Crime James Fields gets convincted of first-degree murder...

Indeed. But you agree with them going after him with a first-degree murder charge, much less getting convicted of it?

First-degree murder is supposed to be for carefully planning to kill someone and then following through. Lots of vicious killers don't even get charged with first-degree murder. Charging and convicting someone with first-degree murder for running over a rioter at a political rally is a travesty and should be called out.

Driving your car into a group of people is murder. Yes, completely agree and he should get life.

He drove the car, stepped on the gas and plowed people down
 
She was a part of a group that showed up at the rally to violate the rights of the tiny group of people that were part of the rally, that's being lost in all of this. And this only emphasizes it.

This is like those people who illegally shut down interstates and highways for political protests getting run over and the driver getting charged with first-degree murder. Which is utter nonsense.

Any half-decent lawyer should have proven that he didn't know her and she wouldn't have been killed if she had not been there to violate his rights as part of the people who went to shut down the rally.
Sorry but none of that has anything to do with what murder charge he should have gotten.

Honestly from your tone, you sound like you thought it was justified. Are you one of those creeps?
 
I just don't see how they can possibly prove premeditation when no one would have been killed if the rioters had not been in the streets attempting to disrupt the rally.
 
I just don't see how they can possibly prove premeditation when no one would have been killed if the rioters had not been in the streets attempting to disrupt the rally.
They were not rioters. They were protesting the Nazi rally
 
Sorry but none of that has anything to do with what murder charge he should have gotten.

Honestly from your tone, you sound like you thought it was justified. Are you one of those creeps?

Not at all. As I said, he deserves prison and a long sentence. But first-degree murder as I said in this case makes a mockery of the system. Because not only was she a stranger, but she was engaging in criminal behavior by rioting and trying to violate the rights of the people at the rally. That shouldn't be dismissed. If a Neo-Nazi showed up to disrupt a rally held by another ethnic group and was run over, I don't believe for one second that anyone would ever be charged with first-degree murder.
 
They were not rioters. They were protesting the Nazi rally

They showed up specifically to attack the people who were holding a lawful rally. And of course because of how small it is, the police is who they ended up fighting with the most and people who happened along. That's not protesting, that's showing up to violate the rights of other people.

Fields is a repulsive clown, but the issue to me is an Antifa rioter being killed while engaged in a violent riot being turned into a martyr and the killer charged as if he tracked her home and strangled her.
 
I am 100% positive that anyone who attends a rally like that, on either side, has premeditated similar shit. Play stulid games...
 
Not at all. As I said, he deserves prison and a long sentence. But first-degree murder as I said in this case makes a mockery of the system. Because not only was she a stranger, but she was engaging in criminal behavior by rioting and trying to violate the rights of the people at the rally. That shouldn't be dismissed. If a Neo-Nazi showed up to disrupt a rally held by another ethnic group and was run over, I don't believe for one second that anyone would ever be charged with first-degree murder.
Yeah you keep saying that, but it doesn't make more sense now than before. I think I'll leave you to it.
 
Yeah you keep saying that, but it doesn't make more sense now than before. I think I'll leave you to it.
He is a couple posts away from saying she deserved it. This is giving me a Charlottesville thread vibe.
 
TS, are you positive that there was no evidence presented at trial that he had planned to kill someone at the rally?

Seems impossible to be convicted of pre-meditated murder unless they had some evidence of that.
 
Yeah you keep saying that, but it doesn't make more sense now than before. I think I'll leave you to it.

Then you are missing my point. The ideology of the killer should be an issue. A person shouldn't be singled out because of it. He didn't know his victim. He was part of a small rally and likely wouldn't have killed anyone if they had shown up to violent attack the people attending. That's the issue for me. It's not right.
 
*convicted. My deepest apologies.

for running over Heather Heyer in Charlottesville.

He deserves prison time for sure, but him getting convinced of murder one makes a total mockery of the system. How can they possibly prove premeditation for running over a complete stranger who was violently protesting? He literally ran over a rioter who was involved with Antifa and other activists in disrupting the civil rights the people participating in that rally. It's complete nonsense and another example of how screwed up the judicial system is.
Assuming that all of the bolded is true - and it isn't - that has nothing to do with premeditation. He drove down a street with a bunch of protestors visible at on end. He did so at a relatively high speed and passed at least one opportunity to turn off towards the highway.


Indeed. But you agree with them going after him with a first-degree murder charge, much less getting convicted of it?

