James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

[Phantom Roxas]

"What we do, is establish intent based upon what we have"

Which is what the trial did. This isn't "virtue signaling" over political affiliation. "Virtue signaling" is a bullshit phrase anyway, and asking the media to look at this "objectively" is a hollow request. That word gets thrown around to act like the media is somehow wrong in their reporting, but never actually explains why they are, just that they are.
 
Dixon did testify that he yelled at a gray car, but data and other testimonies confirm that the car he was yelling at could not have been Fields'. I doubt Fields was planning to kill someone "slowly", since the point of the evidence was that he slowed down, then went into reverse before accelerating again. Seems that he sped up just before the collision.
 
You were not part of the jury, so claiming to have already pointed out the holes means nothing when clearly the argument was effective enough for the jury. Evidence also included him telling his mother "We're not the ones who need to be careful", followed by sharing an image of Hitler. That was before the rally, so that message cannot have been influenced by him being pissed about "slander" (By the way, people pointing that out a man who sympathizes with Nazi beliefs and committed murder is a Nazi sympathizer who committed murder is not "slander"). The prosecution showed that he went into this with malicious intent, while the the defense failed to prove it wasn't an accident. I can't see how it's "demonstrably an accident" when the lawyers whose job was literally to demonstrate that could not do so.

[Proto]

@@jevil explain what "baiting" is and I'll get back to you, I'm not going to be nice to people who have a tendency of dishonesty if that's what you mean. Melkor's posting sheet like he "should've killed more of them" at the start of the discussion yet I'm the person baiting to you for confronting him on that statement on a forum that's meant for debate? Get a grip man.

 

Keeping my own responses brief as well, first off, his political opinions, while relevant to the rally, do nothing for the actual case. It's virtue signaling at best, and ad hoc arguing at worst. Relating to the court case:

http://www.unz.com/article/todays-testimony-of-military-rifle-toting-antifa-enforcer-dwayne-dixon-should-gravely-damage-charlottesville-prosecution/

Unz, the "Alternative Media Selection", not a publication I'd heard of or one that I'd imagine would be peer reviewed in the slightest. Suppose that's where you need to go in order to escape the media though.

 

Written by Greg Conte who quite obviously isn't biased at all! Bein' a holocaust denier and a writer for Richard Spencer's website and all that good stuff 

 

https://twitter.com/Real_Greg_Conte/status/1029320379326771200

 

https://twitter.com/Real_Greg_Conte/status/1044967850757230593

 

Another example of vla1ne parroting literal Nazi talking points to justify the "ess jay dubbya" hate but hey, that's just run of the mill nowadays isn't it?

 

I adore how his skepticism involves taking white supremacists at their complete word and immediately discarding any piece of leftist information when it's not chopped into a nice little right wing piece outta context. I'll need to examine the case more throughly with the evidence presented by the court case itself to make the standard giant post I put way too much effort in to begin with but Nazis defending Nazis isn't the strongest arm you have versus the court system mate.

[vla1ne]

The points made on the site, remain standing until argued against properly. Your attempted use of character assassination also flies directly in the face of the above argument against virtue signaling made by roxas. Instead of addressing his points, you went right for his beliefs. The exact same method used in the trial discussed. He could be a flat earth believer and the points about the trial would stand on their own apart from those beliefs. The both of you didn't even notice when you did the exact thing we say keeps happening. Instead, you go for the "he doesn't believe what we all do, so he must be wrong" angle. 

 

 

The defense did not press on the questions that actually held weight, this much was stated and backed plainly in the article, and much of the persecution was inflated with talks about how good of a girl the woman helping illegally block traffic in the mob that was explicitly told they would be hit by a car was. The persecution was not out for proof of intent, the persecution was after the "he's a white supremacist, so obviously it was intentional" angle. If you'd like a look at how easy it is to make that mistake when arguing, look no further than protos post. Instead of actually discussing the point, The argument tends to just waltz off into the political and ideological leanings of the person making said point. He could be a mass murderer and child rapist, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with his argument in this completely unrelated case. You have made the exact same mistake he himself points out when discussing the case. and you even managed to get a stamp of approval from the person who claims that such a thing doesn't happen.

 

The point stands. you have not proven intent, you have merely said he's not a good person, so he has to be malicious.

[Dad]

If you believe leftists or SJWs should die, or your brain has imprinted "colored people shouldn't exist", and then you go and kill a person from one of those categories, then I'll be targeting your garbage ass beliefs.

 

Because your beliefs caused your actions. It's called radicalization. Simple funking concept.

 

Stop defending Nazis.

