Charlottesville

5 Questions Ahead of Alleged Charlottesville Killer's Murder Trial

James Fields' defense team reportedly plans to argue self-defense.

|

Albemarle Regional Jail/MEGA / Newscom

Charlottesville, Virginia, was thrown into chaos in August 2017 when white nationalists protesting the planned removal of a Confederate statue clashed with counter-protesters. One of those counter-protesters, 32-year-old Heather Heyer, was killed when an alleged white supremacist drove his car through a crowd. More than a year later, 21-year-old James Fields Jr. is set to be tried for Heyer's murder.

Fields, who previously lived in Ohio but is currently being held without bail in a Virginia jail, is facing a total of 10 criminal charges in Charlottesville Circuit Court, the most serious of which is first-degree murder. Jury selection started today, and Judge Richard Moore has set aside a total of 18 days for the trial.

While it could be a while before the jury announces the verdict, here are five questions worth considering as the trial starts.

  1. How will the jury selection process go?

The Charlottesville Daily Progress reported there are 360 potential jurors. Why so many? Field's court-appointed defense attorney, Denise Lunsford, is worried about potential bias from the jurors, especially since the trial is taking place in the same city where Heyer was killed.

"Despite careful [jury selection], potential jurors' resilience in their attempts to move forward may easily develop into prejudice against Fields, a prejudice that will be unlikely recognized by those affected and difficult, if not impossible, to ferret out," Field's defense team wrote in a motion arguing that he should be tried outside of Charlottesville. Prosecutors disagree, instead proposing that the size of the jury pool be expanded to ensure there are no biased jurors. Moore seems to think this will work, though he said he'll reconsider the defense's motion if lawyers can't agree on an impartial jury.

The large pool means selecting 12 jurors and four alternates will take a while—two days, according to WVIR—as potential jurors are asked a series of questions to determine if they're biased. "Jurors could have an agenda, and you have to be careful and make sure that they are answering the questions truthfully," legal analyst Scott Goodman told WTVR. "You could have jurors with an ulterior motive and might want to sit on the jury to either hang up the jury or make sure Mr. Fields is found guilty."

  1. Will the trial devolve into a circus?

There's significant interest in any and all matters related to white supremacy. Last year's Unite the Right rally put the spotlight on Charlottesville, dominating the national conversation for weeks. This summer, when rally organizer Jason Kessler and a few dozen white supremacists marched in Washington, D.C., thousands of counter-protesters also showed up, as did plenty of reporters.

All this to say that a lot people are interested in Fields' fate. Joe Rice, deputy communications director for the city of Charlottesville, told the Daily Progress that over 100 media personnel are expected to cover the trial in person.

Officials have therefore released a "Media & Security Plan" for Fields' trial. Reporters and other observers are not allowed to bring electronic devices into the courtroom. Purses and bags are also completely banned in the courtroom itself. Officials have set up a remote viewing center where reporters can watch the case unfold, as well as a media staging area and media operations center.

  1. How will Fields defend himself?

At first, it was unclear whether Fields had entered a plea at all, according to CNN. In recent days, moreover, no one seemed to know for sure what his defense would be. As the Associated Press noted, Fields' defense team provided very little by way of public comment, and pretrial hearings didn't help much either. The AP reported:

Pretrial hearings have offered few insights into Fields or his motivation. A Charlottesville police detective testified that as he was being detained after the car crash, Fields said he was sorry and sobbed when he was told a woman had been killed. Fields later told a judge he is being treated for bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and ADHD.

But during jury selection today, defense attorney John Hill suggested his client may have "thought he was acting in self-defense," The Washington Post reported. More details weren't immediately available.

Once the trial starts, prosecutors will likely show videos taken by witnesses of the car, a Dodge Challenger, ramming into the crowd of counter-protesters. While Heyer was the only person to die, dozens more were wounded.

  1. What will Fields' final fate be?

If convicted, particularly on the murder charge, Fields could be sentenced to life behind bars. But he's also facing 30 federal charges from the Department of Justice, which claims his actions were motivated by hate. On social media, Fields "expressed and promoted his belief that white people are superior to other races and peoples; expressed support of the social and racial policies of Adolf Hitler and Nazi-era Germany, including the Holocaust, and espoused violence against African Americans, Jewish people and members of other racial, ethnic and Religious groups he perceived to be non-white," the U.S. Attorney's office of the Western District of Virginia wrote in his case description, according to ABC News.

Reason's Jacob Sullum has previously pointed out that charging someone with federal hate crimes in addition to the counts they face locally raises constitutional concerns. In any case, Fields has pleaded not guilty to the hate crimes. A trial date has yet to be set, but a conviction on the federal charges could mean the death penalty.

  1. Will a final verdict(s) help Charlottesville heal?

"I'm not obsessed with him," Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, told the AP of Fields. "I feel like I've turned him over to the justice system. He's their problem, not mine." Still, Bro told NPR she prays "that justice prevails here."

Star Peterson, whose legs and spine were broken when the Challenger drove into the crowd, feels like she has a duty to testify at Fields' trial. "I need to do something for Heather other than just lay flowers at her grave and if I can be part of prosecuting the person who killed her then that's something I can do for her memory," she told NPR. Peterson acknowledged, though, that "there can't really be justice."

