying Nazi scumbag. Don't think he put too much thought into his own reasonings, he did why Nazi's do:

Terrorize, and murder.

But by all means - continue to defend Nazism and its murderous cohorts.... using unrelated videos of other car-related incidents as "proof."

I wonder if this poster will come back someday and realize just how far he or she has reached in making this statement.

ATS sure is full of emotional people who have a hard time sticking to the words as printed.

Also, I think the fact that it can be debated on whether or not it was intentional at all or done out of fear (we have yet to hear Fields side of the story) is proof enough it wasn't a deliberate TERRORIST attack.

originally posted by: Tempter
Also, I think the fact that it can be debated on whether or not it was intentional at all or done out of fear (we have yet to hear Fields side of the story) is proof enough it wasn't a deliberate TERRORIST attack.

That's illogical.

If we have not heard his side of the story, we cannot say we have proof it was not deliberate.

it would have to be one heck of a good story!!!
like, I don't know, I just came back to where I parked my car and found it destroyed!! I have no idea what happened to it!! or, gee, I don't know, suddenly the car had a mind of it's own, I pushed the brake, but it just sped up!! maybe someone hacked it??

a reply to: Tempter

IMO, it's not really even debatable anymore at this point.

Only if you ignore everything that has already shown here from the video's and photos to the testimony's of people there and his background could you even attempt to say that it's open for debate still.

What has been presented as evidence for his innocence has been countered at every turn and there is a lot of evidence to support that he did in fact do this intentionally and with malice.

But this is just ATS so of course it will still be debated endlessly. But to anyone with a rational and unbiased view it's quite clear what happened here. He's a psycho killer and needs to be locked away.

originally posted by: dawnstar
it would have to be one heck of a good story!!!
like, I don't know, I just came back to where I parked my car and found it destroyed!! I have no idea what happened to it!! or, gee, I don't know, suddenly the car had a mind of it's own, I pushed the brake, but it just sped up!! maybe someone hacked it??

Gremlins!!

If I were his lawyer, I might go with Gremlins. Those little suckers are known for just this type of thing.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter
Also, I think the fact that it can be debated on whether or not it was intentional at all or done out of fear (we have yet to hear Fields side of the story) is proof enough it wasn't a deliberate TERRORIST attack.

That's illogical.

If we have not heard his side of the story, we cannot say we have proof it was not deliberate.

I'm not debating whether it was deliberate. I'm saying it wasn't a deliberate TERRORIST attack.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: dawnstar
it would have to be one heck of a good story!!!
like, I don't know, I just came back to where I parked my car and found it destroyed!! I have no idea what happened to it!! or, gee, I don't know, suddenly the car had a mind of it's own, I pushed the brake, but it just sped up!! maybe someone hacked it??

Gremlins!!

If I were his lawyer, I might go with Gremlins. Those little suckers are known for just this type of thing.

Naw. CHEWBACCA DEFENSE.

Wins everytime.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Tempter

IMO, it's not really even debatable anymore at this point.

Only if you ignore everything that has already shown here from the video's and photos to the testimony's of people there and his background could you even attempt to say that it's open for debate still.

What has been presented as evidence for his innocence has been countered at every turn and there is a lot of evidence to support that he did in fact do this intentionally and with malice.

But this is just ATS so of course it will still be debated endlessly. But to anyone with a rational and unbiased view it's quite clear what happened here. He's a psycho killer and needs to be locked away.

Doesn't his testimony count as something? People are let off murder charges all the time when found that their acts weren't intentional, or were done out if durress.

We just don't know yet.

Again, don't seal anyone's fate until their day in court.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter
Also, I think the fact that it can be debated on whether or not it was intentional at all or done out of fear (we have yet to hear Fields side of the story) is proof enough it wasn't a deliberate TERRORIST attack.

That's illogical.

If we have not heard his side of the story, we cannot say we have proof it was not deliberate.

I'm not debating whether it was deliberate. I'm saying it wasn't a deliberate TERRORIST attack.

Debating whether or not it was a deliberate "terrorist" attack is meaningless. He still did what he did and people were hurt or killed.

It is important if he did it deliberately or out of fear. Signs point to him doing it deliberately.

Can you explain to me how the term "terrorist attack" changes anything in this regard?

a reply to: Tempter

terrorist attack
Noun 1. terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

Hmmm....You could be right but you might also be wrong according to the definition of a terrorist attack.

We don't know for sure what his reason for doing this was. Was he acting on some political agenda of some kind??? Could be.

But he might also simply be a psycho who saw an opportunity and took it for pure pleasure of harming others.

At this point we can only speculate.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Tempter

terrorist attack
Noun 1. terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

Hmmm....You could be right but you might also be wrong according to the definition of a terrorist attack.

We don't know for sure what his reason for doing this was. Was he acting on some political agenda of some kind??? Could be.

But he might also simply be a psycho who saw an opportunity and took it for pure pleasure of harming others.

At this point we can only speculate.

That is why I said their assertion was illogical.

a reply to: Tempter

Sure. Because Murder is very specific and must meet certain requirements legally. Intent I'm pretty sure must be proven in a Murder Trial. But there are different types of Murder also, like first degree, second degree, etc. They all must meet slightly different requirements to be found guilty.

Manslaughter, same thing and is usually easier to get a conviction than Murder.

I don't recall all the details off hand though.

originally posted by: DanteGaland

Naw. CHEWBACCA DEFENSE.

Wins everytime.

LOL. I just looked that up since I've never heard of it before. I thought you just made it up. But it's an actual thing, sort of.

The things you learn around here never ends.

if a similar event was to occur somewhere, without the surrounding circumstances though, there'd be screams of terrorism before we'd even have half the information we have currently though.


personally, if I was him, I'd go with those damned aliens though... it's a real pain when they abduct you while you are in your car driving down the nice country road and then when they are done with ya they decide to drop you off in the middle of a choatic riot sending you off going 50mph down a city's street filled with people!! poor guy probably didn't realize what was happening till seconds after he hit the car....

originally posted by: dawnstar
if a similar event was to occur somewhere, without the surrounding circumstances though, there'd be screams of terrorism before we'd even have half the information we have currently though.


personally, if I was him, I'd go with those damned aliens though... it's a real pain when they abduct you while you are in your car driving down the nice country road and then when they are done with ya they decide to drop you off in the middle of a choatic riot sending you off going 50mph down a city's street filled with people!! poor guy probably didn't realize what was happening till seconds after he hit the car....

Agreed!

Are you saying that the surroundings had something to do with it? It sure sounds like it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

How can you declare this guy innocent without any presented evidence showing that is the case? No one cares about your feelings on the matter. Present actual evidence.
What We Know About James Alex Fields, Driver Charged in Charlottesville Killing
Instead of just deciding that this guy is innocent just because you cannot fathom why someone would intentionally drive a car into a crowd of people, how about researching the facts on the ground?

I guess you forgot the whole innocent until proven guilty thing...

Hard to get the "facts" as you call them with the left/antifa sympathizers controlling all of social media and the fake news too. But there's a few out there working to get the truth, the real story behind Charlottesville, out in the open.