Perhaps because there's no evidence that he did anything other than 'stand his ground' [legal in NC] and, as he said, "…used this rifle to chase off James Fields from our block of 4th St before he attacked the marchers to the south."
Not to ascribe any credibility to this particular report, but "stand your ground" laws apply to homes, vehicles and workplaces of the person defending themselves, not publicly owned city streets.
You're mixing up so called "Castle Doctrine" laws with "Stand your ground" laws. They are different. "Stand your ground" applies at home but also applies outside your home under what are considered reasonable circumstances. "Castle" laws apply inside your home when you perceive a threat. North Carolina is a "Stand your ground" state.
I should have been more clear. The reasonable circumstances you are referring to are "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". Under what scenario would you believe those conditions may have been present on 4th street, north of the crash site (as described in the quote attributed to the Antifa member), considering that the crowd was concentrated south of that location at the ultimate crash site and to the west of the crash intersection? Further, and more to my earlier post, since another aspect of the stand your ground law is that you have to be somewhere that you have a lawful right to be, it would appear that the Antifa member was clearing the car from the roadway where he (the Antifa member) wouldn't have a legal right to be, as they had no march permit. If the reporting is accurate, it would not appear that "stand your ground" laws had any application.
If you want to discuss legal issues with me, you need acknowledge the points of discussion. There are 2 aspects of the stand your ground laws. The first is whether "your stand" is reasonable "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". However, the second is that your "ground" has to be somewhere you have a legal right to be. This point is the one which is more germane to my initial post and which I should have made more clear. If you don't have permit for a street march, you don't have a legal right to occupy a public roadway and/or cause vehicles to leave any portion of the roadway. Your comments neglect to address this issue and purport to reduce the test to the first aspect, which is incorrect.
Nope. No one has the right to stand out in a public road without a march/parade permit giving your group the right to do so. I know we're talking about North Carolina and not Ontario (so we'll leave guns out of it), but just give it a try on King Street today, and you'll get your confirmation. Of course (if the reporting is correct) this guy went further. Not only was he unlawfully occupying the road, he was also intimidating drivers into leaving that section of the road. You're trying, unsuccessfully, to reduce the issue to whether he had a right to carry a gun (he did) and whether he could defend himself if attacked in a place he had a lawful right to be (he could), by ignoring that he had no business being on the road or deciding whether vehicles could travel on the road.
The location of the crash was on 4th immediately north of Water Street. The car which caused the collision traveled south on 4th street towards the Water street intersection which was blocked by 2 vehicles (which had been immobile at that intersection for over 5 minutes). It struck the rearmost of those 2 vehicles. 4th Street is a vehicular street in the downtown core of Charlottesville, as opposed to a number of other north/south streets parallel to it that are pedestrian malls.
There were a lot of armed white supremacist protesters that day, yet you are fine with them carrying weapons 'in self defence'.
Thanks for being so prompt and detailed in reply.
Let me start by saying that I also am not prepared to accept the reporting in relation to this story.
Yup. The article is junk. If there was an interaction it seems the writer was too busy inventing a spurious 'cause' of the crash to bother with the basic journalism of confirming the Prof.'s unsubstantiated claim, which he then misrepresented in the article to make his own political point.
I wouldn't read too much into this particular detail, as Antifa's cheers that day included "Whose streets? Our streets!". I think "our block" in that context would simply refer to whatever block Antifa protesters were occupying at the time.
It's why I used the word 'suggests' to summarize it. However we have zero factual information in this thread that anti-fascist protesters were anywhere near Justice Park in any numbers. Or that the professor was anything but a lone actor.