"We can't undo what's been done. We can't bring Heather back," Peterson said.

NEXT: The #ThotAudit Is Deeply, Painfully Stupid

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This case is going to be very hard to prove. To win a conviction the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime. For first degree murder that is a very high bar. First degree murder is a specific intent crime. That means they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy not only intended to murder the victim but did so with malace aforethought. If the jury thinks it is reasonable to believe that he just lost his temper and ran into the crowd, then its second degree murder. If the jury thinks it is reasonable to believe that he was freightened and paniced and ran into the crowd thinking his life was in danger, then at most it is manslaughter but not murder.

    The thing the media is missing in this case is that the self defense evidence doesn’t just possibly allow him to walk, it also can reduce the level of his culpability. Even if the jury doesn’t believe he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, if the jury finds a reasonable doubt that he had such a fear, he is not guilty of murder but likely manslaughter even if the fear was unreasonable. Getting a conviction for first degree murder is going to be very difficult in this case. And same on every idiot reporter who called this murder and terrorism the day it happened before they knew the actual facts.

    1. If he talked about killing or hurting somebody before the event, I think he’s screwed. On the other hand, if he can claim with any believability whatsoever that he was afraid for his life, I don’t see how they can convict on 1st degree murder. It’s going to be George Zimmerman/ Treyvon Martin all over again.

      On a pure utilitarian basis, where child torture fuels the happiness of a city, a conviction would be the best outcome. He’s obviously an asshole, but fortunately for the Reason commentariat that’s not illegal yet.

      1. I would rather let an asshole even a guilty one go free than set the precident that it is okay to convict someone because things will go more smoothly if they are.

        1. S.A. thought things would go more smoothly if a certain reporter was just disappeared. Sadly liberals are asking for this guy to not have a right to a defense as well.

          1. I think liberals want the guy to be tried normally.

            I think bigots like JesseAz are rooting for this racist scum to beat the rap, because disaffected incels figure they must stick together.

            1. You should really commit suicide Arty.

      2. Honest question, would he still be screwed if there were numerous social media statements from local antifa & affiliates that they were going there to hurt people?

        1. Lynching and mob violence are okay if the left does it. So yes, he will be screwed.

          At this point his innocence or guilt hardly matter. The mob is baying for blood and only a conviction will help the narrative the overclass wants. He’s fucked.

          1. Bigots sticking up for bigoted criminals is predictable and, in a free country, behavior that better Americans should tolerate.

            1. Do you have any recommendations for people with severe autism? You seem like you might know.

      3. “He’s obviously an asshole, but fortunately for the Reason commentariat that’s not illegal yet.”

        Preet Bahrara might beg to differ.

    2. I’m no lawyer, but I believe that if he reasonably believed that his life was in danger and that the only way to defend it was to drive thru the crowd, he would not be guilty of anything.

      1. Lefties should learn tog eat out of the way of moving cars.

      2. Uhhh, no. The street was far too crowded for him to escape in his vehicle without seriously injuring or killing someone. Your right to self-defense does not give you the right to indiscriminately harm others.

    3. Is VA one of those states that automatically includes lesser charges in the charged offense?

      I’m assuming that answer is yes until told otherwise.

    4. Of course, we must wait and see how it all shakes out, but you make great points. The left will never accept anything less than burning this moron at the stake as the only legitimate outcome, and a great many with more centrist views and the generally politically disinterested will find it hard to disagree due both to the high profile and tragic nature of the case and general ignorance of the law and of the judicial process.

      Under these circumstances, it’s very easy to imagine how the DA, under great political pressure for obvious reasons, might have overreached with first degree murder indictment. Since that is a done deal, I certainly hope that enough evidence exists to at least mount a credible prosecution, and if a conviction is actually obtained, that it won’t be instantly reversed. But this reflects my own bias that people must be responsible for their actions, and this guy clearly killed and injured people without good reason.

      I understand and emphatically agree that this moron deserves his day in court represented by a zealous defense attorney just like any other scumbag (I am referring to the defendant…what? You thought I meant his attorney?). On the other hand, I’m glad I don’t live there, and I’m not on the jury.

  2. I would also point out that if it is the case that a mob attacked this guy’s car and really did put him in fear for his life such that he reasonably felt he had no other choice but drive through the crowd to escape, then the people in that mob who attacked his car are guilty of murder and should be tried for the murder of this woman.

    The bottom line with this case is that the events occured during a riot. And getting a conviction for actions taken during a riot is about the hardest task the government can face.

    1. I would also point out that if it is the case that a mob attacked this guy’s car and really did put him in fear for his life such that he reasonably felt he had no other choice but drive through the crowd to escape, then the people in that mob who attacked his car are guilty of murder and should be tried for the murder of this woman.

      But if he hadn’t shown up in Charlottesville his presence wouldn’t have put such a fear of imminent violence into the minds of people that they were compelled to fight back against his hateful presence by engaging in preemptive defensive kinetic action against his car. So the blame really rests on him, not on anyone by whom he may have felt threatened.

      /proggy logic

      1. See shreek below. They are vicous and stupid.

      2. One can hope that groggy logic runs smack into the cold fact that if you attack somebody while they are in their car, their best option is to run you over, and in many cases that could constitute self-defense.

