Victims of Charlottesville car attack file $3M suit against rally organizers, alleged driver - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]Two of those injured in the car attack Saturday in Charlottesville, Va., have filed a $3 million lawsuit against the organizers of the white nationalist rally where it occurred, as well as the accused driver. A lawsuit filed Tuesday in the Circuit Court for the city of Charlottesville by Tadrint and Micah Washington names the alleged driver of the car, James Alex Fields Jr., as well as more than a dozen other defendants including noted white nationalists Richard Spencer, David Duke and Jason Kessler. The Washingtons, who were in a car that police say Fields Jr. rammed with his vehicle, are suing in civil court for assault and battery, civil conspiracy and negligence, as well as other counts. They say they were "detoured" on their way home when they were struck from behind by Fields while waiting for pedestrians. The lawsuit says the couple has "serious injuries," according to NBC. The suit also names several major white nationalist and right-wing organizations, including the Proud Boys, Traditionalist Workers Party, National Socialist Movement and The Daily Stormer.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://thehill.com/homenews/news/346674-people-injured-in-car-attack-file-3-million-suit-against-charlottesville[/URL]

Ordinarily I'd say that suing the rally organizers is misguided and attacking the wrong target, but in this case I've got no problem with it.

Problem is they might kill their own case trying to go after people like Richard Spencer or David Duke. Should just go after the actual instigator. Otherwise expect disappointment since legally it is very hard to find people guilty of such an act only by association.

They are being far to broad with the lawsuit. All this is going to do is get the case either thrown out or dragged through the mud for a few years.

Doubtful they'll win against the rally organisers.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52577759]Ordinarily I'd say that suing the rally organizers is misguided and attacking the wrong target, but in this case I've got no problem with it.[/QUOTE] Wait, what? Why? This is purely that one guy's fault. I'd say this makes as much sense as charging the protest organizers in Dallas for that crazy cop killer.

I hope that karma causes these pinwheel bastards to wind up in the worst legal situation that they deserve for pushing a repeat of historically horrific murders of millions.

This is just stupid, hopefully just misdirected and not a money grab under the guise of attacking nazis.

[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52577873]I hope that karma causes these pinwheel bastards to wind up in the worst legal situation that they deserve for pushing a repeat of historically horrific murders of millions.[/QUOTE] I can imagine that if their employers/investors/customers (in the event that they're self-employed) find out that they attended, that many of the attendees would find themselves without work. While this would likely push them closer to the edge of whatever batshit crazy conspiracy theories and ideals they believe in, I can't say I would feel the least bit sorry for them if this happened.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52578682]That is entirely illegal. You can't fire somebody for their beliefs.[/quote] But you can for associating with a hate group and they were fucking NAZIS

[QUOTE=KillerLUA;52578424]This is just stupid, hopefully just misdirected and not a money grab under the guise of attacking nazis.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that they intentionally got injured in order to make a case or are you actually saying that suing the people responsible for your injury and hospital bills is misguided.

In most places, you can't fire based on things like [I]religion[/I], but Naziism isn't religion.

[QUOTE=The Genie;52577862]I believe that you're generally supposed to include anyone tangentially related to the incident in a lawsuit and then later down the line the defendants are filtered out so that only the potentially culpable ones remain. Although someone feel free to correct me if this is blatantly wrong.[/QUOTE] You can push the demands and charges you want to bargain, but when it comes to suing people you can't just lump in as many people as you want to later cut them out. There is a whole range of countersue options the defendants can now bring to the table since they are being associated to an attack they took no part in. And god help the victims when the defendants combine together their legal teams on this one. Just by incurring their legal fees, the prosecution set themselves up for trouble by lumping in so many people.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52578682][DEL]That is entirely illegal. You can't fire somebody for their beliefs.[/DEL] I think I'm partially wrong. Seems to depend on the state you live in.[/QUOTE] In a lot of places in the south, you can still be fired for being gay. So, being fired for having beliefs is entirely within the realm of plausible.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52577767]Problem is they might kill their own case trying to go after people like Richard Spencer or David Duke. Should just go after the actual instigator. Otherwise expect disappointment since legally it is very hard to find people guilty of such an act only by association.[/QUOTE] actually there's a neat little thing called incitement of violence and it's a legal precedent that already [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/23/us/white-supremacist-leaders-penalized-for-inciting-death.html"]exists thanks to skinheads[/URL] every case like this is going to involve a good deal of proof and investigation but it's not for you or anyone to say whether or not it's a waste of time!

