Crime James Fields gets convincted of first-degree murder...

[VivaRevolution]

Not cool. Prosecutors overreach all the time. And juries stamp it many times. There is another thread of a 16 year old black girl serving 50+ years and the tone in that thread is much different

I don't deny that, but unless someone is suggesting a superior system is possible, I don't understand the problem here.

Disagree with them all you want, but you cross a line to defending a known premeditated murderer, when you call that judgement into question, without a specific complaint of fraudulent evidence.

I personally accept all trials, conducted by jury, where no evidence was conjured or suppressed, whether I agree or not, because I would never claim to have a better solution.

We let guilty people go all the time, to prevent innocent people from going to jail. The system is setup to avoid just what TS suggests. That doesn't mean a bad outcome can never happen, but it does mean that we all need to accept that judgement unless someone has an idea for a better system.

Plenty of things to bitch about in our justice system that can be fixed. Not sure what the point is of questioning the result of a trial by jury, where no one claims evidence was suppressed or conjured.

 

[JamesRussler]

For some reason, I don't trust what you tell me. Odd, I trust what the competent lawyers here tell me, even the ones I don't particularly care for. You don't seem competent.

Well Sawlty, what can I say? You have to trust me, because you’re a high school dropout. Someone else has to do the thinking for you. Might as well be me. As your intellectual authority, I’m instructing you to stay in your lane and stick to taking bathroom selfies.

I'm telling you that the jury heard enough evidence when combined together that they felt he went down to that street to cause a conflict. Then when confronted, he chose to use that car as as weapon. Even at the last moment he over came his instincts to brake and continued to slam into the crowd. The lady died as a as direct result of his decisions that he made with a clear mind.

Went to a street he knew was closed for counter protest.

Used his car to intimidate crowd.

When crowd reacted to him, he used his car as a weapon.

He excelled at a high rate of speed towards crowd and did not try to leave the scene safely.

When he was about to hit crowd he tapped breaks, then instead of hard breaking he decided to release the break and plow full speed through crowd.

After smashing into another car he reversed and made a quick exit from the scene.

A woman died as a direct result of his actions.

Again, that’s the prosecution’s narrative. Those aren’t facts. The facts are simply that he was driving in an area where Antifa was rioting. They confronted him (to use your word), and he reacted by driving into a nearby crowd of rioters. That’s it.

On those facts, without some direct evidence of his intent, there’s no way it can be murder 1. He would have to be retarded or suicidal to drive down that particular street with a plan to drive into a crowd of randoms, and only people who are predisposed to hating this guy would believe such a theory of guilt. You would need something like “screw your optics, I’m going in” to close that gap. But merely turning down the wrong street proves nothing. I hope this case gets reversed and he just takes a plea to murder 2.

 

[SBJJ]

I don't deny that, but unless someone is suggesting a superior system is possible, I don't understand the problem here.

Disagree with them all you want, but you cross a line to defending a known premeditated murderer, when you call that judgement into question, without a specific complaint of fraudulent evidence.

I personally accept all trials, conducted by jury, where no evidence was conjured or suppressed, whether I agree or not, because I would never claim to have a better solution.

We let guilty people go all the time, to prevent innocent people from going to jail. The system is setup to avoid just what TS suggests. That doesn't mean a bad outcome can never happen, but it does mean that we all need to accept that judgement unless someone has an idea for a better system.

Plenty of things to bitch about in our justice system that can be fixed. Not sure what the point is of questioning the result of a trial by jury, where no one claims evidence was suppressed or conjured.

So you believe Assange should head over for a few Jury trials?

I don't think people are defending this piece of shit. I believe Russler said he wants him locked away for life

Questioning prosecutors methods is not defending criminals

 

[VivaRevolution]

So you believe Assange should head over for a few Jury trials?

I don't think people are defending this piece of shit. I believe Russler said he wants him locked away for life

Questioning prosecutors methods is not defending criminals

What method was questioned?

What I read was questions of fairness based on rainbow farts.

This to me is clearly a case of, do you as a member of the jury believe this was premeditated?

They said yes.

What is the problem with the method?

As to Assange or Snowden, yes they should face trial. A trial in public where the evidence against them is subject to public scrutiny, and where the US Constitution being the supreme law of the land, is admissiable to the court proceeding.

 

[LMP]

Well Sawlty, what can I say? You have to trust me, because you’re a high school dropout. Someone else has to do the thinking for you. Might as well be me. As your intellectual authority, I’m instructing you to stay in your lane and stick to taking bathroom selfies.



Again, that’s the prosecution’s narrative. Those aren’t facts. The facts are simply that he was driving in an area where Antifa was rioting. They confronted him (to use your word), and he reacted by driving into a nearby crowd of rioters. That’s it.