        I don’t KNOW that the Antifidiots were rocking cars in Charlottesville, but I have seen the behavior again and again in other Lefty riots.

        The Hobby Protesters of the Left are all about symbolism and seldom think about the real world effects of how they carry on. They’ve gotten away with it for a long time, which is a pity, because someday the freaking sky is going to fall on them and they’ll actually be surprised.

      3. But if he hadn’t shown up in Charlottesville his presence wouldn’t have put such a fear of imminent violence into the minds of people that they were compelled to fight back against his hateful presence by engaging in preemptive defensive kinetic action against his car.

        Has anyone else noticed that the word prejudiced is never used by the progs anymore? It used to be the common vernacular when I was young. It has been replaced with racist by people like the Rev because they know damn well they have already made up their minds and don’t want to call attention to the fact that prejudice runs both ways.

    2. Shorter John:

      “It will be very hard to prove the charge of first degree murder on this guy. But, the whole mob surrounding the car should be charged with murder nonetheless.”

      1. My God you are stupid. Do you not know what the word “if” means? If it were the case that the mob attacked him, they would be guilty of murder. If doesn ‘t mean it is the case. No where have I said the mob should be charged with murder. I have no idea what the facts are. I am talking about the various possible facts in this case.

        Why are you this dumb Jeff? Seriously, you never get any better. You just can’t understand basic rational arguments. And no matter how hard I try to explain them to you, you are just as dumb now as you ever have been.

        Tony and shreek are just disgusting. You are not. You are just dumb. How the fuck can anyone be as dumb as you are? How could you possibly think I was sayign that? WTF is wrong with you?

        1. I know, John. Murder is such a difficult charge to prove, that is why you insist that it be thrown around willy-nilly at the entire mob. Right?

          1. I never insisted that it be thrown at the mob. Read what I sad again

            I would also point out that if it is the case that a mob attacked this guy’s car and really did put him in fear for his life such that he reasonably felt he had no other choice but drive through the crowd to escape, then the people in that mob who attacked his car are guilty of murder and should be tried for the murder of this woman.

            Do you really not know what the word “if” means? Do you not understnad that I am not saying anyone shoudl be charged with murder there? I am saying that if the facts are some way, then the mob is guilty of murder. I am not saying the facts are that way.

            Once again, what the hell is wrong with you? I cannot fathom how you could be so stupid to not understand what I am saying. It is impossible to talk to you. I don’t know how to put things in simple enough terms for you to understand them. I really don’t.

            1. I am saying that if the facts are some way, then the mob is guilty of murder.

              Yes. “The mob”. I understand exactly what you said. I find it hilarious that you think invoking the dependent clause changes the criticism in anyway.

              1. Why do you find it hillarious? Again, why do you think my saying “if X then y” is me saying that those are the facts? That make s no sense. Try and explain your logic here. Why do you think a hypothetical is the same thing as a declarative statement. Calling for the mob to be charged with murder is me saying “the mob that attacked this guy should be charged with murder.” That is not what I said. I said if tyhe mob really did cause this guy to flea for its life, it is guilty of murder. I have no idea if that is true or not. And would never claim they should be charged with anything without knowing the facts.

                So again, what is funny here? How can you possibly think that I have ever said the mob should be charged with anything? Do you not understand what I am saying? What are you missing here that causes you to not understand?

                1. Do go on, John. Tell us how it’s so difficult of a burden to convict someone of murder, then tell us how entire mobs should be charged with it.

                  1. I never said they should. Why do you think I did. You can’t seem to explain that. What is wrong with you?

                  2. If it can be proven in a court of law that the mob attacking Fields caused him enough fear to panic and floor his car through a crowd, then the members of the mob who attacked the car could be reasonably charged with murder.

                    It’s not that complicated, Jeff, you’re just being obtuse to throw shade at John because he’s: a) conservative, b) hasn’t completely bought the “everything is racist” orthodoxy, and c) written something threatening to progressives.
                    Just your routine water-carrying.

                    1. The best part of this exchange is that Jeff actually thinks he’s winning.

                  3. Jeff, you’ve done it. You’ve finally gone full retard.

                2. Didn’t you say you were a lawyer, John?

          2. “I know, John. Murder is such a difficult charge to prove, that is why you insist that it be thrown around willy-nilly at the entire mob. Right?”

            That you attempt to argue in this manner further Proves John’s point about what a dumbass you are.

            You’re just stuck on stupid.

        2. Charge that guy with murder!
          And that guy!
          And that guy over there!
          And that guy too!
          And that guy in the corner – yeah, that guy too!

        3. I love how you spend 1,000 words discussing what a high burden of proof it is for the state to meet for the charge of murder, then in the very next post, advocate that the charge of murder be flung about as flippantly as a speeding ticket.

          1. I never advocated charging the mob with murder. Why do you think I did? There is nothing in my post that could possibly imply that. sometimes I think you are being dishonest. But I really think you are so stupid that you can’t understand what a dependent clause means. You honestly believe that my saying “if the facts are X, the mob is guilty of murder” is the same thing as me saying the mob should be charged with murder.

            I don’t understand how anyone could be that dumb. And I honest don’t see how it is possible to carry on a conversation with someone who is. You are like talking to a post. My dog is more sentient than you are. The things you say are just bizzare sometimes.