[vla1ne]

That doesn't apply to this case, he didn't try to kill them, he accidentally hit them. Malicious intent were the exact words used to define this case. That is blatantly false. Do your really think that he would not have been able to absolutely murder, or eternally cripple at least a dozen or so in a car that can go 0-60 in under ten seconds?  Also, you continue to ignore the illegal roadblock that heavily factors into this entire incident. Standing in the road when you shouldn't be, while blocking multiple paths out of the area illegally, generally increases the chance of getting hit by a car. Attacking a vehicle in the road, after they have already encountered hostile armed members of your group, is pretty much a perfect formula for at least one vehicle hitting a person. To say nothing of a group of people driving their way down the road, blocking off many cars ways of leaving. in fact, the car he hit was also stifled by the massive crowd that should not have been there. Remove the antifa factor from any protest involving right wing views, and the violence is all but guaranteed to drop to zero. [spoiler=We've seen it in multiple areas, multiple times]

 

 

Remove the alt-right from any protest that antifa's involved in, and the violence remains the same. See the problem with your analogy? One side increases the violence no matter where they jump in, the other only seems to have any violence at all when the already violent group jumps in. the beliefs of one side are clearly undesirable (i doubt anybody here agrees with any supremacist race argument) but the beleifs and actions of the other side, both are just as bad, if not worse than their opponents, as they take things to the next level. 

 

His beliefs alone didn't cause the actions, the actions of others also influenced this outcome. You are removing the autonomy from the people involved, with the exception of just one, and you only do so, because of your own bias. (and no, the same does not apply to me, i've already said my piece on his actions. I neither condone or support hitting people with cars, and I've already stated he does indeed deserve jailtime for them, intentional or not.)

 

I'll defend whomever i see fit to defend.

[Phantom Roxas]

The both of you didn't even notice when you did the exact thing we say keeps happening. Instead, you go for the "he doesn't believe what we all do, so he must be wrong" angle.

 

I would prefer if you responded to anything I actually said, instead of STILL putting words in my mouth. At no point did I go for that angle. My focus was on how he committed murder, the evidence brought forth in the trial proved to the jury that it was intentional, and I agree with the jury's decision.

 

Absolutely none of that comes from a "He doesn't believe what I do, so he must be wrong" angle. This is not the first time I've had to point out that you put words in mouth. I know I cannot enforce this, but I think I can at least request (Not demand) for you to refrain from dishonesty. I can never believe you're arguing in good faith when you keep doing that.

 

That doesn't apply to this case, he didn't try to kill them, he accidentally hit them. Malicious intent were the exact words used to define this case. That is blatantly false. Do your really think that he would not have been able to absolutely murder, or eternally cripple at least a dozen or so in a car that can go 0-60 in under ten seconds?  Also, you continue to ignore the illegal roadblock that heavily factors into this entire incident. Standing in the road when you shouldn't be, while blocking multiple paths out of the area illegally, generally increases the chance of getting hit by a car. Attacking a vehicle in the road, after they have already encountered hostile armed members of your group, is pretty much a perfect formula for at least one vehicle hitting a person. To say nothing of a group of people driving their way down the road, blocking off many cars ways of leaving. in fact, the car he hit was also stifled by the massive crowd that should not have been there. Remove the antifa factor from any protest involving right wing views, and the violence is all but guaranteed to drop to zero. [spoiler=We ve seen it in multiple areas, multiple times']

 

 

Remove the alt-right from any protest that antifa's involved in, and the violence remains the same. See the problem with your analogy? One side increases the violence no matter where they jump in, the other only seems to have any violence at all when the already violent group jumps in. the beliefs of one side are clearly undesirable (i doubt anybody here agrees with any supremacist race argument) but the beleifs and actions of the other side, both are just as bad, if not worse than their opponents, as they take things to the next level. 

 

His beliefs alone didn't cause the actions, the actions of others also influenced this outcome. You are removing the autonomy from the people involved, with the exception of just one, and you only do so, because of your own bias. (and no, the same does not apply to me, i've already said my piece on his actions. I neither condone or support hitting people with cars, and I've already stated he does indeed deserve jailtime for them, intentional or not.)

 

I'll defend whomever i see fit to defend.

Blocking the road, while illegal, is not automatically violent, which seems to be the issue with your arguments. While I agree with the problems it presents, you assume that the very existence of those roadblocks is what makes Antifa violent. Show how behavior that was actually violent directly influenced James Fields.

 

Sorry, but you do not get to condemn others and then immediately absolve yourself of having the same apply to you, which is pretty damn ironic when you're trying to accuse other people of "virtue signaling". You're also ignoring that his message to his mother offers evidence that the murder was premeditated, or how his actions could have been the result of his own autonomy. Instead, you play off this murder as merely the reaction of a group that you've already shown yourself to be biased against, and you deny any evidence that could potentially prove that he did have malicious intent.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

How about pounding on window of cards you block down Roxas? Cuz I linked video of Antifa doing that above

[Phantom Roxas]

How about pounding on window of cards you block down Roxas? Cuz I linked video of Antifa doing that above

 

You really think I'm going to take some meme channel with "RedPill" in its name as reliable evidence?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You really think I'm going to take some meme channel with "RedPill" in its name as reliable evidence?

