Think about the following scenario: Speed limit on interstate highways is 70mph. The minimum speed is 40mph because going slower than that would be impeding the flow of traffic. It's a particularly icy day, and cars are going 30-35mph because of the slippery roads and dangerous driving conditions.
Does this give me the right to speed through the highway going 70mph and when I cause an accident say "they weren't allowed to be going that slow in the first place"?
Food for thought.
Other urls found in this thread:
yourmechanic.com
123driving.com
law.stackexchange.com
postindependent.com
en.wikipedia.org
usnews.com
wired.com
twitter.com
>The minimum speed is 40mph
Where do you live?
No you're required to account for "conditions" and "prevailing speed of traffic"
No. Every state has a law on speed saying something like "at the speed limit or safest conditions allow, whichever is lowest".
A cop can ticket you over for going 10mph under the speed limit if conditions warrant.
translate this shit to kms.
Most states have minimum speed limits. For example, on interstate highways in Missouri it is 40mph.
yourmechanic.com
In Florida it is 50mph.
123driving.com
The point isn't about the speed. But in Belgium it is 70km/h on highways.
law.stackexchange.com
>No you're required to account for "conditions"
Exactly.
--
Was James A. Fields justified in disregarding the road conditions and ploughing through a group of people?
Will the "they weren't supposed to be there" defense hold up?
Analogies always suck. Food for thought if you get hit by a car, and you were on the road illegally, it's at least partially your fault.
>Was James A. Fields justified in disregarding the road conditions and ploughing through a group of people?
>Will the "they weren't supposed to be there" defense hold up?
On streets you're required to yield to people on the road, even if they're not supposed to be there.
no because you're supposed to only go as fast as conditions allow.
Fuck you faggot
>ROPE DAY
But he didn't hit a jaywalker or someone running across the street carelessly. When he turned onto the road he saw a group of people blocking the road.
Exactly.
Sup Forums is doing itself a disservice by defending a terrorist.
>kms
>kilometers x seconds
That's not a unit dumbass.
You cant equate weather conditions to a road, effectively closed by demonstrators, during what was declared an unlawful assembly.
One of these is a force of nature, the other the nature of stupid humans
oh so its not illegal to jaywalk if you are part of a mob. How many people do I need to be with to no longer be commiting a crime by sauntering down random intersections?
I dunno, is your wife in labor and you're racing to the hospital? Are you alarmed by something you've seen out the window? Are you in a hostile environment? I would take many factors into consideration. Aren't we lucky we have a court system to do this for us
>You cant equate weather conditions to a road, effectively closed by demonstrators, during what was declared an unlawful assembly.
I'm not equating weather conditions, but road conditions. Disregard the weather, say there's an old person driving very slowly and below the minimum limit. Do you have the right to go the speed limit and hit their car?
>oh so its not illegal to jaywalk if you are part of a mob.
It is. But this isn't a case of he was driving on the road, the light is green but some dumbass decides to cross at that moment. He saw the group of people in front of him, he failed to stop. Vehicular manslaughter, end of story.
Your wife being in labour doesn't absolve you of guilt if you cause an accident. But you wouldn't know this because you're probably too young to drive.
>Do you have the right to go the speed limit and hit their car?
No, but you can legally pass them when the road markings indicate its legal to do so. Here is the problem with your analogy.......
One old man going 10 miles below the minimum speed doesnt effectively block an entire roadway. What these counter protesters did was shut down that street in an attempt to harass their political opponents AFTER getting them de-platformed.
Your attempts to draw an equivalency between the two is lackluster at best
also, why hide yourself on an anonymous board.....show your true colors and take off the pirate flag.
How fast is the International Space Station going?
No, because you weren't going with the speed of traffic who, by the way, were accounting for traffic conditions. If traffic on the interstate comes to a grinding halt all of a sudden and you hit a vehicle going 70 mph, you're in the wrong for not paying attention to account for driving conditions. 40 mph is this minimum driving condition, unless weather conditions change that. Then go slower.
If this wasn't intended for weak bait, you're retarded.
Did you really respond to him without figuring out where he was going with this?
No he was talking about kilomiles per second.
40mph is about 0.0000111 kms. Weird units those Europeans use.
Are you seriously trying to compare something we can't control such as weather to willing humans blocking the road?
We can't exactly put winter in court, can we?
>On streets you're required to yield to people on the road, even if they're not supposed to be there.
Proof?