          2. Jeff, look up the word advocate. Using a hypothetical isn’t an him advocating the point.

      2. Jeff, how are you actually getting dumber by the thread?

    3. Wasn’t it Reginald Denny who was pulled from his stopped vehicle and beaten into a coma by rioters in the 90s?

      I would bet he regretted stopping instead of plowing on through the crowd.

      1. Did the mob who nearly killed him get any punishment for doing so?

        We have video proof of what they did.

        1. Yes, at least four of them did.

          But I don’t think that’s what John’s pointing out.

          What he’s suggesting is that, if it can be proven that the driver was correct in being afraid for his life then the responsibility for the girl’s death resides with the illegal mobs blocking the streets, and not with the driver.

      2. If I were Denny, the rioters would have heard the bodies thumping in the wheel wells.

    4. Which mob?

      See, this is more complex than the video clip we’ve been seeing since this happened.

      There’s video of the intersection from BEFORE the incident that shows two cars surrounded by a mob. There was a mob, of ‘counterprotesters’, harassing cars in that intersection long before the incident occurred. There are several video reports of this–reports that got much more important AFTER the inicident.

      There’s at least one video from the top of the street, showing the car blasting blindly through the intersection from further up the street.

      There are reports–and I think, some video now, of the car being surrounded by a different mob, near a different intersection on the same street.

      Which mob would be liable? The one threatening the driver, or the one creating the blockage in the second intersection?

    5. “I would also point out that if it is the case that a mob attacked this guy’s car and really did put him in fear for his life such that he reasonably felt he had no other choice but drive through the crowd to escape, then the people in that mob who attacked his car are guilty of murder and should be tried for the murder of this woman.”

      At around 0:03 of the video it sure looks like a guy on the left side of the screen takes a swing with something from behind the car at the left rear corner.

      I see no hint that he hits the car though.

  3. But he’s also facing 30 federal charges from the Department of Justice, which claims his actions were motivated by hate.

    We will see what the evidence shows. Maybe they have this guy bragging about his plan to go down and run over a bunch of people or maybe he gave some detailed confession. But if they don’t have any of those things, there is no way they are going to get a conviction before a fair jury. Remember also, that for it to be a federal crime he had to have done it because of their race or religion or to deprive them of some kind of federal right. Proving that he specifically intended to harm people is going to be hard enough. Proving that he intended to harm them for a specific reason is well nigh impossible. It was a riot. There is nearly always going to be a reasonable doubt that he lost his temper or panicked and didn’t do it specifically because of their race or to deprive them of a federal right. And that is an aquittal on the federal charge.

    1. Remember also, that for it to be a federal crime he had to have done it because of their race or religion or to deprive them of some kind of federal right.

      Well, the victim is forever deprived of the right to have an abortion. Check and mate, sir!

      1. Nonsense; he provided her with a preemptive abortion of all possible offspring.

        Which, given that she was an Antifidiot, suggests he may well have done significant service to the gene pool…..

    2. The woman who was killed was white, so it seems doubtful that racism was the motive. And how could he possibly know the religion of anyone blocking his car or crossing the street.

      1. He clearly wasn’t targeting a woman two cars removed from himself, which is where the woman that died was.

        The argument would be a basic “I’m gonna kill me a bunch of people” act of terrorism, and presumably kill Antifa, and not the hordes of marching Klansmen and Nazis who supposedly showed up at the march.

        Probably it was clear enough which side of the violence of the day that group in front of him was on.

  4. There’s significant interest in any and all matters related to white supremacy.

    The serious concern about the literally dozens of white supremacists who are overrunning this country.

    1. And if it turns out he is a white supremacist, that means he is guilty. This case is all about white supremacy. The facts are just there to confirm the narative.

      1. “And if it turns out he is a white supremacist, that means he is guilty. This case is all about white supremacy. The facts are just there to confirm the narative.”

        Well, there is the apparent fact that he drove a car through a crowd of people, several of whom were injured and one of whom died. Since the cops pulled him out of the car on the scene it seems as if that fact would be hard to dispute. So he’s probably guilty of SOMETHING. Whether it’s murder or not remains to be seen.

        1. He is likely guilty of something. What that is remains to be seen. But it is possible, though unlikely, he really did fear for his life and had no other choice but to drive into the crowd. I doubt that was the case but it is not impossible.

          1. To what degree are you allowed to harm bystanders while defending yourself? I’m sure some level of harm is allowed, but are you allowed to kill one bystander to save yourself? What about five bystanders? Would I be allowed to kill 100 bystanders to save myself if I could prove I was genuinely in fear for my life?

    2. And it would be nice if Reason employed someone who knew enough about this subject to give an intelligent opinion on the case rather than “well you know white supremacy is a big deal and this guy might actually try and defend himself in court”.

      1. That would require paying that someone an amount commensurate with their competence.

        Ain’t happening here.

    3. i usually say “six guys in Ohio” but this idiot is from Ohio so I guess they only have five now

  5. white supremacy

    Just say the Trump voter base.

    1. That 30+% of the Hispanic vote that Trump got and the 11% of the black male vote he got are the worst white supremacists ever!!

      Shreek, you are always good for explaiing to us who minorities are destroying America. You are a horrific racist, but you are consistent. That is something I guess.

