Re: Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner

[jim bell]

From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff at gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:03 PM, John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <g2s at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170901/cd1e75df/attachment.txt>