The Battle of Charlottesville

[Hal 9000]

58 minutes ago, kimmy said:

It sounds like you're actually arguing that this was premeditated.  If he got beat up, went back to get his car, and ran over a bunch of people to get "revenge", he should definitely be charged with 1st degree murder, not 2nd.

Here's a picture of James Field (center), the driver of the car that struck the crowd, taken earlier that day. As you can see, he and his friends had riot shields decorated with white power symbols, some of them have ballistic eyewear and helmets, and metal flag-poles... you can't tell me these people weren't ready for a fight.

 -k

Of course you know those are all defensive items.  Don't see any weapons in that picture.

As an edit - what you describe is actually 2nd degree murder.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Hal 9000

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

People like Richard Spencer and David Duke have been calling Trump a friend and ally since long before he was elected, and today is the first time he's actually disavowed them. 

 -k

 

[Hal 9000]

For me, this brawl was the equivalent of Rosie O'Donnell, Al Sharpton and Alex Jones getting into a bitch slap.  

Everyone who was there knew there would be violence, they all punched their ticket and then they all got in the ring.  

[Chrissy1979]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I didn't see aggressive attacks perpetrated by F'ing Nazis. 

Given how often the video of the car driving over those peaceful antiracist protesters was broadcast, I wonder how you could have missed it. Tunnel vision perhaps.

[Wilber]

26 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Of course you know those are all defensive items.  Don't see any weapons in that picture.

As an edit - what you describe is actually 2nd degree murder.

The edge of a shield can be a very effective weapon. So can a metal pole.

[Chrissy1979]

41 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Of course you know those are all defensive items.  Don't see any weapons in that picture.

 

Your defence of the Nazis is easily countered by the tiki torches. Nazi mobs with torches use the torches as weapons.

[The_Squid]

25 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Your defence of the Nazis is easily countered by the tiki torches. Nazi mobs with torches use the torches as weapons.

Those were defensive torches!

Neo-nazi white supremacists are known for their peaceful protests, according to @Hal 9000 and his ilk here.  

And those AR15s strapped on the militia right wing nuts?  Clearly those were for self defence too....

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Quote where I said all Muslims are evil.  We all know what we mean.

Apparently not.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

 

Everyone who was there knew there would be violence, they all punched their ticket and then they all got in the ring.  

Violence and murder all good in pursuit of right wing goals.

At least Trump had the decency, eventually, to denounce the nazis and White Supremacists.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Apparently not.

I do.  If you want to get literal all of a sudden I guess the occasional win means a lot to you. 

Fill your boots.

[Hal 9000]

37 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Your defence of the Nazis is easily countered by the tiki torches. Nazi mobs with torches use the torches as weapons.

I'm not defending anybody.  I think when you learn to read, you'll see that.  I don't like the snake and have no sympathy for the rat either.   My issue is simply that I don't think that Antifa or BLM should be off the hook either - do you get that or should I say another way for the 10th time.

 

[Hal 9000]

13 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Those were defensive torches!

Neo-nazi white supremacists are known for their peaceful protests, according to @Hal 9000 and his ilk here.  

And those AR15s strapped on the militia right wing nuts?  Clearly those were for self defence too....

I dodn't say that the Nazi's had no weapons, Kimmy's post and my response was directed at that photo.  Everybody had weapons.  WhyTF do you think every leftist in the crowd was wearing a back pack?  What do you suppose they had in there?  

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Violence and murder all good in pursuit of right wing goals.

At least Trump had the decency, eventually, to denounce the nazis and White Supremacists.  

...or in the resistance of right wing goals.  You know that word "resist".  The dog whistle that Obama, Clinton and the rest of the dems are using as they sit back and laugh their asses off at scene's like this.

[-1=e^ipi]

On 8/13/2017 at 0:30 PM, eyeball said:

Yes we should.

Yep. Also, remove all these awful prime-ministers from our money.

 

Why have a bunch of racist, sexist morons that wanted homosexuality banned on our money?