    2. Yeah, because everybody that voted for Literally Hitler is a racist Nazi.

      That’s a perfectly balanced opinion from a true independent.

      1. As much as a detest Trumptards I can tell you I despise Bernie-Bros even more.

        Yeah – that is pretty much “independent”.

        1. No you don’t.; You are a fucking straight up socialist retard. Stop lying you piece of garbage.

          1. Fuck off, you miserable fascist Trump-tard.

            1. you are the biggest fascist and racist on here. Everyone knows it.

            2. PB, just admit what you are.

        2. “As much as a detest Trumptards I can tell you I despise Bernie-Bros even more.”

          And he ducks under the punch. Dude, you said that everybody who voted in a way you disapprove of is ready to join the Klan. Changing the subject doesn’t change that. You’re as much an independent as Donna Brazile is.

        3. Yeah, being a redneck racist goober is something people are immersed in as a lifestyle from birth. Joining a cult is just bad decision making.

          1. Tony I have multiple advanced degrees and am about as far away from a redneck as you can get. You are the goober here

            1. That makes it even more embarrassing.

              1. Tony, do you really think the commentariat is filled with rednecks? If so, you’re even dumber than I thought.

          2. “White working class plebeians shouldn’t contradict their social betters” – t. Tony

            The left morphed into the Second Estate so slowly, I hardly noticed. Dictatorship of the proletariat has been replaced with the Ancien R?gime.

          3. So what’s your excuse for being one of the biggest retards ever to waste oxygen?

      2. And you might ask “Why not bash the Bernie idiots on this site?”

        Answer – No one is campaigning for or defending Bernie Sanders here.

        1. You are not a socialist. You just believe in corppratism,. the police state, guilt by association and socialism. Go die. Really die. You are such a piece of filth.

        2. John is right OB, you might as well do the right thing for once and end your own life.

  6. Has anyone else noticed that there have been no stories with his side of the events from that day? This is the first I’ve heard that he told the cops was being treated for bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and ADHD and I suspect it’s news to most of you here too. It’s as if the media didn’t care why he did it just as long as they could blame Trump and Republicans for it.

    FYI. I do not condone his actions nor his evil bigoted thoughts.

    1. It is always a good bet that the media is getting a story wrong. You knew there was more to this than has been reported.

      The thing that most infuriates me is how irresponsible and ignorant the media is. All that was known about this event at the time was that some guy drove his car into the crowd and a woman was killed. You can’t tell from that video why this guy did that or anything other than the fact he did it. He could have had some kind of malfunction in the car causing it to just take off on him and the video would look the same as it would if he did it to kill people for the white cause. But rather than wait and see what the facts were, the media immediately pronounced him guilty of terrorism and murder. The media just disgusts me.

      1. A Neo-NAZI march with Tiki Torches doesn’t disgust you but the media does? Do you still have your Tiki Torch, John? I am sure you were there marching along with them.

        1. Shreek, I am not a fascist. So I think everyone deserves a fair trial. Moreover, at the time, no one knew who this guy was.

          You in contrast to me are a fascist and you make up for it by being retarded. You don’t want this guy to have a fair trial because you are a vicious retard who thinks he is guilty becuase of who he is regardless of the evidence. The idea that facts and evidence and process matter woudl never occur to you.

          You are a disgusting human being. So, it is understandable how any decent human being would be repellent to you.

          1. Do you think this individual is not going to get a fair trial? Has anyone on this thread advocated for a kangaroo court in lieu of the normal procedure? A single person?

            Or maybe we’re just making fun of you for jumping to the defense of a Nazi murderer out of all the people you could be talking about, as if to admit that you are on the Team of the Nazis sorta like the president you constantly defend.

            1. If you want this guy to get a fair trial, then my explaining the law involved here would not bother you so much. I have not made a single statment regarding his guilt or innocence. I am simply explaining to you what is involved in getting a conviction. And you and shreek equate that to defending white supremacy. It bothers you that I do that because you are a hateful moron

              Moreover, if you want this guy to get a fair trial, you shoudl be offended by how the media has poisoned the jury pool and made outragous conclusions about his guilt without having any of the facts. you are not offended by that becuase you don’t want him to have a fair trial. You are a disgusting person. The amount of rationalization you must do to live with the kind of hatred and ignorance you possess must be epic.

              1. That happens in every high-profile case. Do you want to scold us for not using “alleged.” Do you think we don’t know how trials work? Any other hot topic you want to randomly choose to give a 5th grade civics lesson about?

                1. Yes it does. And the media is disgusting because of it. Just becuase the media is always disgusting and immoral doesn’t mean they are not here.

            2. Or maybe we’re just making fun of you for jumping to the defense of a Nazi murderer

              You don’t know he is a murderer. Words have meaning even though you and shreek are too stupid to understand them. You think he is a murderer not because you know what happened. You think he is a murderer because you don’t like his politics.

              You and shreek are such legimately evil people, I sometimes feel physically ill having to interact with you. I have never seen to more evil people in my life. And I prosecuted criminal cases some of the defendents of which are still in prison. But none of those people were as evil and nasty as you two. They just had poor impulse control and acted on their desires where you two do not.

              1. You don’t know he is a murderer.

                But Hillary is definitely a felon. And Obama is definitely a traitor.

