Charlottesville Driver Innocent?

a reply to: testingtesting

It is like me saying before a video started an alien walked past and then me saying it is up to everyone else to prove me wrong. No I have to prove it if I made the claim.
Not hard is it?.

What a retarded thread.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

Yup saw it as soon as released and discussed at length in the main thread.
Obviously as the car accelerated people realised what his plan was and did throw things at the car.
It was obvious what he was doing to the guy on the camera and everyone who saw the car before impact.
Where is the video where he is surrounded being attacked with spears?.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: KnoxMSP

Yup saw it as soon as released and discussed at length in the main thread.
Obviously as the car accelerated people realised what his plan was and did throw things at the car.
It was obvious what he was doing to the guy on the camera and everyone who saw the car before impact.
Where is the video where he is surrounded being attacked with spears?.

Where is your proof he wasnt attacked? We can do this all day, or you can accept neither of us can prove our position, which YOUR ego wont allow.

a reply to: Lysergic

To hard for you to read?

You tube has been systematically deleting the forward view, I managed to find a clip but not as clear as the one I got earlier, his car looks like it had its windscreen smashed before he hit the crowd, this is what happens when racists' meet racists, shame on them all ... m.youtube.com...

m.youtube.com... reply to: Edumakated

a reply to: oddnutz

No it doesn't. Because if you watch the entire actual video of which this is only a tiny clip you will see that he drives down that street from way further back than that.

That the guy hitting his bumper does so as the car passes him from behind.

In fact, if any of you **edited to avoid being banned forever** would simply read the material provided in this thread and others here at ATS you would see that the video has been covered already to quite some extent. But since you don't care about knowing anything or doing any sort of research you don't even know that such material has been covered already.

FACE IT. YOU ARE WRONG. PACK IT UP KIDDIES, NOBODY BELIEVES YOUR BS.

But the truth is most likely that you already know that. That all of this is just you shilling for your White Nationalist brothers. That none of you are genuine about anything you've said because you are just lying, worthless human beings. So I'm done going over the same video's and material over and over with people who simply don't care about the truth.

Goodbye Losers.

From the beginning of the block 38.029980, -78.479294 to the point of initial impact 38.029590, -78.479491 is 152 feet. The car traveled this distance in 5.2 seconds which makes his average speed of 29.23 fps or 19.92 mph. The narrative about the car barreling all the way down the street like a bullet towards the crowd isn't true.

I have been looking into this thing too much because I want to believe that he didn't do it on purpose. Idk why everyone doesn't hope it was a mistake. It seems like some people want this to have been on purpose.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Looks to me like in the professional still photo immediately before impact with the car in front, the guys brake lights are ON to avoid hitting pedestrians fleeing the street (look again at the photo). Why hit the brakes if his intent was to harm as many people as possible? Also, my understanding is that the fatality was actually caused by the front vehicle, a car that the dodge did not even hit, nor could he likely view the crowds immediately in front of it. Also... every day you read of people that step on the gas instead of the brake and drive into 7-11's... almost daily. Also a stuck gas pedal on the floor mat is not entirely out of the question. After the carnage.. leaving the scene was most likely a smart life preservation technique. Finally.. in the first few seconds of the video.. the young (loud) wagon that is wearing neon clothing obviously had just finished a confrontation with the driver, which is when the actual acceleration took place. She later has lots to say. This case is definitely not over....

a reply to: Lysergic

So glad you are here to weigh in, Lysergic. I was taking all of this seriously. Your words are a comfort to me in these troubled times.

I like the way you use the word 'retarded,' especially. Poetry. Freewheeling poetry.

I suppose many in that situation would have done the same thing. I think the guy just stepped on the gas and thought the road ahead would be vacant, once they saw a car coming...but alas, they were slow about it.

a reply to: TreetopControl

PS:In my former line of work I have seen dozens and dozens of rear end accidents. In my opinion, the amount of damage on both the front of the dodge and the rear of the car in from is equivalent to about a 10 MPH impact, max. The fact that his airbag did not deploy means it may have been going UNDER 10 MPH. Not exactly a maniac hell bent on total destruction. The witnesses claiming he was going 50 MPH are pure rubbish.

originally posted by: matafuchs
So when it is determined in the courts that this was not malicious intent and truly was an accident...will you accept it? or will it cause some of you to go farther over the edge?

Not malicious intent?

A challenge for you and others who are claiming that this murderer ain't really a murderer - watch the following video starting at 30 second mark aired by CBS. This is from an angle that captures the impact, the response from the crowd, and the immediate reverse and fleeing the scene:


Maybe this is where KnoxMSP saw the 'people attacking his car with spears' video - after he ran into the crowd (and the weren't spears).

Notice how quickly he fled - slammed into the crowd at 0:32, reversing rapidly away at 0:38.

a reply to: Greven

Thanks for sharing, haven't seen that news article yet,


He hit his own disabled mother. I can't see how anyone can side with him after that if they did before. It's willful ignorance to forum sliding to fir their own convictions they these non doctored videos are being ignored.

a reply to: mOjOm

Want to note: thanks for your reply. Fighting them on it debate wise, presenting info and answering questions, has been largely meant with insults in reply on top of the prevailing tactic you mentioned.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: matafuchs
So when it is determined in the courts that this was not malicious intent and truly was an accident...will you accept it? or will it cause some of you to go farther over the edge?

Maybe this is where KnoxMSP saw the 'people attacking his car with spears' video - after he ran into the crowd (and the weren't spears).

Notice how quickly he fled - slammed into the crowd at 0:32, reversing rapidly away at 0:38.

No, just no. I explained what I saw. The scene wasnt that chaotic. The masked men with sticks were surrounding his car, then he accellerated down towards the crowd.

It will come out, eventually.

Look at how long Ive been on ATS, and how little I post, and ask yourself what my motivation would be. It doesnt make sense for me to come on here and make stuff up nine years in. I came here because I saw a lot of misinformation being spewed about.

originally posted by: mOjOm


Goodbye Losers.

Damn, all up in your feels, homie. You sure are getting bent out of shape, on a site that was founded to question the official narrative, by us questioning the MSM. SMH

a reply to: KnoxMSP

No you just can not understand that you can not prove a negative.
Like I said before the you brought it up the burden of proof is on you.
That is how is works on ATS.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: KnoxMSP

No you just can not understand that you can not prove a negative.
Like I said before the you brought it up the burden of proof is on you.
That is how is works on ATS.

Not true. There are claims in this thread he was not attacked. Ok, can you prove that? You keep avoiding the question, which tells me your answer. So, no, you do not know what happened, therefore you cannot claim he was not attacked.