> On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Razer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 08/30/2017 05:54 PM, jim bell wrote: >> From: Razer <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> 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. >>
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. >> Jim Bell >> >> >> >> >