                1. If it turns out that there is as much evidence against this guy as there was regarding Hillary’s misuse of classified information, I will conclude he is a murderer. I am unaware of there being any FBI reports that establish this guy’s intent. Are you?

                  Jeff, you don’t really seem to understand how this works. Not every case is the same. Sometimes you do know the facts and can make conclusions. Other times you do not. This is one of those cases where you don’t.

                  I am really speechless at how stupid you are. You really seem to believe you are making valud points here.

                  1. If it turns out that there is as much evidence against this guy as there was regarding Hillary’s misuse of classified information, I will conclude he is a murderer.

                    But but but what about INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY????

                    Oh wait that only applies to Kavanaugh, and, apparently, Nazi murderers.

                    1. Waiting to see the evidence and then making a conclusion based on it is considering someone innocent until proven guilty.

                2. Because Hillary never disguised of her criminality and Obama boasted of his treason.

                3. We have absolute proof of those things Jeffy. Though I know you love your Marxist masters.

        2. A Neo-NAZI march with Tiki Torches doesn’t disgust you but the media does?

          In his defense, John also doesn’t call for punishment for antifa for simply holding demonstrations. When they start to assault people, sure — but I’m fairly sure John isn’t pro-antifa and opposes them being punished for simple speech.

        3. PB, you and Tony are the fascists here. Not the rest of us.

    2. This is the first I’ve heard that he told the cops was being treated for bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and ADHD and I suspect it’s news to most of you here too.

      What part of an obvious defense strategy is surprising. If those don’t work, we will soon find he’s also being treated for scabies, rabies, the heebie-jeebies, cooties, and premature emasculation too. He’s a sick puppy and we need to feel sorry for him not judge him. Get the violins out.

    3. That was actually a big part of the immediate follow up to the initial story. His background including mental illness was thoroughly reported.

    4. “Has anyone else noticed that there have been no stories with his side of the events from that day?”

      I noticed that the reporting on the story disappeared very quickly. Like Vegas. Like the kiddie jihad slaves off in the desert southwest somewhere.

    5. My wife is bipolar and she’s somehow managed to become a physician rather than a murderer. I have ADHD and I’ve somehow managed to become an engineer rather than a murderer. I’m not sympathetic.

  7. I see John is here to helpfully explain how murder trials work out of a passion for education and not in some warped tribal defense of a literal murdering Nazi.

    1. Yes Tony, I think everyone deserves a fair trial. You don’t. That is becuase you are a horrible human being who thinks it is okay to convict someone of a crime because of the color of their skin or because they hold views you don’t like.

      It is really impossible to overstate how immoral you are. Thank God you are some sad nuerotic idiot who has no real authority in the world. If you ever had the ability to do any harm, the results would be quite dire.

      1. What about the people in Guantanamo Bay?

        1. I have alway been in favor or giving them a fair trial before a military tribunal. Not only are you a horrible person, you assume everyone else is just as horrible as you are as a way to rationalize being that way.

          1. So you clearly believe that due process demands their immediate release and reparations (since the reason they’re still there is that the US won’t be able to get a conviction what with all the torture and stuff).

            1. No. They need to be given a trial and their cases settled. You really don’t understand what words mean do you? You just sort of emote like some kind of rapid animal.

              1. It’s only my laziness preventing me from once again proving you a big fat liar and hypocrite because I don’t remember you protesting too much about Bush-Cheney WoT policies, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

                Now, in reality I am second to nobody in terms of supporting defendants’ rights. It’s a big deal to me, as is criminal justice reform in general. And you’ll never be able to prove otherwise.

                You’re just distracting from your hilarious knee-jerk civics lesson to a bunch of people who didn’t need it when we all know that if one of the lefty protesters had done the alleged murdering, you’d set your hair on fire and jump off a bridge in a fit of tribal outrage. Who do you think you’re fooling?

                1. Yeah, you can’t come up with a link saying otherwise because you are lazy. Fuck off tony. I have forgottten more about this subject than you will ever know. My opinion has always been the same. Unlike you, I actually know things. What is it like being ignorant about every subject? It must be a terrible way to exist.

                  1. You just flat out contradicted yourself a few inches above when poked about HIllary Clinton–a person already exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing. You were a Bush lover and you defend every fascist psychopathic act Trump makes. You’re so full of shit it’s hilarious. And I prefer the term polymath.

                    1. No I didn’t. Thinking Hillary is guilty is not thinking she should be locked up without a fair trial

                    2. You just flat out contradicted yourself a few inches above when poked about HIllary Clinton–a person already exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing.

                      A press conference detailing what she did wrong followed by a rather massive misinterpretation of legal statutes and “Well, nobody would prosecute her ANYWAY” isn’t an exoneration.

                      Nixon was more exonerated of wrongdoing than Hillary.

                    3. Hillary Clinton has never been ‘exonerated’ of anything you worthless cunt. If you took more time in between raping young boys to think about what you write, your writing might be better.

      2. “Yes Tony, I think everyone deserves a fair trial.”

        said John after returning from a Trump rally where he chanted “Lock Her Up”

        1. Factual guilt and legal guilt are not the same. I think Hillary is factually guilty. But no one should be locked up until they have had a fair trial and are legally guilty. It is just another fine distinction you don’t understand.

