This doesn't show the driver being attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

You guys have been posting this video all day and it only contradicts your claim.

You can see people running out of the way, dude is driving into the crowd at this point.

In your video he is driving into the crowd, people are dodging to get out of the way. You've lost the plot, dude.

Can't help but notice that even r/t_d is telling you to fuck off with this

Well, by everyone in the thread.

LOL and now you're banning people who disagree.

Man, that sub is full of pussies.

White Supremacists are low IQ tribal morons.

If you really believe that dudes white supremacist views won't condemn him your mistaken. If you want to question why the police were told to stand down go ahead.

The narrative you need to question is the awhole antifa no trump no kkk no racist USA bullshit. White power supporters are fringe looney people and are not wanted by Trump or any other politician. Look at who controlled the State and Town where all this transpired.

I will say that racism abounds on the other side of aisle masquerading as anti racism, wrap your head around that one.

I am saying that even if dude panicked his motives will be viewed as an attack because of his views. He will be convicted of at least 2nd degree murder.

The clip is in slow motion.

His lawyer would be an idiot to use a clip like this in court, especially since the prosecutors could simply show the entire clip in rebuttal.

Virginia has actual laws, you know. The excusable self defense standard in VA requires him to announce a desire for peace and retreat safely before exercising force. Not slam into a crowd of people and then back over them again.

Just watch the full-speed, full-length clip. Which I'm sure you've already done.

T_D guy, huh? Way to confirm the stereotype, going to bat for the white supremacist.

Dude, lol everything you're saying is wrong here it's hilarious.

They're welcome, but so is criticism.

I haven't answered a theory with an insult. I've asked for evidence and gotten none.

You haven't provided anything showing that the driver was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd, despite your continuing claim that this is what occurred.

I have made no claim to provide evidence regarding.

https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/896434516260212737

he had intentionally drove into the crowd, the street further up looks pretty empty and he could have turned at the intersection.

There's no duty to retreat in Virginia.

There is. I've actually looked it up. You can do the same, with google. "Excusable self defense" is the standard here.

Well, then look again.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/virginia.pdf

Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state.

When I google your phrase "excusable self defense virginia", the very first summarized result even says:

As a general rule, Virginia does not require a person to retreat before using deadly force

So I'm not sure how you got that mistaken impression. The only time you'd ever have a duty to retreat is if you were the initial aggressor and things escalated.

Handgunlaw.us is wrong if it does not discuss the standards for excusable self defense.

The controlling case seems to be Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96, 104 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1958). See also Lynn v. Com., 499 S.E.2d 1, 9, 27 Va.App. 336 (Va. App., 1998).

You should be able to find those cases by searching for the names; try Google Scholar if the normal search doesn't work.

Bailey v. Commonwealth

That was a case of police shooting someone based off a mistaken belief created by a conversation over CB radio. I don't see how that's very relevant to "duty to retreat".

Lynn v. Commonwealth

This one is more relevant. Here you had mutual aggressors both fighting roughly equally. Even in states with a codified "stand your ground" law, there has to be some way to resolve those sorts of cases.

For example, I think everyone can agree that Florida is "stand your ground", with no "duty to retreat", yet their law is similar to Virginia:

The justifications for use of force (in Florida) will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-law/

I don't see how that's very relevant to "duty to retreat".

I can show the case to you, but I can't read it for you. Here's an excerpt if it helps:

"Excusable homicide in self-defense occurs where the accused, although in some fault in the first instance in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, when attacked retreats as far as possible, announces his desire for peace, and kills his adversary from a reasonably apparent necessity to preserve his own life or save himself from great bodily harm."

I was looking at the wrong case, I was looking at Bailey 1985, not 58.

In any case, so what? The normal standard is "justifiable homicide", when the victim isn't also an aggressor, which has no duty to retreat. Virginia's laws are similar to every other "stand your ground" state.

There is no evidence of an attack that would have put the driver in a justifiable fear for his safety or life. See, i.e., the video at the top of the thread, which had to be put into slow-mo and edited to create the false impression of an attack on the driver.

Even if justifiable homicide were the appropriate standard here, it does not entitle a driver to slam into a crowd of people at high speed, nor to back up over them.

Yeah because the crowd was standing in the middle of the fucking road. Where do you suggest cars drive, the sidewalk?

Not into crowds of people would be a good start.

So far we've gone from a bat to the back window. A club to the windshield. A club to the rear bumper. A stick to the rear bumper. Now a pole from behind.

With video evidence disproving all of it.

Challenger.

You can see in other footage that they aren't "swarming" the other cars. Those cars have stopped, the people in the cars are either observing or taking part in the march.

Well, your point was that the driver was attacked first, actually. That's what we're saying is bullshit.

Now you're moving the goalpost.

People walking in the street does not justify plowing into them with your car, ever.

You have shown no footage of his car being attacked prior to the driver accelerating into the crowd.

At no point was his only option to drive into the crowd. His actions do not fall under any legal umbrella of self-defense.

Neither one of us know what happened before the video started. I don't pretend to

You're the one making the claim that he was attacked first. Yet you have no evidence.

All I know is that his car is hit BEFORE the crash at the :02 second mark of the shorter video.

