There's no evidence he was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

For all we know the man wasn't even protesting and was merely attempting to get home.

He was a long way from Ohio, lol. Maybe chill for a minute and let the march pass instead of running them over?

Maybe he was applying for a job.

Maybe isn't a rational answer and users have shown images showing he was following traffic according prior to the act. As well as showing a potential dirrect attact with the forementioned bat moments prior to the act.

I imagine we will know more soon.

Maybe he was applying for a job.

He was at the rally with the white nationalists dude. He's photographed holding their symbols and marching with them.

https://nebulous.cloud/threads/evidence-that-suggests-driver-was-attacked-with-bats-before-hitting-crowd-charlottesville.20881/

Same videos as before, none of them show the car being attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

According to the link the strike can be heard on the video supplied by the user. Multiple users also verifying the strike prior to the act.

Supporting evidence is important when considering the choices in a fight vs. Flight scenario.

He's already driving into the crowd when the video begins, dude.

Fight or flight, or just park and go get something to eat or something.

He could have done ANYTHING except running people over.

The angle mentioned is 'percieved danger'. Via a threat such as a loud noise which was heard as a potential gunshot. Relevant if the car was in fact struck-

There's no evidence the car was struck by anyone prior to accelerating into the crowd. For the hundredth time.

Yes, multiple people are pushing a carefully-constructed narrative to vindicate the murderer. But the video clearly doesn't support their story.

All you're doing, is pushing the MSM narrative.

You're assuming that it's wrong because it's what you see on the news. That's ideology, not thinking.

No, I'm questioning the narrative because certain things to not add up about it. That's called actually thinking for myself. You on the other hand, merely peddle and believe what the boob tube tells you.

I don't have cable, myself, but every time I ask someone for evidence that the car was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd as claimed I either get brushed off, attacked, or shown a video that contradicts the claim entirely. It's happened many times today.

There is photo evidence of the driver not being the person in custody via the mugshot. This could have been a deep state false flag, and the person they have is a patsy. And before you say it, I do think neo-Nazis exist and yes, they are scumbags, imo.

There is photo evidence of the driver not being the person in custody via the mugshot.

Feel free to share this with the class.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6tgtgg/make_your_own_enhanced_image_of_the_driver_using/

What am I supposed to look at within that link?

You're really that lazy? Jesus....

1. http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/confederate-monuments-prote1.jpg
2. https://i.imgur.com/toEDkQD.jpg
3. https://i.imgur.com/hV85QZL.jpg

Looks like the guy in the mugshot to me, dunno.

Completely different facial structure. There are also possible eye witness accounts that the car used or the man in it was swiftly taken away by other cars. Then, coincidentally the helicopter that was covering all of this crashes and both people inside die. Pretty odd series of events, no?

They look like they have the same facial structures to me, shrug.

There are also possible eye witness accounts that the car used or the man in it was swiftly taken away by other cars.

Do tell.

Then, coincidentally the helicopter that was covering all of this crashes and both people inside die. Pretty odd series of events, no?

Yes. But an odd series of events requires evidence to graduate to a conspiracy.

They look like they have the same facial structures to me

Wat? The mugshot guy has a chubby round face, while the picture of the person in the car has a strong jaw and muscular neck. Dude looks military.

Do tell.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6th5ki/anon_living_near_arrest_site_posts_photos_of/

Yes. But an odd series of events requires evidence to graduate to a conspiracy.

True, hence why people are questioning the official narrative. All a part of the investigation.

You can't even see his neck and jaw. You're filling in blanks there.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6th5ki/anon_living_near_arrest_site_posts_photos_of/

Dude, this is 4chan saying there was a "switcheroo" based on the shit doxx they did of that innocent kid in Michigan. It's basically 4chan being doubly retarded.

That's a set of photos of the arrest of James Alex Fields. 4chan is confused because they were expecting that young kid Joel from Michigan. Because 4chan is very stupid.

True, hence why people are questioning the official narrative. All a part of the investigation.

Question away, just as I question claims made here.

What narrative should it be about a guy that plows a car into a crowd?

Should be investigating the inconsistencies. Do you really think Sadam had weapons of mass destruction and we had evidence, hence why we invaded?

In the event he was afraid for his life. The difference between intentional and unintentional murder I suppose.

There's no evidence he was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVkD7c2D6H0

Did you even watch the video?

Beginning clearly shows the driver was braking (red lights on the back of the vehicle) after going over the speed bump. By the time the camera pans left, the driver is clearly moving slowly and letting the crowd disburse in front of him. He was certainly not accelerating.

The video clearly shows a man in a white shirt swinging a flag into the back of the car. Keep in mind, this was a the time when the car wasn't moving fast at all. After the flag bash, the driver freaks out and accelerates, probably trying to get away from the mob behind him with baseball bats.

Nobody is attacking that vehicle until he's driving into the crowd. You can see the crowd diving out the way prior to anyone striking the car.

At the point this video begins his intent is already clear. I've seen this video a dozen times today.

Would you eat in an area with percieved gunshots coming in your general direction?

We need to really assess the fear angle. Ive had a rock hit my car on the freeway and its scared me. Why wouldnt a bat scare you via your car being surrounded by unfriendly people attacking it?

Would you eat in an area with percieved gunshots coming in your general direction?

Nobody was attacking him until he was driving into the crowd.

We need to really assess the fear angle. Ive had a rock hit my car on the freeway and its scared me. Why wouldnt a bat scare you via your car being surrounded by unfriendly people attacking it?

Did you drive into a crowd of people?

I'd argue it was struck due to the photographs provided in the thread I linked. As well as audio recordings...