        2. Hillary deserves a trial too.

          1. Absolutely. And a fair conviction. A fair death sentence for high treason. And a fair execution.

    2. Tony; let me ask you something; if the Antifa (as seem likely) eventually manage, through misplaced enthusiasm, to roll over somebody’s car and the occupant dies, will you be enthusiastic about trying those who participated for murder?

      Because if the answer is no, please go away and let the adults talk.

      1. Why are you even asking that question? I’m not like John. I’m not actually blinded by tribal loyalty, although I would say that maybe, to some degree, Antifa is somewhat less malicious than fucking Nazis, but that doesn’t mean I think any of them should escape justice should they commit murder. What kind of loony-tunes world have we permitted John to construct for us?

        1. I would say that maybe, to some degree, Antifa is somewhat less malicious than fucking Nazis

          And there is the smoking gun. You are a fucking idiot. Antifa is exactly as prejudiced and malicious as the Nazis and they demonstrate that continually. Go live in Portland for 27 years and you will quickly learn just how vicious and sadistic they are.

        2. Tony is completely blinded by tribal loyalty, unlike John, who is actually honest. Unlike Tony who is a filthy liar.

    3. You are a malignant worthless pile of shit.

    4. The best part of not being Tony or Chemjeff or Buttplug is being able to impartially look at facts. These are the same shitheads that have been around since the founding of the country that real, actual libertarians like John Adams had to struggle against.

      Adams defended the british soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre because they were entitled to a defense. And, as it turns out, they were not guilty, they feared for their lives and only acted in self-defense against a mob. Sound familiar? They certainly were hated by the local populace and probably were young and stupid and racist as all get out, but the only thing that mattered was their culpability in firing on that crowd.

  8. >>Will a final verdict(s) help Charlottesville heal?

    was I supposed to worry?

    1. Criminal trials never heal anything. They are necessary but anyone who thinks this woman’s parents or any of the victims are going to somehow be heeled by this trial whatever the result is a Tony level moron.

      1. Yes, and focusing on getting a “healing” verdict tends to distract from issues of guilt or innocence (or degrees of guilt) in the particular case.

        The calls for “healing” often take place when a crime (or alleged crime) provoked a riot, or it’s feared that an acquittal will provoke a riot – in which case the implication is that the defendant should be convicted and take one for the team regardless of the facts.

        1. A. It’s question begging

          B. It’s virtue signalling

          C. It’s concern masking an inability to think

    2. “Will a final verdict(s) help Charlottesville heal?”

      I know this is the issue which is certainly the most important! The hell with whether the guy’s guilty or not. /sarc

      1. You are just a white supremacist Sevo. Chem Jeff is sure of it. Anyone who doesn’t think this guy is guilty and want him convicted is just team nazi.

        It is a shame Chem Jeff and Tony showed up to screw up what could have been a decent thread discussing the ends and outs of this case.

        1. Nobody made that argument and you damn well know it. It’s just an odd time to pipe up as the “alleged” police for this specific case. It’s not that you’re a Nazi, it’s that you think Trump is somehow on this guy’s side, and so you’re sticking up for him more than you would another random defendant, say if one happened to be in Antifa.

          On to the actual subject. Self-defense seems pretty feeble considering he had a car and his victims were on foot, no? Discuss.

          1. “On to the actual subject. Self-defense seems pretty feeble considering he had a car and his victims were on foot, no? Discuss.”

            Ok, I’ll bite. On the one hand, if he could demonstrate that he was legitimately afraid that he was going to be pulled out of the car by a mob and have the shit kicked out of him, then, yeah, that’s a viable self-defense argument.

            On the other hand, who started the fight? Hard to argue that you went in and started some shit and then when somebody joined into the melee that you were suddenly afraid for your own safety. That’s not how self-defense works. And why did he get into the car to begin with? Was it because the situation was getting too volatile and he was trying to leave? Or did he get in the car to threaten the opposing melee participants?

            I don’t know the answers. But those would be the opposing arguments assuming he tries a self-defense defense.

            I do hope the government hasn’t overcharged here like they did regarding Zimmerman and the Oregon Bundy protesters. A clean trial with a legitimate outcome would be best for everyone, especially the people involved.

            1. What?
              One group had a permit to protest the taking down of the statue
              The other didn’t and decided to violently attack the group who did.
              What fucking planet do you live on?

              1. Well, technically I’m from Rigel V, but my parents were here on work permits when I was born so I get to stay and there ain’t nothing you can do about it.

          2. You called me a Nazi for thinking this guy should get a fair trial. And yes self defense is going to be hard to prove. But his claim of self defense might create reasonable doubt as to his state of mind. If he unreasonablely believed his life was in danger , he is not innocent but lacks the requisite intent for murder. And all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt that he lacked intent and he is either guilty of murder 2 or manslaughter. I don’t think he walks but I think he has a real shot at avoiding a murder 1 conviction

  9. Cool story Bro.

  10. Early news reports after the incident had the police saying it was panic or self-defense and not deliberate. Ihope the court appointed him competent counsel. If it was one of those commie rioters he’d have a table full of the National Lawyers Guild .

    1. Naw, the overclass needs another scalp for the narrative. Innocence or guilt is irrelevant to the left. It’s going to be a legal lynching.