If your argument is that the source is not a good...source of evidence then I'd like you to give more reason/counter evidence than "the name is meme-y".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You really think I'm going to take some meme channel with "RedPill" in its name as reliable evidence?

Well no, given you lack an argument I expect you to attack the source over the material. It's a classic unsophisticated defection, ie. exactly what I'd expect from you.

 

Let me ask you something, do you think some "meme channel" with redpill in it's name was able to stage a intersection shut down with antifa actors who then proceed to pound on car windows? That's the only way your post is anything other than deflection. 

 

Truly big brain

 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Okay, everyone needs to take a step back. Winter, you did the exact same thing that Proto did just in reverse. Lets pull away from this line of "discussion" now and go back to presenting evidence or I'll have to lock the thread.

And yes both sides are guilty here.

[Phantom Roxas]

If your argument is that the source is not a good...source of evidence then I'd like you to give more reason/counter evidence than "the name is meme-y".

 

Fair enough. I looked up the channel more, and saw more comments suggesting that the channel often posts deceitful and misleading content. If they have an established history of dishonesty, I'm not inclined to trust them or value their judgment.

 

EDIT: My mistake, that was the video that vla1ne posted, not Winter's. Winter's video was about a completely different event, unrelated to the topic at hand. Focusing on that would be derailing the discussion.

 

Near as I can tell, slamming the counter-protesters (Which is what they actually are; they were not Antifa) for illegally blocking the road is another false claim. The police established a security perimeter specifically in anticipation of Unite the Right. Not in reaction to the counter-protesters, but because of the white supremacists.

[Dad]

 

And yes both sides are guilty here.

 

In regards to what?  Cuz if you're talking about sources, that's one thing.  If you're talking this case, you're part of the problem.  And if you think for a funking second that because you're a mod now I'm not gonna call you out on your bullshit, think again.

 

 

I'll defend whomever i see fit to defend.

 

Then you deserve the same.  You and all your Nazi friends deserve it.

 

he accidentally hit them. 

 

Is that why he floored it?  Or did he just accidentally push down on the gas pedal too hard?  funk outta here.  Nobody drives deliberately into a crowd with their foot all the way down to "accidentally" hit someone.  You're not even funking trying.

[Phantom Roxas]

 

Here's the actual video. Look at how quickly and suddenly the empty cars in front of him are rear-ended, and how the car goes into reverse.

 

That's not some panic, nor was he going "slowly".

 

 

Another video, where you can plainly see that James Fields was not surrounded by anyone when he reached his top speed before hitting the crowd. Proto's video had been removed, so hopefully sharing video that's still up will help with the discussion.

 

If he wanted to kill the most amount of people he wouldn't have rammed into a car (which is an in elastic collision and lowers his potential kinetic energy) he would have just hit the people behind him.

 

He did exactly that after he hit the car and murdered Heyer, and he seemed to still have plenty of kinetic energy when he did that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

In regards to what?  Cuz if you're talking about sources, that's one thing.  If you're talking this case, you're part of the problem.  And if you think for a funking second that because you're a mod now I'm not gonna call you out on your bullshit, think again.

 

 

Then you deserve the same.  You and all your Nazi friends deserve it.

 

 

Is that why he floored it?  Or did he just accidentally push down on the gas pedal too hard?  funk outta here.  Nobody drives deliberately into a crowd with their foot all the way down to "accidentally" hit someone.  You're not even funking trying.

Don't form angry riot mobs that block of people from escaping

[Phantom Roxas]

Don't form angry riot mobs that block of people from escaping

 

Wasn't Fields on one of the streets that the police closed down? If it was, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place, so no one was illegally "blocking his escape"; he broke the perimeter.

[Dad]

Don't form angry riot mobs that block of people from escaping

Dont kill people. Unless they're nazis. Kill them.

[Phantom Roxas]

Dont kill people. Unless they're nazis. Kill them.

 

This is why if Fields is found guilty on the hate crime charges, I am perfectly okay with him receiving the death penalty.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Dont kill people. Unless they're nazis. Kill them.

 

You have no idea how close this sounds to the same things Nazis say. It's kinda sad actually

[Dad]

You have no idea how close this sounds to the same things Nazis say. It's kinda sad actually

Lmfaoooooo

 

Oh yeah I'm aware. I have zero tolerance for intolerance. And since that's exactly what nazis stand for, I don't give two shits about how you or any of you funking Nazi defending bastards feel.

 

Your opinion means nothing to me.

[Blake]

Yeah, I’ve seen enough.

 

This thread has devolved into who has the better morality, as opposed to actual discussion on the event at hand.