What?

The little link included with multiple links attached... View them-

I understand that part, I'm asking what you mean specifically.

It is in the link for the second time.

And it does not support your claim at all.

Show me specifically that his intent was to harm others.

Why don't you ask the dead and injured?

Why don't you show evidence of your claim?

I don't have a claim.

You claim tge cqr was not struck at all. Can you prove that?

That's not how it works, you're asking me to prove a negative. I'm saying there's no evidence to YOUR claim that he was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

And you have not delivered evidence to support your claim.

It actually works both ways.

Im merely asking users to consider an absolutely potential scenario. You claim this is an impossible scenario.

Please demonstrate why. Or leave the option as a potential option as others including myself have. Ty.

When someone makes a claim they should have evidence. I'm not making a claim, I'm asking you for evidence of yours.

I'm not claiming it's impossible, I'm saying that nobody has provided evidence that shows he was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

I've asked a hundred times, every time I see someone claim it to be the case. They usually hem, haw, show me a video that completely contradicts the claim, or call me a shill. Or all three.

I feel ive submitted that evidence. I feel more will come to light. Please show evidence contrary to the evidence I submitted. Or at least admit there is room for my arguments.

Every piece of evidence you've shared shows the car already driving into the crowd when attacked.

Again. Eyewitness Testimony is evidence. There are arguments of an attack on the car prior. That is evidence.

Eyewitness Testimony is evidence. There are arguments of an attack on the car prior.

So your evidence is that somebody, somewhere said so. No video, photo, or audio evidence. Just someone saying they heard it from a cop? Thirdhand hearsay?

No my argument is that there appears to be various sources indicating the situation is not so black and white and that users should remain unbiased to the media and consider the evidence, prior to drawing a conclusion.

various sources indicating the situation is not so black and white

So far you've shared a tweet where someone claims a cop who wasn't there says Fields may acted in self-defense. That's it.

My claim is that users should await their personal decision of guilt; until claims are fully overseen and evaluated by those taking part in their respected investigations.

I.e. Put pitchforks on hold. Let people do their jobs.

Sheesh-

At what second in that video do you see brakelights?

It's at the very beginning... 0:00

http://imgur.com/a/jsyKm

So before he accelerated into the crowd.

That's retarded. He slowed down (but not before speed bump) when his goal was to run people over? Doesn't make any sense.

Of course it does. Why would he need to be accelerating from as far away as possible? He intentionally got up to a deadly velocity, after tapping his brakes. Whether he was aligning himself or having second thoughts or just braking by reflex upon seeing a wall of humans, I have no idea. It doesn't matter, when his next action was to accelerate to the point that he injured many people and murdered one.

I'm not defending him

Proceeds to defend him.

Im defending circumstances in play. Not the driver nor their reckless actions.

What's the distinction, in your mind?

Liability.

Would you sit calmly in a scenario when potentially being shot at drom behind? Ratiinal question...?

Nobody was attacking him prior to when he accelerated into the crowd.

I don't think it would have been a rational belief on his part, even if there were evidence of any attack he could have perceived as a gunshot prior to his driving into the crowd.

Even if he did think he was being shot at, it wouldn't excuse his reversing at speed over people.

Again. The intent isn't to claim he's innocent. Im not defending him.

The intent was to demonstrate the difference between intent. Failing to abide by the law is criminal in either extent. However tge circumstances of his actions should be carefully overseen and evaluated prior to escalating this to a willful act. As others have been physically outlining.

My point is to state that this truly may not have been intentional. Based on the linked evidence provided.

Wild speculation that contradicts the available evidence isn't "carefully" evaluating anything.

I've provided multiole sources.

Why did he engage the crowd within legal regulation from the start if his intents were illicit. Wouldnt a running start have been more efficient?

Having done some investigation of criminal and fraudulent activity, asking whether people took the optimal actions to achieve their goals is not an effective line of inquiry. People don't do the most efficient thing. People act on impulse or emotion, they make mistakes, they get sloppy.

Your sources of inquiry don't support your presuppositions, such as an attack on him that predates his acceleration towards the crowd.

I don't imagine they are the only sources available. I merely hope to show that a decision should be carefully placed on hold until the experts give the final verdict.

I don't imagine that you do imagine that. Speculating that maybe other unknown sources exist to support your speculation is also not carefully analyzing the available evidence.

Its just as dangerous as stating it 'fact' when the facts are greatly 'unknown'.

Maybe he was applying for a job.

Maybe isn't a rational answer and users have shown images showing he was following traffic according prior to the act. As well as showing a potential dirrect attact with the forementioned bat moments prior to the act.

I imagine we will know more soon.

There's no evidence he was attacked prior to accelerating into the crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVkD7c2D6H0

Did you even watch the video?

Beginning clearly shows the driver was braking (red lights on the back of the vehicle) after going over the speed bump. By the time the camera pans left, the driver is clearly moving slowly and letting the crowd disburse in front of him. He was certainly not accelerating.

The video clearly shows a man in a white shirt swinging a flag into the back of the car. Keep in mind, this was a the time when the car wasn't moving fast at all. After the flag bash, the driver freaks out and accelerates, probably trying to get away from the mob behind him with baseball bats.

The angle mentioned is 'percieved danger'. Via a threat such as a loud noise which was heard as a potential gunshot. Relevant if the car was in fact struck-

There's no evidence the car was struck by anyone prior to accelerating into the crowd. For the hundredth time.

It is in the link for the second time.

I've provided multiole sources.

Why did he engage the crowd within legal regulation from the start if his intents were illicit. Wouldnt a running start have been more efficient?