Well no not unless I want to veer off road and possibly die either from injuries as a consequence of my actions, or by the icy cold, still a consequence of my actions. Nature cannot control itself, but humans can. Why are humans on a road for cars?
Those people had no business being in that particular street. It's their fault for blocking traffic on a one-way. The only people they protest against are working-class citizens. Anyone dumb enough to equate uncontrollable weather conditions with voluntary attendance at a mob is an obvious troll.
Saged. Hidden.
no, but the
>they accosted and started hitting me with bats, and I paniced
will
>What Happens If You Hit a Pedestrian Jaywalking?
>If a pedestrian hit while jaywalking, theyare partly at fault as theywere breaking the law when theywere hit. However, this does not mean liability can’t be placed on the driver, as they may also be partially at fault depending on the circumstances.
>This is where the court system usescomparative faultto determine an award in a case. For example, if the driver had plenty of time to stop before hitting a jaywalker, a percentage of the fault may be placed on them. Also, if the driver was impaired,driving under the influence, or distracted, such as texting while driving, a higher percentage of fault may be placed on the driver as well. It is up to the court to determine what percentage each party was at fault and then modify the award accordingly.
It doesn't change the fact that OP is still retarded. You can only plough through pedestrians impeding traffic in the state of North Dakota. They passed a law authorizing this due to the Dakota protesting the oil pipeline. The problem I have with the law they passed is that the wording was wayyy too broad that drivers could technically get away with murder.
Want to legalize ploughing through protesters playing in the streets, get your representatives to legislate it to where it is legal. Until then, it is illegal.
No, and I'm certain it has been pointed out you have to make adjustments due to weather, that is the law.
So your statement
>you're required to yield to people on the road
is wrong as
>may also be partially at fault depending on the circumstances.
implies that there is a possibility of no fault.
For verification, see:
>postindependent.com
>no charges have been brought against the driver, and none are expected.
>Do you have the right to go the speed limit and hit their car?
No. You have to take every precaution to avoid an accident, but there are such things as mitigating circumstances.
>it's up to the courts to decide.
>guy accelerates toward crowd of people with intent
Yeah, the courts will absolutely agree its intentional. Especially with all the video evidence.
>mitigating circumstances
Extenuating circumstances
Wait, so you can read minds? How else could you know his intent?
You don't need to know, just need to convince a judge and jury.
These are called mitigating and aggravating circumstances in courts in America
Speed limits aren't that strict. Technically you aren't allowed to go faster than is safe in current conditions. If you are in a blizzard with icy roads and near whiteout conditions, then going 70 would absolutely be considered speeding no matter what the sign says. There is such a thing as using your judgement.
>One old man going 10 miles below the minimum speed doesnt effectively block an entire roadway.
It does if it is a two-lane road, with the lane going in the opposite direction being filled with cars stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Does it matter where I'm from?
> you're in the wrong for not paying attention to account for driving conditions.
Thank you for helping me prove a point.
>If this wasn't intended for weak bait, you're retarded.
ok
>Are you seriously trying to compare something we can't control such as weather to willing humans blocking the road?
No, the weather was just an example of why drivers would behave the way they do. Now that i think about it is completely unnecessary for this analogy. Drivers could be just driving slow to be assholes, that still doesn't give you the right to step on the gas and cause an accident.
>they accosted and started hitting me with bats, and I paniced
Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?
>Want to legalize ploughing through protesters playing in the streets, get your representatives to legislate it to where it is legal. Until then, it is illegal.
This.
>mitigating circumstances
He wasn't an ambulance driver trying to get a sick person to a hospital. If he didn't have intent to cause harm he would have backed out of the road (you know, the thing he did AFTER driving his car into a group of people).
>There is such a thing as using your judgement.
And that's exactly what the judge would say if James Fields tried to use the "I was merely driving down the road" defense.
In law, extenuating circumstances in criminal cases are unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the perpetration of the offense which, although an offense has been perpetrated without legal justification or excuse, mitigate or reduce its gravity from the point of view of punishment or moral opprobrium.
Beyond a reasonable doubt......So, looking at everything available, there is not one bit of doubt in your mind?? Did you witness the event? Were you there? Or might I suppose that you are pre-judging this individual despite the fact that our constitution explicitly says you are innocent until proven guilty?
>t does if it is a two-lane road, with the lane going in the opposite direction being filled with cars stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Again, how far are you going to have to extrapolate this? What if this? What if that?