He is already driving into the crowd at this point. It's obvious in the video, people are diving out of the way.

I'm sure more video will continue to emerge and I shall adjust my theories only on evidence not emotion.

Doubtful. It's not how you're operating thus far.

But if he isn't, do you still want will in prison? I am merely presenting a theory that seems to trigger many.

This is gibberish.

He may be driving toward the crowd but at that point he hadn't actually hit anyone.

People are diving out of the way. His intent is clear. He had the option of stopping, parking, reversing, warning the crowd (a prerequisite for a self-defense claim). Instead he accelerated into the crowd. Signs of pre-meditation.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Nice use of slow motion on the video, to disguise his speed at the point he's "attacked." By that point he was already almost into the crowd of people he brutally mowed down.

His brake lights were on. If he really was trying to mow down protestors why slow down?

Why don't you tell me where I should pause the video to see his brake lights on?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Plzx73K68&feature=youtu.be&t=14

Those are running lights.

The unfortunate problem as I see it is that any attempt at being reasonable seems to be out of place in this manufactured frenzy of mob mentality. Don't dare think on your own or risk great peril.

I already have reasonable doubts.

Hey guys, Potsie came all the way from T_D to tell us that he has doubts that the white supremacist is guilty, and that his doubts are "reasonable." Big round of applause.

haha

Posting a chopped-up and slowed-down clip to create a false narrative isn't "being reasonable."

When you say that this is a false narrative, does this indicate that you know the "true narrative"?

Why does it require a narrative at all? It is what it is. It's in law enforcement's hands. There are people and processes to handle it, no?

Why such investment to ensure a correct interpretation of events and supposed facts? Genuinely curious here.

Additionally, what would you regard as a reasonable place to hear / read more than one simple-minded perspective on the events that have unfolded here?

My perspective is that it seems that a great many voices at the moment are more concerned about propping up their own version of reality than they are in getting to the truth of what is really happening. I don't propose to know the truth, but what I am seeing on the surface of things is very concerning and not for the reasons that I am being told to be concerned.

what I am seeing on the surface of things is very concerning and not for the reasons that I am being told to be concerned.

What are your concerns?

Many.

One is that it seems like a strange thing that so many people assume (a) that they can assess the guilt or innocence of person when they themselves weren't present and haven't heard evidence in a court of law, and (b) that their assessment of guilt or innocence matters. This seems to fuel mob mentality and mob violence.

Another concern is in how this seems to come at a convenient time when there has been such a concerted effort to censor websites and youtube videos. Now all of a sudden, everything is being cast in the light of nazism, right when I was just getting used to the whole fake news scam.

I am personally not afraid of what anyone thinks. Most people's thought processes are distorted in some way - some more than others. Personally, I'd rather hear what people think, and steer clear of shutting people down for their thoughts - but hey, that seems rather out of fashion these days.

I'm concerned that many of the people getting worked up may not actually know what fascism is or how it works. I'm concerned people are using historical lessons out of context without understanding that they may be propping up the very thing they purport to be against.

I'm concerned that our educational system has been weaekened beyond repair such that the general population has difficulty with critical thinking.

I'm concerned anytime anyone gives their power away to the mainstream media rather than stand and think on their own. Whether you're right, left, somewhere in between or altogether someplace different - seems to me that the corporate media / agenda in this country has clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted and do not have our collective best interests at heart, or even in mind when it comes to the bottom line.

Probably enough to get the idea.

Why does it require a narrative at all?

It doesn't. Which is why I think it's important to stand up to bald-faced attempts to create one, as OP is doing.

Let the facts speak for themselves, rather than posting carefully-edited videos and trying to inject false facts into the discussion.

What facts support the mainstream media assertion that this was a terrorist attack?

Interesting. So the narrative that is clearly being pumped out by mainstream media is one which you are OK with? Or are you also standing up to that one? Or are all the facts known by the all mighty media so their narrative is OK?

Who possesses the facts? Where are they? Does this video contain no facts?

What's fed to the cattle is also a bald faced attempt to create a narrative, in my opinion. Perhaps this video is no different in that regard. Perhaps also it helps some evaluate from a different perspective and question the cattle feed?

The poster here had to use a slowed-down and edited clip to support his story. The full video speaks for itself.

No matter what happened it's clear the MSM loves manufacturing outrage.

I'm not saying we shouldn't mourn the tragedy of the victims and lament the stupid mob frenzy that people get sucked into...

...but more Americans die everyday from other tragedies no one cares about at all.

Don't fan the flame.

In your video he is driving into the crowd, people are dodging to get out of the way. You've lost the plot, dude.

The clip is in slow motion.

His lawyer would be an idiot to use a clip like this in court, especially since the prosecutors could simply show the entire clip in rebuttal.

Virginia has actual laws, you know. The excusable self defense standard in VA requires him to announce a desire for peace and retreat safely before exercising force. Not slam into a crowd of people and then back over them again.

Just watch the full-speed, full-length clip. Which I'm sure you've already done.

T_D guy, huh? Way to confirm the stereotype, going to bat for the white supremacist.

https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/896434516260212737

he had intentionally drove into the crowd, the street further up looks pretty empty and he could have turned at the intersection.