First-degree murder is supposed to be for carefully planning to kill someone and then following through. Lots of vicious killers don't even get charged with first-degree murder. Charging and convicting someone with first-degree murder for running over a rioter at a political rally is a travesty and should be called out.
No. First-degree murder is for premeditation. But premeditation doesn't require long-term planning. It just requires that the process start beforehand. Going to a car and then driving around to the other side of the protest is sufficient evidence of premeditation.

I just don't see how they can possibly prove premeditation when no one would have been killed if the rioters had not been in the streets attempting to disrupt the rally.
That's utter irrelevant to premeditation.

She was a part of a group that showed up at the rally to violate the rights of the tiny group of people that were part of the rally, that's being lost in all of this. And this only emphasizes it.
No, Heather was from Charlottesville, not some out-of-town counterportestor.

This is like those people who illegally shut down interstates and highways for political protests getting run over and the driver getting charged with first-degree murder. Which is utter nonsense.
No, that's correctly charging someone with murdering.

Any half-decent lawyer should have proven that he didn't know her and she wouldn't have been killed if she had not been there to violate his rights as part of the people who went to shut down the rally.
None of your excuses are relevant to premeditation.
 
Being a proven Neo-Nazi certainly didn’t help his case.
 
TS, are you positive that there was no evidence presented at trial that he had planned to kill someone at the rally?

Seems impossible to be convicted of pre-meditated murder unless they had some evidence of that.

How could he have possibly planned it when he ran over people in the street who were engaging in rioting and attacks on people at the rally. That he knew the police wouldn't be doing their job and controlling those people. Impossible IMO.
 
*convicted. My deepest apologies.

for running over Heather Heyer in Charlottesville.

He deserves prison time for sure, but him getting convinced of murder one makes a total mockery of the system. How can they possibly prove premeditation for running over a complete stranger who was violently protesting? He literally ran over a rioter who was involved with Antifa and other activists in disrupting the civil rights the people participating in that rally. It's complete nonsense and another example of how screwed up the judicial system is.

I agree with you, but he's basically fucked. Once the prosecution comes up with a plausible theory of guilt (e.g., that he intentionally ran this girl over), then the only question is whether the jury believes it. If he appeals it, the Court of Appeal will say "the jury reasonably believed, and the evidence was sufficient to prove, that the Defendant acted with malice aforethought..." He will get the rubber stamp treatment.

IMO, the Court needs to be more critical of charges like this. The Court knows it's a politically charged case, and that people hate this guy for who he is, rather than what he did. The Court also knows that this crowd of "protesters" was not non-violent, and that they could have conceivably broken his windows and dragged him out of the car. Under those circumstances, it's pretty obvious he committed manslaughter, or at worst murder 2.
 
Elements of premeditation noted by the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/us/james-fields-trial-charlottesville-verdict.html

"During the trial, prosecutors introduced evidence that Mr. Fields intended to commit harm when he drove from Ohio to attend the rally, which featured neo-Nazis bearing swastikas and Ku Klux Klan members. In a text message exchange with his mother before the rally, Mr. Fields was told to “be careful.” “We’re not the one who need to be careful,” he replied in a message that also included a photo of Adolf Hilter.

Prosecutors also showed the jury a cartoon that Mr. Fields had shared months earlier on Instagram of a car ramming into a crowd, with the words, “You have the right to protest but I’m late for work.” Other evidence included recordings of conversations that Mr. Fields had with his mother after his arrest, in which he described the counterprotesters at the rally as a “violent gang of terrorists,” and derided Ms. Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, as an “anti-white liberal” who should be viewed as an enemy.

Video footage from that day showed Mr. Fields’s car idling, unmolested at an intersection, and even backing up out of the camera frame before it sped ahead into the crowd."
 
Who?

The person responsible is person who got in his car, made a decision to drive into a crowd instead of going a different direction and then plowed into a woman.

But is that Murder 1? That sounds like first or second degree manslaughter.
 
How could he have possibly planned it when he ran over people in the street who were engaging in rioting and attacks on people at the rally. That he knew the police wouldn't be doing their job and controlling those people. Impossible IMO.

I’m saying, was there evidence that he went to the rally for the purpose of killing someone?

That would be premeditated I would think.

I understand what you’re saying, trust me, but I’m just talking about how the jury could’ve found him guilty on first degree.
 
But is that Murder 1? That sounds like first or second degree manslaughter.
Pre meditation just means you had a choice in the murder. He chose to drive into the crowd. Maybe he didn't plan on killing someone when he got up that morning, but pre meditation does not have a time limit.
 
Back
Top