That should immediately tell you that your argument is bad.
>Does it matter where I'm from?
Kind of yea, because it might explain your lack of understanding in regards to VA and US law. Also, why do you insist on being an identitarian and hide your nationality on a board thats already anonymous?
The videos show the guy driving slow, then accelerating into the crowd. Then he ran. Then he was found out to be a white supremest, and the crowd was anti-white supremest.
All together these pieces of evidence will remove all doubt.
>The minimum speed is 40mph
scenario discarded
also nobody is arguing people being on the road allows you to kill them if you can avoid it but it does mean the situation changes dramatically, from murder to something else you otter focking mohron
It also shows someone hitting his car with a bat. And then after the initial impact, it shows more people hitting his car with bats.
All these pieces of evidence put together form what is called "reasonable doubt"
>and when I cause an accident
There is your answer. Now KYS.
sage
>Food for thought
Unfortunately it's poisoned with stupid.
>Was James A. Fields
hahaha this was a bait and switch about based dodger?
Too bad you're not allowed to run over innocent people just because someone hit your car with a bat.
no
the maximum speed is:
safe driving
up to max limit
and when maximum limit is maximum limit
then there's a minimum limit
not even our lawmakers are as dumb as you faggot
LITERALLY CAPTCHA: PEPE slowly
So we can agree he is guilty. Where the mitigating circumstances will come into play is when the judge decides how long of a time to give him. My money is on 25 to life.
>Again, how far are you going to have to extrapolate this? What if this? What if that?
You're the one trying to place a hypothetical situation into realistic terms.
You said one old man going 10mph below the speed limit doesn't effectively block an entire roadway. And yet there are a dozen scenarios where it does: a two lane road with a double line down the middle, a one-way street, an alleyway, etc. The scenario is that the roadway is blocked by cars, rather than people. And everyone agrees that running your car into other cars on the road, despite the circumstances, does not absolve you of guilt. Yet if the drives his car into a group of people he is somehow justified???
>because it might explain your lack of understanding in regards to VA and US law.
No country on Earth has a law that allows you to run over people on the road.
>The minimum speed is 40mph
>scenario discarded
>t. someone who has never driven a car
123driving.com
yourmechanic.com
>And then after the initial impact, it shows more people hitting his car with bats.
Yes. After someone attacks you the natural response is to defend yourself.
If someone had pulled him out of the car and killed him, the mitigating circumstances in that case would be that he tried to kill them with his car.
>and when I cause an accident
>There is your answer. Now KYS.
That's exactly what James Fields did, he caused an accident. Or did you miss the part in the video where he hits people and causes a three-car chain crash?
Only seems like that to you because you're upside down.
Depends on the state actually
But keep acting totally ignorant to how our justice system works and the rights of the accused.
>bait and switch
en.wikipedia.org
>It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point.
ITT:
>people are not justified to cause accidents when road conditions are made dangerous by other drivers
>people are justified to cause accidents when road conditions are made dangerous by pedestrians
Oregon has the Basic Speed Rule. I thought other states would have something similar as well.
>Yes. After someone attacks you the natural response is to defend yourself.
So, the initial impact against his car was sufficient to justify self defense? Or maybe now you can see how someone hitting his car with a bat caused him to panic??
You're getting there.......its taking way longer than it should, but your making progress.
Kms is short for kilometers. Since you use MILES per hour you should translate them to KILOMETERS per hour. Jesus, I swear you basement dwelling niggers won't amount to a thing.
Question. Can americans use studded tyres?
Explain a law that allows you to run over people if a bat hits your car.
>Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?
The same reason THREE OTHER CARS WERE, they didn't know, and by the time he got close enough to see that there was no way through, his car was attacked.
Who the fuck is James Fields?
KMS does not mean Kilometers
KMS is an acronym, most commonly used by Amazon and other IT providers to describe a Key Management Service
Several representations of "kilometres per hour" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today; for example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations. The SI representations, classified as symbols, are "km/h", "km h−1" and "km.
And you called us stupid.
No, if it is foggy outside and you can't see a finger, are you allowed to drive 70mph? NO
It is called "conditions".
Only during certain times of the year. Here in Oregon it is from November 1st through April 1st.
Castle Doctrine.
Some states expand Castle Doctrine to encompass the vehicle that you are in. Sadly VA does not which is why this case in much more nuanced than people would like to admit.
