Charlottesville Driver Innocent?

Before I posted here many were claiming he was not attacked, I know what I saw, so I say show me the proof to your claim. It is a two way street. You cannot claim to know what happened 60 seconds before the video they are showing.

There are three cars and three drivers in that incident. So there three material witnesses, who can ID the "cop" who sent those drivers and cars into a trap. Was he some kind of agent provocateur?? Was he even a real cop?? I can see first degree murder charges in this scenario!
a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: KnoxMSP

No again the burden of proof is on you why is it so hard to understand?.
You made the claim you need to prove it we dont.5 times I have had to explain this to you.
If you have not the ability to understand this I'm done no point attempting to explain to a person who doesn't get this simple thing.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: KnoxMSP

No again the burden of proof is on you why is it so hard to understand?.
You made the claim you need to prove it we dont.5 times I have had to explain this to you.
If you have not the ability to understand this I'm done no point attempting to explain to a person who doesn't get this simple thing.

You still arent answering the one question I postured. Can you prove, like was said here on this thread, that he was not attacked? Can you? I came to this thread after seeing people posting lies, or speculation, about him not being attacked, and asked for proof. What is so hard to grasp?

Just answer the question. Yes or no. No need for any more back and forth. Just answer the question. If you can't, then just concede that you have no idea about the events leading up to him accelerating towards the crowd, as you can only speculate, and have no evidence.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

I can't prove a negative...
So you don't understand that you made the claim the burden of proof is on you.
Not bothering with someone who can't grasp this after 6 times of it being explained.
Not bothering with the dim. carry on.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: KnoxMSP

I can't prove a negative...
So you don't understand that you made the claim the burden of proof is on you.
Not bothering with someone who can't grasp this after 6 times of it being explained.
Not bothering with the dim. carry on.

I didnt claim he wasnt attacked, your side did, before I got here. Prove it. Or you are speculating on the events prior to him ramming the crowd.

That intersection was full of a howling mob. Each and every one injured knows more than you do.a reply to: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: mOjOm


Goodbye Losers.

Damn, all up in your feels, homie. You sure are getting bent out of shape, on a site that was founded to question the official narrative, by us questioning the MSM. SMH

Yeah. It's also a site about denying ignorance.

You questioned. Good for you. But you've been shown to be wrong. At this point it just looks foolish for you to continue. Time to start denying ignorance now.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

Why don't you concede that you have no idea about what happened before the accident???

You're making the claim that he was attacked. So it's your burden of proof to show that.

We don't need to prove anything. Just we like don't need to prove he was helping old women cross the street before the accident. Or that he was parachuting from a plane before the accident. Because there is no reason to believe any such things were taking place.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy and nobody has to play along with your logical fallacy just because you want them to.

If that is all you have left in this debate, you're done. You've already lost.

Unless you have something new to bring to the conversation, it's done. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: KnoxMSP

Why don't you concede that you have no idea about what happened before the accident???

You're making the claim that he was attacked. So it's your burden of proof to show that.

We don't need to prove anything. Just we like don't need to prove he was helping old women cross the street before the accident. Or that he was parachuting from a plane before the accident. Because there is no reason to believe any such things were taking place.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy and nobody has to play along with your logical fallacy just because you want them to.

If that is all you have left in this debate, you're done. You've already lost.

Unless you have something new to bring to the conversation, it's done. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Again, I was not the one originally posing speculation as fact. Go back to my original post and get back to me with your answer to it.

The first thing I asked for was proof. Proof to back up the statement being made.

Ignoring it wont change anything. Answer the question. If you all are saying you know for fact he was not attacked, prove it.

mobile.twitter.com... -attacked-charlottesville-drivers-car-baseball-bat%2F

Alternate theories starting to have corroborating evidence. Its only a matter of time. 4chan and anon are starting to get whiffs of the manipulation. Digging begins.

a reply to: mOjOm

wow that was an unhinged reply, are you ok? You claimed the car was not attacked prior to him ramming the crowd and you also claimed the street was empty prior the mob.

The street he reverses down after hitting the people is empty. No mob of attackers. Nothing.

Because as he's driving down toward the crowd his car shows no evidence of being attacked.

The video shows that his car was attacked and there was people in the street away from the crowd he drove into.
You even mention the it into your reply to me -

That the guy hitting his bumper does so as the car passes him from behind.

So you concede his car was attacked before the incident?

I know you want him guilty until proven innocent but that is not how it works and the fact is we have no idea of what happened before the video footage. Your assertions that the car has no damage and there is no one in the street is ridiculous as you cannot see up the street prior to the video and you cannot see half of his car.

