On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:

   From: Razer [1]<g2s@riseup.net>
   To: [2]cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org [3]<cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>
   Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 5:35:03 PM PDT
   Subject: Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and
   LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner

   On 08/30/2017 01:32 PM, jim bell wrote:

     >>"One such video posted to Streamable shows the driver slowing
     down, then accelerating quickly after his rear bumper is struck with
     the baseball bat.

   >So he drove up on the curb and ran over a bunch of unarmed people with
   signs.
   >Makes a lot of sense. If you're a TRIGGERED RACIST looking for revenge
   and you're too stoopid to put your car in reverse to (again totally
   illegally) run over the alleged (snigger) "African American" 'perp'.
   You seem to be assuming that the driver of the car KNEW the reason for
   the "bang" he heard (baseball bat?  gunshot? something else?),

   You seem to assume he heard anything at all. Therefore the rest below,
   such as "He had little more than two choices..." is pure unadulterated
   speculation.

   AND that he KNEW the race of the person who had caused the "bang", and
   KNEW where that person was.   How do you come to these conclusions?
   >Makes no sense at all if you're trying to escape.
   Beats what YOU are trying to say!!!  Hint:   Cars don't usually go
   sideways well, especially down an alley.  He had little more than two
   choices, go forwards or back.  He MAY have concluded that the noise
   came from behind him, possibly a gunshot and/or a bullet striking his
   car.  He had to make a decision.  He made it.
   All in all, I'd say that if this goes to trial, to convict him, the
   jury is going to have to explain why the driver was driving so slowly
   before his car was hit, and only sped up after that strike.  That is so
   inconsistent with the usual picture of the (Muslim) vehicle terrorist
   strike, where the vehicle speeds up long before anything untoward
   happens.

   Simple. He hadn't practiced...

   Further, the jury is going to want to know why somebody in the crowd
   struck the vehicle.  Malice?

   If you hit my vehicle... with a car or object, you ARE NOT entitled to
   run me over, maliciously or in 'perceived self-defense'. Case closed.
   Guilty of vehicular homicide. Intent unproven sans admission.

   So, what is your theory as to how a jury could convict the driver?
   Seems to me, the jury would want to convict the person who struck the
   car.
               Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:g2s@riseup.net
   2. mailto:cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
   3. mailto:cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org