No one gives a shit about your homo units. Learn anglo or go home, we are the majority on Sup Forums buckaroo.
won't be a problem, snow is a thing of the past.
Al Gore said so.
I believe so, although that may vary by state. My grandad, who lived in Montana, always had studded tires for winter. Here in Canada, I'm pretty sure studs are okay everywhere but chains may or may not be, depending.
You are right, it varies state by state and even within the states that permit studs and chains, they are seasonal exceptions
This. If you want us to understand you, at least follow the international guidelines (we have an entire organization for that called ISO). "km" would've made sense, the 's' at the end is what threw everyone off.
You're just mad I called your jewish trick out for what it is. Tell me again how charlottesville roads are just like icy highways.
KMS is short for kill myself which is what all metricucks should do. God bless America.
Basic Speed Law kiddo
Ice and snow don't form mobs with weapons intent on injuring or killing drivers
The demnostrators were at the bottom of a one way narrow street and the top of the street wasn't closed.
demonstrators were also surrounding two cars hiding them from the drivers view, the driver would have seen them had they not been hidden by the crowd.
the crowd chose to demonstrate in a dangerous area in a provocative manner. its on the onus of the crowd to peacefully demonstrate.
So your defense is that he was startled enough to drive into a crowd of people; as opposed to reversing and running?
Good thing youre not a lawyer, because you would be setting him up for premeditated murder charges
If you are driving faster then the conditions allow then you are at fault.
If you wreck at .000001mph you are still 100% at fault as the accident could have been prevented had you chosen a different course of action entirely.
Attack came from the back so yes, natural fleeing direction is forward. He did reverse as a last resort when forward direction got blocked.
USE THE HACKERS HIGHJACKED MY GAS PEDAL DEFENCE.
wired.com
This could also explain the helicopter crash.
>they didn't know, and by the time he got close enough to see that there was no way through, his car was attacked.
>he didn't see all those people in pic related
Yeah, the judge will throw this case out.
>No, if it is foggy outside and you can't see a finger, are you allowed to drive 70mph? NO
If people are on the road, and you can't go through, are you allowed to drive 70mph? NO
>North Carolina
Too bad this happened in Virginia.
>Also, self defense.
>one person hitting his car means that everyone in a 100m radius was out to get him
Nah.
Socrates is in the board sticky, by the way.
>You can't prove driver had the intent of harm
>The protesters had intent of injuring or killing drivers
Cognitive dissonance: the post
He should have adjusted is driving to the conditions, no matter what they were. If he was trying to "escape" why didn't he back away? Because his intent was to cause harm, then escape.
>If you are driving faster then the conditions allow then you are at fault.
Exactly.
>If you wreck at .000001mph you are still 100% at fault as the accident could have been prevented had you chosen a different course of action entirely.
Which is what he would have done had he wanted to avoid an accident. But his intent was to cause harm.
IN PRISON, HE WILL BE THE CROWD AND TYRONE'S DICK WILL BE THE CAR.
> you're in the wrong for not paying attention to account for driving conditions. Thank you for helping me prove a point.
So since you like using natural weather conditions, here's an example. So what if you were driving down the interstate and a tornado touches down behind you heading on your direction (aka risk to your life, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this) do you genuinely feel you wouldn't be justified in hitting the cars in front of you if they refuse to move over? If the tornado was throwing rocks and bottles and baseball bats at you, would you not try to get as far away from it as possible, as fast as possible? If there was a tornado and someone stopped in the middle of the street, got out of their car, and started walking down the side of the road on the only pathway past the parked vehicle I would probably hit them in regards to my own safety.
On an unrelated note, You must at least look at the fact that he didn't drive up the sidewalk and into people, and see that his intent wasn't to hurt several people. If he had done that then his intent was unquestionable. The fact that he drove down the center of the road, into the back of a vehicle that was behind some idiot who parked and left their van unoccupied in the middle of the road at least gets rid of intent and should do the charge from murder2 to manslaughter. If you look at the pictures the van is empty, no one is driving it.
Not defending him, but two things. The first, if I was put into that situation, I would have probably tried getting the hell out of there as fast as I could too given the fear for his life, and two the charges won't stick if his defense are not complete idiots.
/thread
>I invoked a philosophers name, therefore I am right.
Tell me again how charlottesville roads are just like icy highways.
>So what if you were driving down the interstate and a tornado touches down behind you heading on your direction (aka risk to your life, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this) do you genuinely feel you wouldn't be justified in hitting the cars in front of you if they refuse to move over?