On those facts, without some direct evidence of his intent, there’s no way it can be murder 1. He would have to be retarded or suicidal to drive down that particular street with a plan to drive into a crowd of randoms, and only people who are predisposed to hating this guy would believe such a theory of guilt. You would need something like “screw your optics, I’m going in” to close that gap. But merely turning down the wrong street proves nothing. I hope this case gets reversed and he just takes a plea to murder 2.

You using "rioting" to describe the counter protest suggest you are a little more emotionally involved than just worrying about this being overreach. Each individual thing might not be viewed as intent but when you put it all together It paints a more compelling picture.

 

[SBJJ]

What method was questioned?

What I read was questions of fairness based on rainbow farts.

This to me is clearly a case of, do you as a member of the jury believe this was premeditated?

They said yes.

What is the problem with the method?

Seems to me the argument for charging him to begin with. Just does not seem like a case they'd normally try at first degree

But hell. Who would not say guilty to whatever the prosecutors charged him in this case

 

[Victor Maitland]

Convicted of killing someone his car never made contact with as he got attacked by a raging antifa mob.
Banana republic justice !

 

[VivaRevolution]

Seems to me the argument for charging him to begin with. Just does not seem like a case they'd normally try at first degree

But hell. Who would not say guilty to whatever the prosecutors charged him in this case

I wouldn't, unless I saw evidence of premeditation.

See, this is my problem with the article, and topic. Where is the criticism of jury selection in this? Or of evidence being conjured or supressed? Of witness tampering?

I don't see any specific accusations here, just a general claim of this is unfair.

 

[JamesRussler]

Considering a jury found him guilty based on those facts I think you're tripping over yourself to deny basic logical inference in the situation.

Look man, pointing out that a jury believed your argument doesn’t make it stronger. In many ways it does the opposite.

He drove around his ass to get to his elbow to find himself on the blocked off street. He passed an exit that would have taken them to the highway on the way to the crowd. He stopped, backed up to put more distance between him and the crowd, and then accelerated right into them.

I’m under the impression that he isn’t from that city, and was not familiar with its layout. It’s just as likely that he was lost. If you want me to believe he went looking for the crowd in order to ram into it, I need more evidence beyond the fact that he disliked Antifa terrorists.

What reasonable explanation is there for that series of behavior other then he purposefully went looking for people to run over?

That doesn’t sound like a reasonable explanation, because it would mean he was basically suicidal or was resigned to spending his life in jail. But so far as I know, there’s no evidence of that. In fact, it looks like he tried to get away, rather than continue mowing down Antifas. There are plenty of more plausible reasons why he may have found himself in that situation—like the possibility that he was lost, and on edge from having been attacked by Antifas all day when he encountered yet another unruly crowd.

Yeah I know you're going to go with "but you can't know for sure what he was thinking at that moment", but the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Not mere doubt, not fanciful doubt, but reasonable doubt. So what reasonable explanation is there for his behavior that could possible conclude with him not intentionally running that woman down?

See above. The most plausible scenario is that he rammed into the crowd in a reckless attempt to escape a perceived threat. You can believe what you want to believe, but the facts Show manslaughter or murder 2.

 

[JamesRussler]

You using "rioting" to describe the counter protest suggest you are a little more emotionally involved than just worrying about this being overreach. Each individual thing might not be viewed as intent but when you put it all together It paints a more compelling picture.

I call it rioting because that’s what it was. Doesn’t mean they deserve to get run over, but I’m not going to ignore the fact that the rioters were rioting because they were mad at a tiny group of white nationalists and their offensive opinions.

 

[Fawlty]

Well Sawlty, what can I say? You have to trust me, because you’re a high school dropout. Someone else has to do the thinking for you. Might as well be me. As your intellectual authority, I’m instructing you to stay in your lane and stick to taking bathroom selfies.

You're getting the everloving dogshit kicked out of you itt lol

 

[ocean size]

lol at anyone bringing up the fact that the people that got run over (after homeboy backed up and accelerated again) were 'rioters' or antifa. For one, it doesn't matter, unless the deaths were somehow incidental during the rioting, and two, calling everyone that got run over a rioter is like saying every single person there that didn't want the statues pulled down is a nazi.

He did himself no favors texting his mom this:

I don't blame the prosecution for pursuing murder 1 with evidence like that. Also maybe he was scared and thought the protestors walking down the street peacefully chanting were coming just for him, but with a football field of distance as they walked towards him, backing up and gunning it was not a good look for a 'self defense' plea after you left plenty of evidence that paints a picture of violent premeditation online.