[kimmy]

Ok, you found Trump denouncing David Duke as a racist and bigot in 2000.  And yet, when asked about David Duke's endorsement during this election, many times in 2015 and 2016,  Trump said he couldn't comment on that because he didn't know who David Duke is. He knew him well enough to comment in 2000, but 15 years later he doesn't know the guy, can't comment on it.

Look at all the ducking and dodging of that question he did in a series of interviews on the subject:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/?utm_term=.84e8a2a40d2b

Can't comment, don't know the guy, can't disavow the KKK because there are so many groups and I don't know all of them, I have to do research on the groups, don't know David Duke, don't need his endorsement,  don't know anything about David Duke, I don't have anything to say about that... finally after 3 days of this, gets asked point blank to renounce the support of all white supremacists, he says:

“Of course, I am. I mean, there’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have. You take a look at Palm Beach, Florida, I built the Mar-a-Lago Club, totally open to everybody; a club that frankly set a new standard in clubs and a new standard in Palm Beach and I’ve gotten great credit for it. That is totally open to everybody. So, of course, I am.”

What a guy! He turns his renouncement of white supremacists into an ad for his golf club!

Look how he tried to squirm out of responding to the David Duke question over and over again without denouncing Duke or white supremacist groups.  Finally, grudgingly, he gives in. Much like the way he handled the "birther" conspiracy. He hustled those dumb saps for 6 years, and finally when he realizes he can't duck the question anymore, gives the bare minimum response to make the question go away.

 

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

As an edit - what you describe is actually 2nd degree murder.

If you're in an altercation, leave, return with a weapon, and kill somebody, there's a strong argument to be made for premeditation.

 -k

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Ok, you found Trump denouncing David Duke as a racist and bigot in 2000.  And yet, when asked about David Duke's endorsement during this election, many times in 2015 and 2016,  Trump said he couldn't comment on that because he didn't know who David Duke is. He knew him well enough to comment in 2000, but 15 years later he doesn't know the guy, can't comment on it.

Look at all the ducking and dodging of that question he did in a series of interviews on the subject:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/?utm_term=.84e8a2a40d2b

Can't comment, don't know the guy, can't disavow the KKK because there are so many groups and I don't know all of them, I have to do research on the groups, don't know David Duke, don't need his endorsement,  don't know anything about David Duke, I don't have anything to say about that... finally after 3 days of this, gets asked point blank to renounce the support of all white supremacists, he says:

“Of course, I am. I mean, there’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have. You take a look at Palm Beach, Florida, I built the Mar-a-Lago Club, totally open to everybody; a club that frankly set a new standard in clubs and a new standard in Palm Beach and I’ve gotten great credit for it. That is totally open to everybody. So, of course, I am.”

What a guy! He turns his renouncement of white supremacists into an ad for his golf club!

Look how he tried to squirm out of responding to the David Duke question over and over again without denouncing Duke or white supremacist groups.  Finally, grudgingly, he gives in. Much like the way he handled the "birther" conspiracy. He hustled those dumb saps for 6 years, and finally when he realizes he can't duck the question anymore, gives the bare minimum response to make the question go away.

 

If you're in an altercation, leave, return with a weapon, and kill somebody, there's a strong argument to be made for premeditation.

 -k

First off, Trump disavowed Duke many times throughout the election.  It was the media buzz for awhile, everyone tried trapping him on that one - I'm not surprised that his answers weren't good enough, when are they?

As for the murder, it was committed in a moment of rage, a crime of 'passion" even.  There is no evidence that it was pre-planned.  I get why everyone on the left wants "terrorism", but the charge of 2nd degree is appropriate.  He might have killed many more, but he's gonna get 30+ years, so what does it matter? 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Hal 9000

[kimmy]

8 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

First off, Trump disavowed Duke many times throughout the election.  It was the media buzz for awhile, everyone tried trapping him on that one - I'm not surprised that his answers weren't good enough, when are they?

Maybe the reason nobody thought his answer was good enough is  that his answer wasn't good enough?

How freaking hard is it to say "I reject David Duke"?  He said it clearly in 2000... why couldn't he say it clearly in 2016?  Why go through the pathetic sham of "I don't know anything about David Duke" when he certainly did know enough about David Duke to reject him?

