[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The whole thing is live on camera. You can see the guy gunning his car into the crowd. Even for a group as fact-resistant as the alt-right, it's a little bit of a stretch to say he was just dawdling along in his car when this woman had a heart attack in front of him.

You just sound absolutely ridiculous.

And you sound ignorant and gullible.

My point is when it comes to proving the criminal intent either by malice or any other criteria necessary for a second degree murder conviction you may get a surprise.

You appear to believe the shallow explanations and cherry-picked bits of information allotted to you by the mainstream is all you're going to hear about in court when the case comes to trial.

Dream on.

[Coach85]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Coach85 Coach85:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BTW, see that girl bouncing off the roof. That's not the woman who died. The woman who died had problems with obesity and smoking.

Totally false.

She died due to blunt force trauma to the chest. That’s from the medical examiner.

Wrong again. Here's what I said:

$1:

Her mother told us on the mainstream news that she died of a heart attack.

OK, now watch:



Now did somebody or something at some time somehow smack into her chest? Doesn't matter. What I said was a fact. Get it?

You’re arguing with the official word of the Chief Medical Examiner.

Her mother is wrong. You are wrong.

http://www.newsweek.com/sexist-alt-righ ... 7195?amp=1

[Coach85]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The whole thing is live on camera. You can see the guy gunning his car into the crowd. Even for a group as fact-resistant as the alt-right, it's a little bit of a stretch to say he was just dawdling along in his car when this woman had a heart attack in front of him.

You just sound absolutely ridiculous.

And you sound ignorant and gullible.

My point is when it comes to proving the criminal intent either by malice or any other criteria necessary for a second degree murder conviction you may get a surprise.

You appear to believe the shallow explanations and cherry-picked bits of information allotted to you by the mainstream is all you're going to hear about in court when the case comes to trial.

Dream on.

Coming from the guy who’s ignored the official cause of death from the ME?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[N_Fiddledog]

Coach85 Coach85:

You’re arguing with the official word of the Chief Medical Examiner.
.

Her mother is wrong. You are wrong.

http://www.newsweek.com/sexist-alt-righ ... 7195?amp=1

No, I'm not. I'm telling you what the mother said. And she did say what I claimed.

By the time this comes to trial we may discover both mother and medical examiner are correct.

For example, consider the possibility one of the on-site, self-appointed trauma experts from the crowd of agitators may have been smashing on Heather's chest to restart her heart because he saw that on a TV show one time. In that case who killed Heather Heyer?

I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying we don't actually know the full details, no matter what the leftists at Newsweek want to parcel out to you as fact.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

In neither the United States nor Canada do you get to kill people for blocking an intersection. That's why the man who ran the crowd in Charlottesville is up on murder charges. It wasn't an inevitable tragedy, it was a Nazi seething with hate, fed on a constant diet of Breitbart and Stormfront who decided, ISIS-style, to run over a bunch of people.

Like I said, a jury is going to have to hear the case and weigh the facts.

The facts as I know them are:

1. Antifa protesters illegally blocked public streets.
2. The driver was going down a street that was supposed to be open to the public. The cars ahead of him are proof that the street was not closed for pedestrian traffic.
3. The accused was not the only person to have his vehicle attacked on that same street.
4. The death occurred when he was backing up and trying to retreat.

That latter part will come into play in conjunction with the SYG law.

Like I said, it'll be up to a jury to weigh all of this and, of course, whatever other facts have been withheld from the public pending the prosecution presenting their case.

Also this: So long as the guy gets a fair trial based on the facts I really don't give a shit about the outcome.

[Coach85]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No, I'm not. I'm telling you what the mother said. And she did say what I claimed.

By the time this comes to trial we may discover both mother and medical examiner are correct.

For example, consider the possibility one of the on-site, self-appointed trauma experts from the crowd of agitators may have been smashing on Heather's chest to restart her heart because he saw that on a TV show one time. In that case who killed Heather Heyer?

I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying we don't actually know the full details, no matter what the leftists at Newsweek want to parcel out to you as fact.

