From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>
   On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <[1]jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
   >
   >
   > On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <[2]g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
   > On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote:
   <snip>
   > 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.
   >
   > Are you fucking serious ?
   >
   > Even if someone hits your car with a baseball bat,
   > plowing into a group of people and killing someone is NOT
   > an appropriate response. This nazi-murder-by-car apologetics
   > is fucking head-scratching, to say the bare minimum.
   [note:  the material above seems to be both by myself and Razer]
   >Defense Lawyer:
    >    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - The defendant was in his
   vehicle,
       unarmed and surrounded by hostile actors, and someone started
       pounding on his vehicle. The defendant, believed that he was about
       to have his windows smashed and himself dragged out of the vehicle
       and beaten or even killed.
     >   "He panicked, and performed the only action he could come up with
       to save his skin - he advanced at a high rate of speed to clear the
   way.
       Unfortunately, someone died as a result. This is tragic, but he was
   clearly
       acting in self defense."
   >Jury:
       "???"
   >I haven't seen the videos (the site that Jim Bell referenced make
   reference to Trump as the God Emperor, which makes me itch something
   fierce - I couldn't stay on that site long enough to watch them),
   I should mention that I found the few videos by doing a search on
   Youtube for 'Charlottesville car baseball bat'.   I did not look for
   any videos on non-YouTube websites.
   I did not cherry-pick the videos, especially not for voice-over
   'quality' (either for or against.).     I did not watch them all, not
   to the end.   I think I used the first 2-3 videos listed. At least,
   early ones in the search results.  I was merely looking for clear
   videos of the event; I was not generally rating the content of the
   voice-over.
   >but just suppose that the videos show that the car was indeed
   surrounded,
   and that at least one person did start banging on it with some
   implement or other.
   I had heard about this a few days ago, something about someone hitting
   the car with a baseball bat.  I didn't immediately look that up; but
   now I'm very surprised that this didn't look like yet another typical
   'Muslim terrorist attacks crowd of pedestrians which a vehicle' case.
   Given the MSM publicity that had been occurring for many days earlier,
   I was very surprised.  I wonder if videos such as these had appeared on
   MSM national or local news.  I don't recall them.
   >How do you think a jury would vote in that case?
   >It's not out of the realm of possibility that a reasonable jury would
   vote Not Guilty - self defense.    Kurt
   These videos raise a lot more questions, so far, than they answer.  Why
   were two previous cars driving into a narrow area surrounded by
   pedestrians?  Were those two prior cars attacked? (I noticed the maroon
   SUV had a large dent in the left rear door:  Was it old damage or new?)
     Why were cars attacked at all?  Did any car have markings indicating
   something like 'I love Trump',  or 'Fascists are great!', etc.    Did
   the third (grey) car avoid any action (like driving on the sidewalk)
   that would have inflicted more casualties and death?  If not, why not?
                    Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:jnn@synfin.org
   2. mailto:g2s@riseup.net