Jury selection begins in Charlottesville Neo Nazi Murder Trial

officeguy

Well-Known Member
I can easily condemn him if you can easily condemn those who got bused in to start the trouble to begin with.

There was violent scum on both sides, nazis and antifa. Both sides, had armed factions among them. The difference is that the Nazi scum killed someone, the antifa scum didn't.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Nobody was beating on his car when he flew through that intersection towards the demonstrators. Yes, at some point the demonstrators were hitting his car, but that came after he drove into the crowd.

From one account I read, they had already smashed through his rear window with bats and he claims someone was approaching him with a gun.
(Admittedly, another account says they did it AFTERWARD. I have to admit, it makes more sense that a deeply disturbed man would
REACT violently panicking to a perceived threat than to just drive from Ohio to drive over people).
He was a disturbed individual and had a history of violence, but he had no weapon (besides the car) or helmet - as others did.
He's responsible for deaths as a result of his actions, but I am puzzled by the charge of first degree murder when the only actual death
occurred indirectly in a way that is hard to describe as pre-meditative.

I suspect they will appeal for a lesser charge that doesn't carry the death penalty.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
From one account I read, they had already smashed through his rear window with bats and he claims someone was approaching him with a gun.
(Admittedly, another account says they did it AFTERWARD. I have to admit, it makes more sense that a deeply disturbed man would
REACT violently panicking to a perceived threat than to just drive from Ohio to drive over people).
He was a disturbed individual and had a history of violence, but he had no weapon (besides the car) or helmet - as others did.
He's responsible for deaths as a result of his actions, but I am puzzled by the charge of first degree murder when the only actual death
occurred indirectly in a way that is hard to describe as pre-meditative.

I suspect they will appeal for a lesser charge that doesn't carry the death penalty.
You are in denial. The guy backed up his car to get a better run at the crowd.

Why do you think you know more than the jury?

Sad watching you defend this POS murdering nazi.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
You are in denial. The guy backed up his car to get a better run at the crowd.

Why do you think you know more than the jury?

Sad watching you defend this POS murdering nazi.

Reading comprehension your problem? Not defending him. CLEARLY stated he is responsible for the deaths he caused.
That never translates into "not his fault" or "he should be acquitted" - unless you're a Democrat politician saying
"I take full responsibility". I'm seeing second degree murder. This is what I often see in trials - the prosecution
tries for the brass ring instead of getting the charge that will convict.

Just trying to figure out why it happened, because the details the press gave don't make sense to me.
He clearly backed up from the accident to attack again. I just can't factor out why unless he was in a rage
at that point, because it seems to me he could have just RUN or driven away.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Reading comprehension your problem? Not defending him. CLEARLY stated he is responsible for the deaths he caused.
That never translates into "not his fault" or "he should be acquitted" - unless you're a Democrat politician saying
"I take full responsibility". I'm seeing second degree murder. This is what I often see in trials - the prosecution
tries for the brass ring instead of getting the charge that will convict.

Just trying to figure out why it happened, because the details the press gave don't make sense to me.
He clearly backed up from the accident to attack again. I just can't factor out why unless he was in a rage
at that point, because it seems to me he could have just RUN or driven away.

You aren’t defending him but you are searching for a reason to believe he was wrongly convicted of 1st degree murder? It happened because he is a murderous nazi who decided he would drive his car into a crowd of people he didn’t like.

Obviously the state did not over charge as they got the conviction. The jury heard all the evidence, he is guilty of 1st degree murder. :shrug:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You are in denial. The guy backed up his car to get a better run at the crowd.

Why do you think you know more than the jury?

Sad watching you defend this POS murdering nazi.

He took a second run at the crowd? I never saw that in the plethora of videos. Either every single person missed it, or you're making crap up again.

Why isn't how bad it really is bad enough for you? Why do you feel the need to lie to make a horrible action seem even worse?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
So:

Not one person has defended this guy, but clearly that's what the progs have been programmed to insist. What's that called, when someone makes a statement that has no relationship to the conversation at hand?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Absolutely, but our fellow forumites are still not likely to condemn him because...... trump

Just out of curiosity, what does the latest furor over "Baby It's Cold Outside" have to do with Trump?

Because this didn't have anything to do with him other than he SAID something afterward the left didn't like -
you know, like, there was blame on both sides (referring to the two groups of people).

Other than that, the whole of events had nothing to do with him.

Are you SURE you're not, like, channeling trans, who can be found on EVERY discussion topic, linking
the discussion to something to do with Trump?

I'm not defending the guy. I'm surprised. FIRST degree murder implies premeditation and motive.
The people he injured, he did that with intent, but they did not die. He was correctly charged with their
injuries, but the woman who died, he had no idea it had happened at all, as she was injured indirectly.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
So:

Not one person has defended this guy, but clearly that's what the progs have been programmed to insist. What's that called, when someone makes a statement that has no relationship to the conversation at hand?

Is that a rhetorical question, or are you looking for "non sequitur"?

One side of protesters was white supremacists and Nazis. The others were Antifa.
I don't know why the left is defending ANYBODY.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, what does the latest furor over "Baby It's Cold Outside" have to do with Trump?

Because this didn't have anything to do with him other than he SAID something afterward the left didn't like -
you know, like, there was blame on both sides (referring to the two groups of people).

Other than that, the whole of events had nothing to do with him.

Are you SURE you're not, like, channeling trans, who can be found on EVERY discussion topic, linking
the discussion to something to do with Trump?

I'm not defending the guy. I'm surprised. FIRST degree murder implies premeditation and motive.
The people he injured, he did that with intent, but they did not die. He was correctly charged with their
injuries, but the woman who died, he had no idea it had happened at all, as she was injured indirectly.
And if trump said there was a problem with baby it’s cold outside Trumpers would be lining up to burn those records. Just like trump defended white supreacist and now you guys are stuck defending a convicted murder and nazi.


Why do you think you know more than the jury? Getting a conviction on premeditated murder isn’t easy. The prosecution OBVIOUSLY made their case.
Yup. And O.J. was innocent.

I just think they got him on the wrong charge.

That right there is what defending him looks like. If you don’t think he was intending to kill people when he drove his car into that crowd you are delusion. It is no different than if he opened fire on that crowd.
A nazi drove his car into a crowd of people he didn’t like on purpose. Just condemn it and more on. Stop making excuses and trying to put his crime in a lesser category.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
So:

Not one person has defended this guy, but clearly that's what the progs have been programmed to insist. What's that called, when someone makes a statement that has no relationship to the conversation at hand?
Gurps most certainly did. He made the claim it was self defense. But I know words are hard for you.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I made a statement, I never claimed it was MY Opinion dumb ass

I thought your post was clear. But, as we know, MR and the rest of the zombieprog army cannot process communication. They get programmed with talking points that they puke up whether they're appropriate to the subject or not.

Him accusing Sam Spade, of all people, of defending this guy was just the dizzy limit. That's such a reach and stretch that I'll be surprised if he didn't permanently injure himself.
 
Top