Repeating wrong information doesn't make it correct.

We do know the full details. From the medical examiner. If you opt not to believe them, that's your choice.

If you want to note that the source has a left-center bias, that's fine. However, at the same time, you have to acknowledge they have a history of nothing but factual reporting.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The whole thing is live on camera. You can see the guy gunning his car into the crowd. Even for a group as fact-resistant as the alt-right, it's a little bit of a stretch to say he was just dawdling along in his car when this woman had a heart attack in front of him.

You just sound absolutely ridiculous.

And you sound ignorant and gullible.

My point is when it comes to proving the criminal intent either by malice or any other criteria necessary for a second degree murder conviction you may get a surprise.

You appear to believe the shallow explanations and cherry-picked bits of information allotted to you by the mainstream is all you're going to hear about in court when the case comes to trial.

Dream on.

Gullible? I don't think so. Live video from several angles of a nazi gunning his vehicle into the middle of a crowd sending people literally flying, and you hold that she died of a heart attack. She died of blunt force trauma. Her heart may have stopped as a result if being hit by two tons of hurtling metal, but, as it turns out, hearts usually do stop when you are fatally hit. Only a sick bastard would blame that murderous intent on obesity and smoking.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

In neither the United States nor Canada do you get to kill people for blocking an intersection. That's why the man who ran the crowd in Charlottesville is up on murder charges. It wasn't an inevitable tragedy, it was a Nazi seething with hate, fed on a constant diet of Breitbart and Stormfront who decided, ISIS-style, to run over a bunch of people.

Like I said, a jury is going to have to hear the case and weigh the facts.

The facts as I know them are:

1. Antifa protesters illegally blocked public streets.
2. The driver was going down a street that was supposed to be open to the public. The cars ahead of him are proof that the street was not closed for pedestrian traffic.
3. The accused was not the only person to have his vehicle attacked on that same street.
4. The death occurred when he was backing up and trying to retreat.

That latter part will come into play in conjunction with the SYG law.

Like I said, it'll be up to a jury to weigh all of this and, of course, whatever other facts have been withheld from the public pending the prosecution presenting their case.

Also this: So long as the guy gets a fair trial based on the facts I really don't give a shit about the outcome.

Withheld from the public? You can see the guy, from several videos, gunning his vehicle into a crowd of people. He wasn't "going down a street." He was under no threat of imminent grievous harm or death. IN fact, he was intent on grievous harm and death. Really, you guys justifying this murderous intent just convinces me that I'm on the right side of this.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Really, you guys justifying this murderous intent just convinces me that I'm on the right side of this.

You are. There's no doubt about that. What they're doing with Trump, and their reckless toying with "ironic" fascism that's exploded into actual nazism, is the most sickening thing that so-called conservatives have done that I've seen in my lifetime.

[stratos]

$1:

Wrong on both counts. The video shows the driver gunned it into the crowed, then backed up over people. There is no evidence that person, or anyone else there was under attack. Even if you are under attack, you are only allowed to use force necessary.

It depends on state by state. An example in Texas messing with someones car is like breaking into their home. Deadly force is allowed. I've not seen the video but if a good lawyer can explain why the driver was in fear for their life and or bodily harm then running over the people to get away is justifiable.

Not trying to say my above justifies what happened just wanted to point out that "use of force" part varies from state to state.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Gullible? I don't think so. Live video from several angles of a nazi gunning his vehicle into the middle of a crowd sending people literally flying, and you hold that she died of a heart attack. She died of blunt force trauma. Her heart may have stopped as a result if being hit by two tons of hurtling metal, but, as it turns out, hearts usually do stop when you are fatally hit. Only a sick bastard would blame that murderous intent on obesity and smoking.

She did die of a heart attack. Blunt force trauma death is death after cardiac arrest.

It happens in sport.

