On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <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.
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), 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. 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