If you ran over people while driving away from the tornado you'd be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
>and should do the charge from murder2 to manslaughter.
My point is that no matter how you spin this he is in the wrong. The pravailing opinion here seems to be that he should get off for this crime because he dindu nuffin.
He caused an accident, he caused a death and he caused harm. The debate now is how long he should spend in prison. There's no chance that he'll get acquitted.
>missing the point
>people are justified to cause accidents when road conditions are made dangerous by pedestrians
People are justified to defend their lives or attempt to move away from danger. Being an armed commie in front of a car driven by a man running for his life is your fault, not his.
tl;dr Hemlock is the cure for you.
>People are justified to defend their lives or attempt to move away from danger.
>move away from danger
>while driving into "danger"
>Being an armed commie in front of a car driven by a man running for his life is your fault, not his.
>running for his life
>not reversing out of the street
>be me
>be a 20yo autist
>drive my car towards a group of people who I know are violent
>drive my car towards a group of people who want to do me harm
>get attacked
>act surprised
Totally.
>Why was he attempting to drive down a road that was clearly blocked by people?
Honestly who knows. Maybe being from out of state, he didn't know the roads. Maybe his gps told him to go that way. Maybe it was a road that he was legally able to drive on in which he needed no excuse to be there that happened to be blocked by people illegally protesting.
Honestly nobody but him really knows, but I'd assume that since he's from out of state, his navigation, whether it be Google or dodge, told him to go that way.
If they started attacking his car up the road, there was no place for him to turn off and avoid the protesters.
>Will the "they weren't supposed to be there" defense hold up?
That's not his defense, retard. His defense is his car was attacked before he accelerated into anyone.
>one person in a group attacks me
>now I have the right to kill everyone in the group
That's not how self defense works.
He would have seen the hundreds of people on the road as soon as he got onto the road. He doesn't back up, he doesn't turn around, but continues driving towards the group of people.
This will fuck him in court and he's facing a life sentence.
look at a map you dumb fuck
No the speed limit is a max limit in perfect conditions. You need to slow down to adjust for conditions which include other traffic.
He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. And rightfully so.
>Yes. After someone attacks you the natural response is to defend yourself.
If someone had pulled him out of the car and killed him, the mitigating circumstances in that case would be that he tried to kill them with his car.
I can generously tell you that if I was in the same position, I wouldn't have stuck around and tried to make friends. And I also feel that anyone caught behind the vehicle as it was fleeing is accountable for their injuries, especially if they were the ones attacking it. An even mediocre defence could prove that he was fleeing for his life rather than fleeing the scene of the crime the second the bats and bricks started flying through his windows. If they haven't started attacking the vehicle, and he ran, then 100% he is guilty of hit and run. That's the thing though.... They attacked the hell out of his car giving him legal ground to get the hell out of there. If his defence can't get most of his charges dropped our at least reduced, he needs different defence
This. This is basic driving school 101.
>commies illegally congregate in an illegal demonstration in the middle of the road
>cops intentionally leave the road open AND direct the driver (and the Right) towards the commies
>commies surround his car and engage in attempted murder
>also commie got physically removed because too fat to dodge
Hemlock not working out I see. Have you considered bleach?
>And I also feel that anyone caught behind the vehicle as it was fleeing is accountable for their injuries, especially if they were the ones attacking it.
This is true and I agree 100%. The ones in front though are not accountable, he is.
>This. This is basic driving school 101.
Fucking exactly.
>cops intentionally leave the road open AND direct the driver (and the Right) towards the commies
So there was a conspiracy between the cops and the anti-right protestors to endanger the lives of Unite the Right people?
Interesting theory.
He obviously meant "kill myself" lad.
>translate this shit to kill myself
That's how I saw it too. What did he mean by this?
>Interesting theory
All you have to do is just listen to the commies, both the foot soldiers and their puppeteers. They're so confident they do it in the open.
So more than just interesting, it's proven.
>if ran over people while driving away from the tornado you'd be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Which I believe is also the case in the situation. He will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. There was no intention proved by him not driving onto the sidewalk to attempt rio get as many people as possible, and his girlfriend wasn't in the crowd sleeping with antifa so murder of passion goes out the window. Only thing left is involuntary manslaughter.
You must drive at a "safe and reasonable speed", as dictated by the road conditions.
/Thread
It is an pedestrian walkway not proper street open for cars, faggot.
Try google streetview.