We both know the answer to the question.  We both know that the reason Trump wouldn't say "I reject David Duke" when asked about it over and over again was not because he didn't know anything about David Duke.  We both know that the reason Trump wouldn't say "I reject David Duke" is that Trump still wanted the knuckle-draggers to vote for him.

8 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

As for the murder, it was committed in a moment of rage, a crime of 'passion" even.  There is no evidence that it was pre-planned.  I get why everyone on the left wants "terrorism", but the charge of 2nd degree is appropriate.  He might have killed many more, but he's gonna get 30+ years, so what does it matter? 

No. If you kill somebody during an argument, that's a moment of rage or a crime of passion. If you leave the scene, go get a weapon, and return and kill somebody, you're not "in the moment" anymore.  You've had time to get "out of the moment", cool off, think better of your decision, etc etc. He could have decided "I'm going to drive back home", but instead he decided "I'm going to drive back there and kill those guys", and that's why there's an argument to be made for premeditation.

It doesn't matter much-- as you say, he's in a heap of trouble either way-- but Argus was presenting this idea "maybe he'd been beat up earlier"-- as if it were a mitigating factor, and it really isn't.  If you get beat up, that's very unfortunate... but if you get beat up and you return to the scene of the altercation with a weapon and kill somebody, you're ruined.

 -k

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

Maybe the reason nobody thought his answer was good enough is  that his answer wasn't good enough?

How freaking hard is it to say "I reject David Duke"?  He said it clearly in 2000... why couldn't he say it clearly in 2016?  Why go through the pathetic sham of "I don't know anything about David Duke" when he certainly did know enough about David Duke to reject him?

We both know the answer to the question.  We both know that the reason Trump wouldn't say "I reject David Duke" when asked about it over and over again was not because he didn't know anything about David Duke.  We both know that the reason Trump wouldn't say "I reject David Duke" is that Trump still wanted the knuckle-draggers to vote for him.

No. If you kill somebody during an argument, that's a moment of rage or a crime of passion. If you leave the scene, go get a weapon, and return and kill somebody, you're not "in the moment" anymore.  You've had time to get "out of the moment", cool off, think better of your decision, etc etc. He could have decided "I'm going to drive back home", but instead he decided "I'm going to drive back there and kill those guys", and that's why there's an argument to be made for premeditation.

It doesn't matter much-- as you say, he's in a heap of trouble either way-- but Argus was presenting this idea "maybe he'd been beat up earlier"-- as if it were a mitigating factor, and it really isn't.  If you get beat up, that's very unfortunate... but if you get beat up and you return to the scene of the altercation with a weapon and kill somebody, you're ruined.

 -k

Of course he's ruined.  I just think that it doesn't really matter the charges because...well, like you said, he's ruined.  The only reason to move to first degree is if they want to press for death penalty - otherwise, he's pretty much gone for life anyway.  You want to argue for pre-meditation, but I've seen "Lock-up...." and most of these situations are 2nd degree murder.  

About Trump, he's gets asked the same question 50 times in the hopes that he may say the wrong thing or leave room for confusion - the media disregard his solid answers and quote his "not good enough" answers, try and find "dog whistles" - it's quite tiring.  The bottom line is; Trump thinks Duke is a racist and clearly he has always thought that.   

[Altai]

Okay now US trying to remove an old British commander's statue from somewheres where the violent protests happens. Then some racists (probably pro-Britain guys) held a protests and attacks around and one of them crashes people by car. Who is this person crash people, does he have a British root in his family tree ? I also remember that Britain said they cut the intelligence partnership with US when a terror attack was happened in Britain, they said US didnt warn them despite US knew more details. So US prepared some attacks in London brindge, and I remember a building was burned. Then a US copter crashed and many Us soldiers died and I remember another US copter crashed at Australia (another British colony). 


Now US may want to assassinate some British diplomats as a response to Charlottesville riots. Maybe France involves in the events to provoke African-American people as they did in Ferguson events which was a response for Charlie Hebdo. etc etc etc...