  11. Not for nothing, but this dipshit didn’t ram the crowd. He hit a car, which hit a car that hit the crowd. What his motivation was, I have no clue, because I am not a fucktard -I make up my mind after hearing all the facts whenever possible.

    1. He did, in fact, aim at the crowd, and cause harm to some people. But you are right about the death being caused by his car hitting another car which struck the woman. How can that be construed as first-degree murder?

      1. If he really wanted to “ram the crowd” why didn’t he drive around the car he hit and go up on the sidewalk? That’s what guys do who are hell bent on ramming an otherwise peaceful group of people.

      2. He not ‘aim at a crowd.’

        He barreled through the previous intersection on that same road, entering and leaving at high speed.

        He was following the road.

        The crowd in the road was a crowd that had–and this is important– surrounded two other cars. They were in the process of surrounding and harassing other motorists when the car hit.

  12. One question
    How is this 1st degree murder?
    He preplanned this?
    Just dumb as fuck prosecution over charging
    It’s 2nd degree murder and more than likely 3rd degree voluntary manslaughter because he acted recklessly
    It’s Trayvon redo although I think George was innocent and this guy is guilty

  13. Also a moral of the story for the Antifa’s of the world who constantly feel the need to fuck with people you are going to get hurt
    This will happen again
    Quit fucking with people

  14. I kept hearing that he rammed into the crowd twice, but in the video I saw only ran into them twice. Some witnesses apparently heard him say that he intended to do this. It doesn’t help his cause that he ran away.

    I never saw any proof that he was being threatened. I did see a short clip of someone smashing the rear of his car with a sign. Was that part of a larger confrontation?

    According to some online comments I read, these sort of rallies (albeit on a much smaller scale) were common in their parts of town. No one cared, and everyone ignored them. The media and the antifa almost certainly made a huge deal out of bunch of nobodies and may have helped incite unnecessary conflict. Six thousand torch bearing mob is like the nation’s largest gathering of Esperanto speakers. They’re nothing.

    If the self defense strategy pans out, that’s going to bust a lot of narrative.

    1. “If the self defense strategy pans out, that’s going to bust a lot of narrative.”

      Which is why the court appointed attorney is going to roll over like a well trained puppy

    2. If he beats the rap he can sue Robby who repeatedly called him a murderer w/o the alleged prefix.

  15. I’ll wager that Dwayne Dixon is the first (hostile) witness for the defense and his Twitter page Exhibit #1.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/…..dly-crash/

  16. They’re saying Heyer died of blunt force trauma to the chest but her mother said it was a heart attack and it doesn’t look like she was hit in the videos. They’re railroading the guy.

  17. This is an easy case to beat. I would show all the events leading up to this. A year of BLM stopping traffic, people being ambushed in their cars coming out of Trump rallies, the injuries sustained, flurries of comments all over media about running street blockers down etc.
    Paint a thorough picture of the national atmosphere around mobs and the subsequent reactions in social media.
    Then I’d make the case that despite his beliefs, he has a right to exercise his free speech without fear of harm.
    I’d show the video that he was trying to leave and hone in on the bat or flag pole wielding guy that struck the back of his car. It’s clear in the video when his car was hit with the stick, that’s when he took off into the crowd.
    We have a national crisis of mob violence leading up to these events, people attacked in their cars etc, this guy is leaving a rally, gets surrounded by a mob, his car is hit with a bat and he panicked for fear of his life and tried to flee. Case dismissed.

  18. This looks like overcharging to satisfy the media narrative that there were clear cut villains and heroes in Charlottesville rather than charging what could reasonably be expected to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This will almost certainly end in an acquittal on the most serious charges as the known facts are that he did not intentionally kill the woman who died as a result of his actions as it was a domino effect.

  19. If you set aside ideologies and call the protesters group A and the counter protesters group B it makes it easier to judge. Because ideology should not be factor in this judgment. Its not illegal to be a Nazi or an ANTIFA. Both suck but are not illegal.

    Group A was attacked by group B. Group B attacked group A as they attempted to get to the park to exercise their free speech rights. And group B attacked group A as they attempted to leave the park

    One of the group B members reacted by driving through the crowd of folks who were attacking him.

    You can argue he over reacted and thus was reckless , voluntary manslaughter maybe , but zero evidence of 1st or 2nd degree murder.

    1. I would say that the prosecution is aiming high, like assholes, knowing that the crime is, as you say, most likely manslaughter 1 at best. If there’s a 1st degree variant in VA; am too lazy to look it up. Not murder, unless he does something stupid and cops to it.

  20. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

  21. “Charlottesville, Virginia, was thrown into chaos in August 2017 when white nationalists protesting the planned removal of a Confederate statue clashed with counter-protesters. ”

    Everyone who doesn’t want to blow up statues is a white nationalist.

    But the international Marxist terrorists who attacked them are “counter protestors”.

  22. In the middle of a crowd hitting my car with bats and trying to break into it, there’s no way I would have stopped either. I remember what happened to Reginald Denny.

    If there is justice, it will be because a juror nullifies.

  23. There’s a video somewhere on YouTube featuring a college professor telling his class he ‘waved him (Fields) off with a rifle’ prior to his acceleration toward the crowd. Also no one died of being run over. The person who died had a heart attack.

  24. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.