Two blocks away, where he came from, there are videos of communists breaking windows out of cars and attacking the drivers. There is a twitter post from a communist professor thanking Spikes Tactical for his rifle, that he claims in the post he used to threaten James Fields and chase him towards that crowd. The entire day had hundreds of videos showing extreme violence up to and including makeshift flamethrowers being used. There is video evidence of damage to his vehicle before he hit anyone. There is video evidence of him swerving around people and hitting the brakes at various times, which isn't what you do if you want to strike those people. I don't know what was in Field's heart, but I do know that there's plenty of exculpatory evidence and it's clear that he got absolutely railroaded.
This SUV had a thousand feet too at some point; they weren't threatened, until they were. Is it ok to ask why they didn't just turn around and avoid this? No, it's immoral to ask victims why they didn't do something else to avoid a situation. I'll afford Fields the same leeway any other victim gets; no expectation of perfection or anything close to it. If the mob doesn't want to get plowed over, they should avoid being violent.
Not at all. Whether Fields defended himself or intentionally tried to hurt people is an honest question. The conclusion I require is that Fields was railroaded, because it's plainly obvious. When the judge directs who your lawyer will be and you get nine years for hit and run, or five seventy year sentences for hitting someone, there isn't much room to pretend otherwise.
Also, there are far too many recent examples of people being given wildly out of line sentences (Stone), and judges/juries doing everything in their power to convict the innocent (Flynn), to pretend our system is above it. Shit's fucked bruv.
Two blocks away, where he came from, there are videos of communists breaking windows out of cars and attacking the drivers. There is a twitter post from a communist professor thanking Spikes Tactical for his rifle, that he claims in the post he used to threaten James Fields and chase him towards that crowd. The entire day had hundreds of videos showing extreme violence up to and including makeshift flamethrowers being used. There is video evidence of damage to his vehicle before he hit anyone. There is video evidence of him swerving around people and hitting the brakes at various times, which isn't what you do if you want to strike those people. I don't know what was in Field's heart, but I do know that there's plenty of exculpatory evidence and it's clear that he got absolutely railroaded.
This SUV had a thousand feet too at some point; they weren't threatened, until they were. Is it ok to ask why they didn't just turn around and avoid this? No, it's immoral to ask victims why they didn't do something else to avoid a situation. I'll afford Fields the same leeway any other victim gets; no expectation of perfection or anything close to it. If the mob doesn't want to get plowed over, they should avoid being violent.
Not at all. Whether Fields defended himself or intentionally tried to hurt people is an honest question. The conclusion I require is that Fields was railroaded, because it's plainly obvious. When the judge directs who your lawyer will be and you get nine years for hit and run, or five seventy year sentences for hitting someone, there isn't much room to pretend otherwise.
Also, there are far too many recent examples of people being given wildly out of line sentences (Stone), and judges/juries doing everything in their power to convict the innocent (Flynn), to pretend our system is above it. Shit's fucked bruv.