VDare recently had a post on the possibility that Fields was acting in self-defense. [Car That Crashed Was Reportedly Being Swarmed By Antifa–Was It Self-Defense?, by James Fulford, VDare, August 12, 2017] Fulford rightly recalled the spectre of the attack on Reginald Denny and the opinion of court certified self-defense expert Massod Ayoob. Ayoob is a long time writer in the area of the use of firearms for self-defense both for law enforcement and the public. Unlike many who testify in court cases involving use of deadly force by law enforcement, Ayoob also advocates and supports the use of deadly force by the public, not just by law enforcement officers.
What has developed though recently is the expansion of the deadly force doctrine by the Supreme Court in recent years despite the machinations of Barack Hussein Obama and the Black Lives Movement. The major decision of the Supreme Court greatly expanded the authority of law enforcement to use deadly force and the facts of that particular use of force is directly material to the upcoming Fields case. Coincidently with that is the ongoing theme on Youtube, Protesters vs. Cars, where violent mobs attack innocent motorists, something that obviously protesters lose in most cases when they attack since steel trumps flesh. Here is a good compilation of mob attacks on motorists and motorists acting to protect themselves:
Such was a recurring theme during the Black Lives Matter riots and arsons. Well, most Americans learned the Reginald Denny lesson. Never stop, always drive through. Which is the official policy of the United States government in it's training to the military, to Department of State, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and private contractors. The first rule of ambush club is never stay in the Kill Zone, you die in the Kill Zone. Reginald Denny almost died in the Kill Zone. You always accelerate through the Kill Zone. That is the First Rule of Ambush Club! I've been there, done that. It's great fun.
Here's Reginald Denny not driving through the Kill Zone:
Here are some contractors in Iraq that did not abide by the First Rule of Ambush Club:
They did not drive through the Kill Zone, they stopped to fight without fire superiority. They died. That is almost what happened to Reginald Denny at the hands of the precursor to Black Lives Matter and Antifa, South Central Black gangbangers.
Contrast that with the current philosophy on ambushes: Drive Through The Kill Zone:
These KBR security contractors and U.S. Army soldiers obeyed the First Rule of Ambush Club, they drove through the Kill Zone.
Now the Supreme Court has endorsed the First Rule of Ambush Club, in a manner of speaking. They said the vehicle that law enforcement, and by extension every American in a use of deadly force situation faces, the method of the use of deadly force does not matter, what matters is if the use of force was objectively reasonable to the officer or member of the public in that particular situation, without benefit of hindsight, e.g. no Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
The case was based on a 2001 vehicular pursuit launched after a Coweta County, Georgia Deputy clocked 19-year-old Victor Harris going 73 mph in a 55 mph zone. As the pursuit entered Peachtree City, Deputy Timothy Scott joined the chase and took over as the lead vehicle. Although not yet trained in the Precision Intervention Technique (P.I.T.), Deputy Scott radioed in a request to a supervisor to perform the maneuver. The request was granted.
According to a brief from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (12/23/2005):
"After receiving approval, Scott determined that he could not perform the PIT maneuver because he was going too fast. Instead, however, he rammed his cruiser directly into Harris' vehicle, causing Harris to lose control, leave the roadway, run down an embankment, and crash. As a result, Harris was rendered a quadriplegic."
Harris filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging the use of excessive force based on an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
[Scott V. Harris: The Supreme Court Decision And Its Impact On Law Enforcement, by Travis Yates, PoliceOne.com, May 2, 2007]
However drunk ass Victor Harris got the Scalia Treatment:
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court; Justice Stevens filed the lone dissenting opinion. With a resounding 8-1 vote, the Court discussed a topic that is rarely discussed at the U.S. Supreme Court level: the issue of police pursuits and forcible stopping techniques.
The court simply applied the “reasonableness” test from the Fourth Amendment. Regardless of whether the action by Deputy Scott was deadly force, the court stated that “what matters is whether those actions were reasonable.” The court clearly felt that Mr. Harris “intentionally placed himself and the public in danger” by participating in a high speed pursuit.
Justice Scalia, in a powerful section of his majority opinion, writes:
“The court rules that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.”
The lower courts had relied on the information from the suspect to determine their ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling by relying on a piece of evidence that not every officer has at his disposal. A video of the incident was taken from the dash cam of Deputy Scott’s patrol vehicle that recorded the suspect’s reckless driving.
In reference to this, Justice Scalia states:
“Indeed, reading the lower court’s opinion, one gets the impression that respondent, rather than fleeing from police, was attempting to pass his driving test.”
Ouch, that's gotta hurt, even if you're paralyzed from the neck down. Sucks to be you Victor Harris. And that is now the "Law of the Land" as Cultural Marxists like to say.
Here is the video:
And police have been using that decision since. Here is a Tucson officer dealing with a Mexican mad man with extreme prejudice, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor extreme prejudice, e.g. lawful use of deadly force to stop a crazed gunman shooting up a neighborhood:
All thanks to Justice Antonio Scalia, Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH).
This brings us to James Alex Fields. Regardless of his political opinions, besides being innocent until proven guilty, he also has the same rights to use deadly force as law enforcement officers, and he has a right to self-defense. It appears to be likely that he was ambushed, as the bat damage to his Dodge Challenger reported in the press suggests. And Justice Scalia, PBUH, has said cops can use deadly force and the means of that deadly force is immaterial, what matters is that would an objective review of the facts justify force, and that is what a jury will decide, not a mob or the media. In the case of Fields, it appears possible.
When you are attacked by Antifa Communist terrorists, using your Dodge Challenger to protect yourself is justified. The Supreme Court says so, and the facts of BLM and Antifa terrorism make the case!
Go ahead, make my day! You don't have to be Inspector Harry Callahan to use a .44 Magnum or a .458 Winchester Magnum, or a Dodge Challenger if a mob attacks you, what matters is if the facts support your use of deadly force.
There is no such thing as overkill, it is was the use of force justified? And if you were attacked by hundreds of armed Communists, using a car is certainly justified in theory. The same as if illegal aliens were throwing rocks at you, which is much more common than using a vehicle in a deadly force case, and those cases are almost never charged, and usually are ruled justified or found not guilty. There are many accusations out there, but frequently those allegations turn out to be politically motivated and unfounded.