Look - I could plausibly see the case where this guy got himself so worked up online, didn't actually mean any of the hitler or run over protestor memes, and really was worked up and afraid and the adrenaline hit when he saw the crowd of people. But sorry, the more parsimonious explaination was premeditation and violence towards protestors on the mind and maybe a good dose of stupidity - AND if he can't handle the activities he decided to engage in that day in real life without scaring himself into running over people, not a lot of sympathy.

 

[Hard To Tell]

It's a white supremacist group that has the explicit instructions to hide behind a trolly facade so they can get away with more and they have an inbuilt excuse when they get into trouble.

People, especially white supremacists, use "jokes" as an excuse to spread their ideology. White supremacists "memes" aren't jokes, they're literally propaganda.

Of course it's run by a sex offender. Internet trolls are probably overrepresented in the sex offender registration. It's almost a given.

And sure, you don't have sympathy for him but you're still parrotting the exact same drivel the Dailystormer was. You're transparent.

Andrew Anglin, the man behind The Daily Stormer, wrote an article calling Muslim grooming gang victims 'stupid bitches', 'sluts', 'coal burners' and all kinds of other disgusting things. Do you really think any real nationalists and right-wingers take this scumbag seriously?

The only people who give Anglin and The Daily Stormer the time of day are a few retarded edge lords from 4chan and liberal/leftists who want to portray this bullshit as being typical of right-wing politics.

Although in an interesting twist, according to Anglin's mother, the family is actually Jewish. So make of that what you will.

https://www.newsweek.com/neo-nazi-andrew-weev-auernheimer-daily-stormer-jewish-descent-768805

 

[danny23]

*convicted. My deepest apologies.

for running over Heather Heyer in Charlottesville.

He deserves prison time for sure, but him getting convinced of murder one makes a total mockery of the system. How can they possibly prove premeditation for running over a complete stranger who was violently protesting? He literally ran over a rioter who was involved with Antifa and other activists in disrupting the civil rights the people participating in that rally. It's complete nonsense and another example of how screwed up the judicial system is.

He's a psycho. Driving a car into a crowd full of people with intent to harm means he's mentally insane and shouldn't be around the civilised public. He's capable of doing other terror acts when given the chance. Keep him caged.

And I have no sympathy for any killer. Let him rot in forever for the life he took.

 

[tonni]

Andrew Anglin, the man behind The Daily Stormer, wrote an article calling Muslim grooming gang victims 'stupid bitches', 'sluts', 'coal burners' and all kinds of other disgusting things. Do you really think any real nationalists and right-wingers take this scumbag seriously?

The only people who give Anglin and The Daily Stormer the time of day are a few retarded edge lords from 4chan and liberal/leftists who want to portray this bullshit as being typical of right-wing politics.

Although in an interesting twist, according to Anglin's mother, the family is actually Jewish. So make of that what you will.

https://www.newsweek.com/neo-nazi-andrew-weev-auernheimer-daily-stormer-jewish-descent-768805

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_us_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2

Did you even read the guide?

And yeah, people might not take him personally seriously but they sure seem to mimick a lot of what he said albeit in a slightly less offensive fashion. You, for example.

 

[nac386]

Posting private pics of Fawlty can get you in big trouble

It looks like the human form of @irish_thug's avatar.

 

[oldshadow]

Good I got no problem with this.

It's sounds like they proved he was not being attacked when he ran them over. That would be self-defense.

He should get at least 25 to life.

 

[Limbo Pete]

The verdict says he showed up, knew Antifa would be attacking people, knew police would lose control of the situation and was waiting to run someone over.

 

[tonni]

After your humiliating expose of Trump’s emoluments scandal, you should probably pick a different topic to flex upon.

This is a classic second degree murder or manslaughter case. He’s in the middle of a riot, with a bunch of people who want to kick his ass because of his political views. He knows the police won’t protect him, and he knows the media is going to report on Antifa like they’re freedom fighters instead of the domestic terrorists they are. They’re all around his car shouting and throwing shit. He plows into the crowd. Whether he did it in retaliation, or whether he was trying to escape, that’s not murder 1. If he tried to escape by driving through a crowd, even if he did it with a cool head, that’s depraved heart murder at worst.

It’s like you guys can’t contain your hatred for this guy. I get it—to you, he’s like a symbol of evil or something. You want him dead, evidence be damned. Meanwhile you’ll white knight for some scumbag who executes the clerk at 7-Eleven, whining because he gets a whopping 15 years on a sweetheart manslaughter plea. If you changed this guy’s skin color, you’d be out there picketing with a “Free James” sign before the verdict was even announced.

That's a lot of speculation.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Any half-decent lawyer should have proven that he didn't know her and she wouldn't have been killed if she had not been there to violate his rights as part of the people who went to shut down the rally.

Hey Matlock, before you try and present your legal defense for your client, you might want to look up what first degree murder means in Virginia, something tells me you have no fucking clue.