As for the rest of your leftist diatribe of insults and insinuations I will only say that it is sad that some ATS members are unable to control their emotions and perfectly illustrate the abhorrent left wing snow flake sjw pc ideology devoid of common sense that many progressives and conservatives despise.





Personally I think he made the wrong decision and is guilty of using his car as weapon.

originally posted by: oddnutz

Personally I think he made the wrong decision and is guilty of using his car as weapon.

Great. Then I guess we're all in agreement then.

As for the rest of what you said, it's been gone over repeatedly and I'm not going to do it again. If you want to learn something it's all right here for you to read and study.

As for your opinion about me personally, I don't care.

originally posted by: oddnutz
a reply to: mOjOm

wow that was an unhinged reply, are you ok? You claimed the car was not attacked prior to him ramming the crowd and you also claimed the street was empty prior the mob.

The street he reverses down after hitting the people is empty. No mob of attackers. Nothing.

Because as he's driving down toward the crowd his car shows no evidence of being attacked.

The video shows that his car was attacked and there was people in the street away from the crowd he drove into.
You even mention the it into your reply to me -

That the guy hitting his bumper does so as the car passes him from behind.

So you concede his car was attacked before the incident?

I know you want him guilty until proven innocent but that is not how it works and the fact is we have no idea of what happened before the video footage. Your assertions that the car has no damage and there is no one in the street is ridiculous as you cannot see up the street prior to the video and you cannot see half of his car.

As for the rest of your leftist diatribe of insults and insinuations I will only say that it is sad that some ATS members are unable to control their emotions and perfectly illustrate the abhorrent left wing snow flake sjw pc ideology devoid of common sense that many progressives and conservatives despise.





Personally I think he made the wrong decision and is guilty of using his car as weapon.

Quite literally a second after his car was "attacked" by someone tapping it as it sped towards a crowd, it hit the crowd and flung people around like ragdolls.

He didn't 'speed up' after getting "attacked." His car was attacked once he ran into people, yeah. The tap on the bumper to a car a second away from killing someone is not what I would characterize as an 'attack.'

One thing that I also havent seen brought up, there was a Discord chat room up that a lot of alt-right and neo-nazi groups used with a lot of the organizers of the event having been seen in them. A journalist was able to somehow get into their chatroom before they were taken down, and with discord you can go back and see all the posts mad, and they had discussions about the laws regarding running down protestors, along with pages and pages of vile and awful things.

a reply to: trb71

I wonder if they might have been taking some tips by watching the video that YT is talking about??

originally posted by: KnoxMSP
Before I posted here many were claiming he was not attacked, I know what I saw, so I say show me the proof to your claim. It is a two way street. You cannot claim to know what happened 60 seconds before the video they are showing.

Show us proof you really saw what you saw and weren't imagining it, because this is what you wrote:

originally posted by: KnoxMSP
I blame the media because yesterday I actually first hand witnessed media manipulation happen for the first time.

Sunday I saw a cellphone video of the grey Challenger surrounded by 8-12 antifa thugs, with sticks/spears surrounding his car, and now it has dissappeared.

We have not seen a video where the vehicle was attacked prior to the imminent collision of it with a group of people and the death of a woman. Show it to us. Prove to us that you saw a video where the vehicle was attacked.

See, here's the thing - people claimed based on no evidence presented that the vehicle was attacked, causing him to speed into the crowd, and thus making him not as guilty as is shown on video. You come here and say the exact same thing - that you saw where his car was attacked.

Then you ask us to prove that he wasn't attacked. We can only say from the evidence that we have seen that his car wasn't attacked. PROVE OTHERWISE. The onus is on you. Honestly I don't care how long you've been on ATS - I only care about facts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He wasnt claiming the guy was innocent, he was merely looking at both sides of the case like a logical person WITHOUT BIAS (ie a judge) should. You are just jumping his s*it because you are a douchebag who cant think with anything but your feelings.

I found these 2 photos taken back to back right before the impact. I don't know how to post pictures on here but if someone could repost these, that would be great.

On this first one, people are starting to run out of the way and the brake lights are clearly on. www.trbimg.com...

This second one was taken right after, you can tell by the guy with the backpack and sunglasses that was right in front of the car in the first picture, he is now on the left in the foreground. i2.cdn.cnn.com... in this picture you can see that stuff was throw like the water bottle and someone on the right is raising a club. The brakes are off on this picture. So he braked to avoid hitting that one guy then he gets hit with stuff and the brakes come off. Seriously, why would he brake initially instead of just gunning it towards the crowd all the way down the street if he just wanted to hurt a bunch of people?

He definitely has a case in court for panic and an accident.