I am teaching you how to look at the events. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Altai

[Altai]

Oh by the way, yesterday a restaurant and hotel was attacked in Burkina Faso, 17 people murdered including some Canadians and 1 Turkish guy. So this was another response by US. Why it was Burkina Faso, because its a France colony. The restaurant was belong to Turks, hotel was belong to French. Turkiye and France is working together in some points against US and US is disturbed by it.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Altai

[taxme]

10 hours ago, LonJowett said:

That's not true. There isn't one reputable source that describes anything like that. There's just a bunch of Russian fake news about him, as far as I can see.

I went to Youtube and I found plenty of goodies on Soros just now. Did you punch the word weather instead?  C'mon,  eh?  

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Your defence of the Nazis is easily countered by the tiki torches. Nazi mobs with torches use the torches as weapons.

Why is it that when a white nationalist group has a rally they are always called Nazi's, racists or white supremacists by the lying fake lieberal media, and yet ANTIFA thugs and rioters are called the peaceful protesters? It was all peaceful until the ANTIFA protesters showed up and began throwing whatever they could at the nationalists. The ANTIFA thugs were responsible for all the chaos that ensued, not the nationalists. So tell me? Who were the real trouble makers here? Over to you. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Of course he's ruined.  I just think that it doesn't really matter the charges because...well, like you said, he's ruined.  The only reason to move to first degree is if they want to press for death penalty - otherwise, he's pretty much gone for life anyway.  You want to argue for pre-meditation, but I've seen "Lock-up...." and most of these situations are 2nd degree murder.  

About Trump, he's gets asked the same question 50 times in the hopes that he may say the wrong thing or leave room for confusion - the media disregard his solid answers and quote his "not good enough" answers, try and find "dog whistles" - it's quite tiring.  The bottom line is; Trump thinks Duke is a racist and clearly he has always thought that.   

The establishment want Trump gone and they are going to use their lying and fake liberal corporate media to try and nail Trump on anything he says or does. Trump will never win against those globalist elite batards. The only way it will end is when the fools out there stop listening to the lying and fake corporate media like CNN and MSNBC. 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

Maybe the reason nobody thought his answer was good enough is  that his answer wasn't good enough?

How freaking hard is it to say "I reject David Duke"?  He said it clearly in 2000... why couldn't he say it clearly in 2016?  Why go through the pathetic sham of "I don't know anything about David Duke" when he certainly did know enough about David Duke to reject him?

We both know the answer to the question.  We both know that the reason Trump wouldn't say "I reject David Duke" when asked about it over and over again was not because he didn't know anything about David Duke.  We both know that the reason Trump wouldn't say "I reject David Duke" is that Trump still wanted the knuckle-draggers to vote for him.

No. If you kill somebody during an argument, that's a moment of rage or a crime of passion. If you leave the scene, go get a weapon, and return and kill somebody, you're not "in the moment" anymore.  You've had time to get "out of the moment", cool off, think better of your decision, etc etc. He could have decided "I'm going to drive back home", but instead he decided "I'm going to drive back there and kill those guys", and that's why there's an argument to be made for premeditation.

It doesn't matter much-- as you say, he's in a heap of trouble either way-- but Argus was presenting this idea "maybe he'd been beat up earlier"-- as if it were a mitigating factor, and it really isn't.  If you get beat up, that's very unfortunate... but if you get beat up and you return to the scene of the altercation with a weapon and kill somebody, you're ruined.

 -k

Why doesn't the dam media ever ask Trump if he rejects ANTIFA or black lives matter thugs and rioters and the violence that they always call for and do create? 

[taxme]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Me blame? You misunderstand, I don't think there's anything wrong with attacking your ilk. My grandfather was given a medal for doing that.

My ilk? What about your ilk that is always supporting thugs like ANTIFA or black lives matter? You like to speak up for those thugs and try to cover up their azzes all the time. 

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that your grandfather was given a metal for fighting against white supremacists? What white supremacist war was he involved in that got him that metal?  Over to you, snowflake.