Charlottesville Driver Innocent?

originally posted by: introvert

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?

I could be wrong but aren't there different, harsher sentences for a deliberate terrorist attack?

Those are hard to prove without evidence.

That's why I think k it was wrong for the DOJ to Coe out and say it was a terrorist attack. That could be seen as an attempt to immediately label before an investigation and if I remember right that didn't go well with the Baltimore DA. (We here you)

a reply to: Tempter

I am saying that the surrounding facts, namely that he was probably one of the unite the right participants, white, and english speaking is causing some who would very quickly jump to the conclusion that it's was a terrorist attack to refute that conclusion...

a reply to: Krazysh0t


UMMMM because that is how it works in this country. or is supposed to work, have you never heard of "presumption of innocence" that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

a reply to: Edumakated



yeah. screw those motorcycle a holes, I would have run them over too.

a reply to: Edumakated


as much as I believe in the presumption of innocence, the question is ,clearly he could have backed up and got out of there ,as he did after he ran everyone over, so if he was in fear for his safety why did he go forward and not backwards away from the crowd.

He did brake as if he was having second thoughts.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Check out the guy with his butt and legs straight up in the air. Can you imagine being THAT guy!

It's always shocking to me to see empty shoes in the aftermath of car -vs- pedestrian.

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?

He can do that because in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. B

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Edumakated


as much as I believe in the presumption of innocence, the question is ,clearly he could have backed up and got out of there ,as he did after he ran everyone over, so if he was in fear for his safety why did he go forward and not backwards away from the crowd.

It is a fair question. However, again, it is hard to know what someone is thinking in the moment. People don't always act rationally. As someone else mentioned, if he was really trying to run people over, why just keep straight? I mean he could have gone all up on the side walk running up a GTA high score but he didn't.

It will be interesting to hear what his attorney says and the trial.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Greven

Charlotteville Car Hit With Bat

Again, not saying he's innocent. But it could be argued in a court of law that he felt he was in immediate danger.

Uh a car moments away from hitting a group of people and someone whacked the rear end of it with a flag pole is not the car getting attacked.

It's a remarkably aware person trying to defend the people the driver is about to hit by getting his attention. Alas, it was not a distracted driver but a murderous villain intent on mayhem.

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.

I think you mean goblins.

In bed with a goblin...

a reply to: Edumakated

Because there is no chance in hell that anyone would ever believe his lie about it being an accident if he went all GTA on them that's why.

His actions have to at least look close to what his lie is going to be.

Don't ever try and commit a crime. I don't think you'll pull it off. Just a little friendly advice.

originally posted by: Tempter

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.

"Sir did you intentionally run over this woman and a bunch of people?"

"Nope my foot slipped."

"Oh, okay, you're free to go then"

throw the book at him. if that happened to the racist would you have the same questions

originally posted by: lovebeck

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.

Have you watched the videos of this man purposely driving a car down a street and into a group of people?

I mean, it's in this thread and elsewhere. There is the proof that he did it. There is the proof that it was intentional. What more do you want?

originally posted by: Greven

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.

I think you mean goblins.

In bed with a goblin...

No, I'm sure it's Gremlins.

Gremlins are little creatures that mess around with devices and cause them to malfunction.

Haven't you ever seen Gremlins or heard about them?? They were a legendary creature during WWII that would sabotage the airplanes and make them fall from the sky. The crazy neighbor talks about them in the movie too.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Greven

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.

I think you mean goblins.

In bed with a goblin...

No, I'm sure it's Gremlins.

Gremlins are little creatures that mess around with devices and cause them to malfunction.

Haven't you ever seen Gremlins or heard about them?? They were a legendary creature during WWII that would sabotage the airplanes and make them fall from the sky. The crazy neighbor talks about them in the movie too.

No way, it's definitely goblins:

Gonna share this here too because of the false info going around, including that one video that was doctored:

Fact: They were peacefully protesting until he rammed into them. That is shown in the videos.

Fact: The only time his car was hit when he was speeding up, the video claiming they hit his card with a bat was doctored to make you think otherwise. So, no, he wasn't scared, someone scared does not react by driving forward into a crowd when there were many empty streets to drive down before entering the protest march street.

Fact: He was done with Vanguard America's march, as much had dispersed by then and had decided to go find trouble with the peaceful protest march- driving into them.

a reply to: kruphix
If people think they can do this then they have another thing coming:

Plus in Virgina there's no protective law about it. "The protecting drivers during protests" "laws" don't cover speeding into them as a defense because someone was triggered that people were peacefully protesting. The crowd was moving down the street they were not blocking it.

Article from Florida talks about this law:

Though it didn’t pass, the bill sought to protect any driver “who unintentionally causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic …”

Now, of course it says “unintentionally.” No sane person would back a law that shielded someone who admitted they intentionally mowed down people.

In the case of the killer, all signs point to intentional unless otherwise noted by law enforcement and other investigation.
sourc e

a reply to: dreamingawake

Not a bad idea to recap what's been presented here in this thread like you've done. Although honestly I think everyone who is looking into this topic at this point knows exactly what the truth of this is by now.

The ones who don't or claim there is still some question are just claiming that to deceive others. They know it, we know it, they know we know it.

If you'll notice by looking at the board now they've made a couple new threads about this topic and are just continuing their lies there and ignoring this thread. This is a standard tactic. Once they've been proven wrong in a thread they start another one of the same topic and post there, ignoring the previous one so it drops off the list and the new thread of lies stays active.

That way anyone new coming here will see that one instead of the one that already proves them wrong. You may have to fight them there now as a result. Or not, it's up to you.

But remember that tactic as it won't be the last time you'll see it used. That is how they keep the lies alive and bury the truth.