$1:

Each victim collapsed with cardiac arrest immediately after an unexpected blow to the chest, which was usually inflicted by a projectile (such as a baseball or hockey puck).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 8103330602

Now when I say Gullible (and you forgot ignorant) I mean your fixated on the speed of the car going up the road you saw in a small video clip. That's all you seem to know about. There's much more. You'll hear about it when the court case starts.

But here's a little bit without Newsweek's leftist rhetoric governing your belief on the chest trauma thing and what it might mean in court.

$1:

CHARLOTTESVILLE — Heather Heyer’s cause of death was blunt force injury to the chest, according to the Central District Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond.

Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal who was protesting the white nationalist Unite the Right rally in downtown Charlottesville on Aug. 12, died after a car rammed a crowd of pedestrians gathered at Fourth and Water streets. Dozens more were injured.

The manner of Heyer’s death is still pending, a representative with the office said Monday.

James Alex Fields Jr., of Ohio, is charged with second-degree murder, five counts of malicious wounding, three counts of aggravated malicious wounding and one count of hit-and-run. He is being held at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.

Virginia code states that all murder — other than capital murder and murder in the first degree — is murder of the second degree.

Scott Goodman, an attorney who isn’t associated with the case, said the state would have to prove that malice was involved. He also said a court could determine that the vehicle was used as a weapon...[

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/h ... 960fa.html

So Fields is most likely going to be convicted on something. My point is that it may not be the big one. It may not be 2nd degree murder.

They'll want to prove 2 things - malice and the car struck Heyer.

Now, believe it or not, there's much more video and background on what may have put Fields in the situation where he was roaring up that alley. Malice is going to be more difficult to prove than you think.

There's more video on Heather's march pre and post collision. I've seen it or at least I've seen more of it than you have.

You can see her marching up behind and to the side of this black truck. Then there's a video blank spot. Or at least I can't find video of what happened next. The next video you can find shows a vague fuzzy image of somebody Heyer's large shape, dressed in black as she was dressed. She's falling to the ground, to the side of the crash. She's in a crowd about 20 feet back of where we last saw her by the black truck.

Something pushed her back 20 feet. It wasn't necessarily a car. There are claims the crowd pushed back when it saw the car coming. She was in the middle of it the last time we saw her clear. So assuming they can prove this chest trauma as sole cause claim, what caused it? The car, the crowd, something after the collision. I don't know and neither you do you.

The prosecution will be painting a picture of a malice ridden Nazi roaring up the road looking for a crowd to plow into.

The defence will present a traumatized young guy in need of medication to make the world seem real, forced up a blind alley by the municipal government's politically charged, mismanaged commands to police. They'll show how he meets screaming crowds who are smashing and throwing thing into his vehicle - a classic car he kept in immaculate condition and went to much trouble to acquire. He's confused, he's scared he doesn't know what to do. He's not even sure where he is. That's what the defense will be putting forward. No malice there.

You say they can't do it, because you saw a 3 second clip of him racing up the road. I say you're wrong. I say the defense of the 2nd degree murder charge is going to be more difficult to prove than you may think.

[N_Fiddledog]

Something else is going to happen when this case comes to trial.

You know that narrative the fake news media pushed about rioting hordes of neo-nazis taking over a sleepy Virginia town with their Nazi flags and their tiki torches, murdering pretty young girls at intersections.

That's going to disintegrate.

[Thanos]

Didn't happen. All these photos are fake.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lies of omission.

That isn't all that happened and it's inflated by its isolation. There's also a pic of a guy with a nazi flag. It's one guy and I've seen video of other people in the crowd laughing at him.

[Coach85]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

She did die of a heart attack. Blunt force trauma death is death after cardiac arrest.

Just stop.

Cardiac arrest and heart attack aren't the same things!

A heart attack is a circulation malfunction, a lack of blood flow like a clogged artery.

Cardiac arrest is an electrical malfunction and is sudden. Sudden like a car hitting you so hard is disrupts your heart rhythm and it stops beating.

As the Medical Examiner has stated, she died due to blunt force trauma to the chest. A heart attack didn't cause her heart to stop, blunt force trauma did.