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

You don't know that she was there to violate his rights but even if you did that does not justify murder in the eyes of sane people and the law.

Antifa didn't make it any secret that they were going to disrupt the rally with violence, not protest it.
 
Antifa didn't make it any secret that they were going to disrupt the rally with violence, not protest it.


None of that (if it applies to her specifically and there is no way to know that) justifies murder though.
 
Got any video like you said, though?

Here's what her mother had to say.

Video was presented to the jury.

I'm not sure why her mother's statement is relevant. Her mother was not at the scene of the crime and is contradicted by the autopsy conducted.
 
Video was presented to the jury.

I'm not sure why her mother's statement is relevant. Her mother was not at the scene of the crime and is contradicted by the autopsy conducted.
It was a heart attack because the car hit her in the heart
 
Its official...


We are locking up heroes.

I will not rest until his sentence is commuted and/or he is released
An all star tribute album needs to be made to protest his lockup lead by Ted Nugent

Free Free set James Free. Set them freee
 
The difference between second degree and first degree is pretty big.

Mandatory Homicide Sentencing in NC
Involuntary Manslaughter → 13 months to 16 months
Voluntary Manslaughter → 51 months to 64 Months
Second Degree Murder via Inherently Dangerous Act → 94 months to 393 months
Second Degree Murder → 144 months to Life without Parole
First Degree Murder → Death or Life without Parole
IMO, this appears to be a manslaughter, or possibly a depraved heart murder (reckless disregard for human life), which I'm assuming is similar to NC's second degree murder via "inherently dangerous acts." The evidence doesn't suggest murder 1 in any way—not even close. He's probably getting the same sentence as Richard Ramirez. Do you really think he's just as culpable as the Night Stalker?

Don't get me wrong, this guy is guilty of some level of homicide. But let's not let our political views interfere with a neutral administration of justice.
You're currently misapplying NC law. You should be misapplying VA law.
 
But she would never have been killed if she didn't show up there to violate his rights. That's the whole issue. They are acting as if she was some innocent bystander. She wasn't. She showed to help shut down the rally and was killed after the rioting had started and attacks on police and the people at the rally. First-degree murder is outrageous to me.

It's not an issue, you're just an idiot.

She wasn't violating his rights. She wasn't even protesting where his group was protesting. She was completely in here right to counter protest his protest anyway.

Stop defending American terrorists.
 
Video was presented to the jury.

I'm not sure why her mother's statement is relevant. Her mother was not at the scene of the crime and is contradicted by the autopsy conducted.
Wheres the video that proves she was hit by a car?
 
I would assume they decided he planned on killing someone with his car.
That's pretty much the only justification that they sought when convicting. I don't know the details tbh, but from a glance it looks like 2nd degree. Fuck em though.
 
Wheres the video that proves she was hit by a car?
With all of the other evidence presented to the jury, like I just said. Are you slow? Are you really disputing that she was hit by a car?

Not even Fields disputed that.
 
With all of the other evidence presented to the jury, like I just said. Are you slow? Are you really disputing that she was hit by a car?

Not even Fields disputed that.

I'd like to see it for myself.
 
It's not an issue, you're just an idiot.

She wasn't violating his rights. She wasn't even protesting where his group was protesting. She was completely in here right to counter protest his protest anyway.

Stop defending American terrorists.

As always, you were much better off just showing up to defend Zuffa's ruthless business practices. She was part of the Antifa group that showed up to shut down the rally.
 
As always, you were much better off just showing up to defend Zuffa's business practices. She was part of the Antifa group that showed up to shut down the rally.

Even if she was (she wasn't), that doesn't give anyone the right to murder her.

Stop defending this American terrorist.
 
Even if she was (she wasn't), that doesn't give anyone the right to murder her.

Stop defending this American terrorist.

Always has to be the straw man.

Antifa is a domestic terrorist group (IMO) whose actions likely provoked him into doing what he did. He didn't tell anyone he was going to the rally to run someone over, that's premeditation, he couldn't have done so if police had been controlling the demonstrators who showed up to shut down the rally. Or if they had not shown up to violate the rights of the people holding the rally.

And he was targeted by the prosecutor for his political ideology, not simply the crime he committed. No fair prosecutor would try for first-degree murder in case that involves a killer who didn't know the victim and a victim engaging in criminal mischief with a group known for engaging in violence to shut down others. First-degree murder in this case is a political targeting.
 
He would need to act with the intent to cause death. Take a look at the NC jury instruction for first degree murder:

"For you to find the defendant guilty of first degree murder. . .the State must prove five things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant intentionally and with malice killed the victim with a deadly weapon.
Malice means not only hatred, ill will, or spite, as it is ordinarily understood- to be sure, that is malice- but it also means that condition of mind that prompts a person to take the life of another intentionally or to intentionally inflict a wound with a deadly weapon upon another which proximately results in his death, without just cause, excuse or justification. . . .

Second, the State must prove that the defendant's act was a proximate cause of the victim's death. A proximate cause is a real cause, a cause without which the victim's death would not have occurred, and one that a reasonably careful and prudent person could foresee would probably produce such [injury] [damage] or some similar injurious result. . . .

Third, that the defendant intended to kill the victim. Intent is a mental attitude seldom provable by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. An intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the assault, the manner in which it was made, the conduct of the parties and other relevant circumstances.

Fourth, that the defendant acted after premeditation, that is, that the defendant formed the intent to kill the victim over some period of time, however short, before the defendant acted.

Fifth, that the defendant acted with deliberation, which means that the defendant acted while the defendant was in a cool state of mind. This does not mean that there had to be a total absence of passion or emotion. If the intent to kill was formed with a fixed purpose, not under the influence of some suddenly aroused violent passion, it is immaterial that the defendant was in a state of passion or excited when the intent was carried into effect.

IMO, the state cannot meet the first, third, and fifth elements. In particular, I just can't help but wonder what he's supposed to do if there is a crowd of people gathering around his car. Is he supposed to sit there and wait to get dragged out like Reginald Denny?

You think really think this guy's behavior is on par with the BTK killer or Night Stalker (true first degree murders)?

1st: He rammed the car into the crowd on purpose. The attack was with malice, the car was the weapon, and if he had not rammed the car into the crowd, she wouldn't have died. Are we arguing if the car killed her or just poor health?

3rd: Without a doubt, in my mind, he intended to ram the crowd. With the force in which the car slammed into the crowd, everyone was lucky not to have had more death. The manner in which the car was used, was a deadly weapon.

5th: IMO, he was there to cause harm and chose to ram the crowd. We could watch the video again. He only briefly tapped the breaks and did not try to actually stop before slamming into the crowd. The only defense he had was people were hitting his car, but there were alternate routes (if I remember correctly) to leave. He chose to go were he knew the counter protesters were.
 
I honestly don't know how touchy first degree to second degree is. That shit gets muddied all the time.

Anyways, meh? Fuck 'im. Toss him down a hole and bury him in thumbtacks, for all fuckin' care.
 
Back
Top