That video has the speed altered, can you not see that?
Are you that much of a sucker?
Washington Times: Russia tables turn, roping Clinton, Obama, Holder, not Trump
- Thread starter PornAddict
- Start date
Are you that much of a sucker?
I've had to watch it two or three times today to respond to your posts.He didn't speed down the street. Not at all. You can clearly see that in the video. You can see the car was stopped, brake lights on before they hit his car.
THIS is not speeding! https://twitter.com/AdrianaStuijt/status/897989683581517824
You keep asking me this ridiculous question, what does this even mean? Don't you have to watch it, to know what you're talking about?
But you must have watched this video over and over and over and over again.
You didn't notice the normal speed on the video, just the slow version?!That video has the speed altered, can you not see that?
Are you that much of a sucker?
Yes I've done my due-diligence. And so will the jury, who will decide his fate.I've had to watch it two or three times today to respond to your posts.
But you must have watched this video over and over and over and over again.
Here's the mark on the car that you so desperately needed to see.
P.S. And just so everyone is prepared, The ALT LEFT is planning on an all out 'civil war' starting Nov 4th. Let's see how 'peaceful' these guys are, and how this pans out.
Neither of the airbags in the two cars that were directly involved in the collision engaged. That means the impact took place at less than 28 mph, unless both airbags involved were defective.He didn't speed down the street. Not at all. You can clearly see that in the video. You can see the car was stopped, brake lights on before they hit his car.
THIS is not speeding! https://twitter.com/AdrianaStuijt/status/897989683581517824
Here's the police statement:You didn't notice the normal speed on the video, just the slow version?!
Yes I've done my due-diligence. And so will the jury, who will decide his fate.
Here's the mark on the car that you so desperately needed to see.
P.S. And just so everyone is prepared, The ALT LEFT is planning on an all out 'civil war' starting Nov 4th. Let's see how 'peaceful' these guys are, and how this pans out.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/driver-acting-self-defense/Charlottesville police, Aug. 13: The three-vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was traveling south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan headed south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd a people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.
Your mark could have been there for years.
I also find it curious that the brake lights in your image are different then the brake lights from the cops dashcam photos of Shields' car.
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
vs
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...iuk4S46YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwhJKBkwGQ..i&w=300
Funny how non of the videos show the brake lights going on before your nazi drove into that crowd.
You been duped again?
And the airbags Frank? How do you explain that?Here's the police statement:
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/driver-acting-self-defense/
Your mark could have been there for years.
I also find it curious that the brake lights in your image are different then the brake lights from the cops dashcam photos of Shields' car.
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
vs
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...iuk4S46YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwhJKBkwGQ..i&w=300
Funny how non of the videos show the brake lights going on before your nazi drove into that crowd.
You been duped again?
One thing at a time.And the airbags Frank? How do you explain that?
How do you explain the different brake lights from the video (where none are on) to your photo (where they are partially on) to the police dashcam (where they are fully on)?
Brake lights aren't my argument Frank. Why get into that if airbags resolve the speed issue?One thing at a time.
How do you explain the different brake lights from the video (where none are on) to your photo (where they are partially on) to the police dashcam (where they are fully on)?
He didn't speed down the street. Not at all. You can clearly see that in the video. You can see the car was stopped, brake lights on before they hit his car.
THIS is not speeding! https://twitter.com/AdrianaStuijt/status/897989683581517824
You keep asking me this ridiculous question, what does this even mean? Don't you have to watch it, to know what you're talking about?
Sorry, that was supercharge's claim.Brake lights aren't my argument Frank. Why get into that if airbags resolve the speed issue?
Your claim isn't much better, as it looks like a few protesters slowed down the car before it hit the other cars.
So you are agreeing that the collision took place at less than 28 mph. See, now we're making progress.Sorry, that was supercharge's claim.
Your claim isn't much better, as it looks like a few protesters slowed down the car before it hit the other cars.
No, I'm not accepting that claim at all, just suggesting that the car could have been travelling faster, hit some protesters and slowed before it hit one of the other cars.So you are agreeing that the collision took place at less than 28 mph. See, now we're making progress.
Whatever speed it hit was fast enough on the way in and out to kill people.
You're so close to being reasonable here, I want to see if you can get all the way there.No, I'm not accepting that claim at all, just suggesting that the car could have been travelling faster, hit some protesters and slowed before it hit one of the other cars.
Whatever speed it hit was fast enough on the way in and out to kill people.
Any review of the videos which show the collision evidence that: 1) a woman who was standing immediately in front of the struck car was hit by the Charger (the colliding car) and ended up on the roof of the struck car. Thankfully, and fortunately, she was not seriously injured. There is no video evidence that anyone else was struck in the direct path of the Charger. It is possible that some people were grazed by the front side panels of the Charger and knocked to the side as a result. It is difficult to tell the difference in the video between those who jumped to the side to avoid the car, and those who were knocked to the side. These collisions with protesters could not account for any significant reduction of speed prior to impact.. 2) any acceleration of the car took place over a very short distance (30-40 feet). That distance of acceleration, combined with the absence of tire marks that would be present with rapid acceleration, is consistent with a speed of less than 28 mph.
Now, to your point, it is possible to injure a pedestrian with a vehicle at a very slow speed. I once was involved in a traffic accident where one of the other cars involved hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk at what must have been less than 15 kmh. Despite the low speed, the pedestrian was thrown up into the air onto the roof of another car. Fortunately, that person's only injuries were minor bruises and cuts.
Also, to avoid a needless retort, clearly people were injured by the reversal of the Charger. Of course, a number of these people also attacked the car following the collision and before it reversed.
However, we're just talking about the accuracy of the police report that the Charger was travelling at a "high rate of speed". In fact, it would appear that the Charger was travelling at less than 28 mph at the point of impact, and that point of impact was nanoseconds after it struck the only protester in its direct path. Maybe the police report should have said, instead "at an unsafe rate of speed". That would at least be arguable.
We can find the answer quite easily. What year challenger was that? Anyone know?Here's the police statement:
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/driver-acting-self-defense/
Your mark could have been there for years.
I also find it curious that the brake lights in your image are different then the brake lights from the cops dashcam photos of Shields' car.
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
vs
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...iuk4S46YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwhJKBkwGQ..i&w=300
2010 model with a base V6.We can find the answer quite easily. What year challenger was that? Anyone know?
Thanks Bud!2010 model with a base V6.
These are the brake lights on a 2010 Dodge Challenger. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dp2RrSpaRcM/hqdefault.jpgI also find it curious that the brake lights in your image are different then the brake lights from the cops dashcam photos of Shields' car.
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
vs
https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...iuk4S46YvXAhUD3GMKHULnAEIQMwhJKBkwGQ..i&w=300
All 2010 challengers have a 3rd brake light. Third brake lights were required on all vehicles after 1986.
The dash cam picture, the car is parked. 4 way lights are on!. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
So like I said, he had his brake lights on, BEFORE anyone was hit. He didn't go barrelling down the road, like you claim.
Pure conjecture.That distance of acceleration, combined with the absence of tire marks that would be present with rapid acceleration, is consistent with a speed of less than 28 mph.
Really, the speed is irrelevant.
Nazi drove car into crowd, killing one person and injuring many others.
That's all you need to know.