[QUOTE=Kommodore;52579131]actually there's a neat little thing called incitement of violence and it's a legal precedent that already [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/23/us/white-supremacist-leaders-penalized-for-inciting-death.html"]exists thanks to skinheads[/URL] every case like this is going to involve a good deal of proof and investigation but it's not for you or anyone to say whether or not it's a waste of time![/QUOTE] Sorry to pop your overly optimistic bubble, but if their lawyers were smart they would have told them even with that charge they have almost no case as far as I can tell. Now if one of the 12 did make such a statement then they got something, but I imagine that the majority, if not all, are legally aware of situations like these. I personally want the victims to get what they deserve in justice for damages, but they are pushing too much for a message than a realistic case. Also you should probably look more into the precedent of what constitutes instigating violence and what gets prosecuted for it.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52578682][DEL]That is entirely illegal. You can't fire somebody for their beliefs.[/DEL] I think I'm partially wrong. Seems to depend on the state you live in.[/QUOTE] it's not illegal at all, i'm fairly sure all employers reserve the right to fire you in the event that your public activities outside of work are reflecting badly on them, with just cause like, say, attending a neo-nazi rally

[QUOTE=Tudd;52579166]Sorry to pop your overly optimistic bubble, but if their lawyers were smart they would have told them even with that charge they have almost no case as far as I can tell. Now if one of the 12 did make such a statement then they got something, but I imagine that the majority, if not all, are legally aware of situations like these. I personally want the victims to get what they deserve in justice for damages, but they are pushing too much for a message than a realistic case. Also you should probably look more into the precedent of what constitutes instigating violence and what gets prosecuted for it.[/QUOTE] well i had it explained to me in detail by a civil rights lawyer but if i'm being totally honest, tudd fudders, it's been a while, but if i remember right it pretty much rests on the content of documented hate speech combined with the "[I]imminence[/I]" of an ensuing violent crime and a connection to the person who incited it. say, just before a neo-nazi gathering. but i also don't need to be a lawyer to suggest that something is possible and open to investigation whereas it's kind of on you to provide specific evidence to the contrary, buddy.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;52579240]well i had it explained to me in detail by a civil rights lawyer but if i'm being totally honest, tudd fudders, it's been a while, but if i remember right it pretty much rests on the content of documented hate speech combined with the "[I]imminence[/I]" of an ensuing violent crime and a connection to the person who incited it. say, just before a neo-nazi gathering. but i also don't need to be a lawyer to suggest that something is possible and open to investigation whereas it's kind of on you to provide specific evidence to the contrary, buddy.[/QUOTE] If anyone needs to provide evidence it would be you or the prosecution. :v: I think you fail to understand ultimately that mere connections isn't how that charge is levied. You need an instigating action or statement, and then evidence that the instigator acted on it. My experience is limited to just some business law classes and having sued someone myself for an auto accident they caused, but I think you might wanna recheck what your saying here. You are already implying these auxiliary people are guilty with no evidence. Even though we haven't seen any evidence to prove they instigated this guy. Just saying something vague like Nazis empower each other doesn't work legally to convict here.

the burden of proof being on the prosecution is legit but that's not what we were talking about? before that even comes into play, you were saying the outcome was impossible like you knew something specific about the case? and? an "instigating action or statement" could exist for all you know? that's why we have trials. that's fair. idk how your intimate knowledge of the legal system bequeathed from slipping on a hotdog applies here

[QUOTE=Kommodore;52579289]the burden of proof being on the prosecution is legit but that's not what we were talking about? before that even comes into play, you were saying the outcome was impossible like you knew something specific about the case? and? an "instigating action or statement" [B]could exist for all you know[/B]? that's why we have trials. that's fair. idk how your intimate knowledge of the legal system bequeathed from slipping on a hotdog applies here[/QUOTE] It's a bit rich to be talking about burden of proof, and then going on to make a claim with no proof. If you feel the need to assert and defend that an "instigating action or statement" was made then you should probably post a quote and it's source.