Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Two wrongs never make a right, ANTIFA should not have gone there with the intent to start a physical confrontation, and the Trumpers/Facists/Neo Nazis or whomever the opposition was should not have answered in kind. Let the cops sort out the shitstirrers, that is what they are there for.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree in principle. The problem with the police is that they apparently stood back and did little as the brawl was happening.
Probably because they were so badly outnumbered that they had no choice but to stand back. Still, shitty situation was shitty all the way around.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm curious as to what is the proper way of holding a bottle in a situation of self defense? Gut instinct tells me you hold it by the neck as well.I ask, because I've never used a bottle to attack or in self-defense. My fist are like granite and they've served me well these long years.
I know I'd be holding it by the neck in either case. But, then again, I've never had to use a weapon either. The only things about street weapons I've learned was from my security training, IE: how to defend against them, not use them.
Originally posted by RobtardLike a club, I imagine. Or a shank, if the bottle is broken.
I'm curious as to what is the proper way of holding a bottle in a situation of self defense? Gut instinct tells me you hold it by the neck as well.I ask, because I've never used a bottle to attack or in self-defense. My fist are like granite and they've served me well these long years.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroFrom what I heard they've been given stand down orders.
Probably because they were so badly outnumbered that they had no choice but to stand back. Still, shitty situation was shitty all the way around.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
There is a difference between determining intent and weaponizing that against her as a justification for a king hit to the dome, and determining patterns of behavior for the purposes of examining her personality. One is an attempt at justifying the morality of assaulting her personally, the other is merely a gauge to see where she actually morally may lie as a person. As for the go fund me.... Thats up to the people wether or not they think she deserves the money. I'm not donating, but then again, i'm not telling others to do so or not.
My entire point has been about her being portrayed as just some innocent victim, almost an innocent bystander.
But she was there in the thick of it at multiple times. She did not leave. This alone speaks volumes to me.
She talked about scalps. In a metaphorical sense that could mean anything from moral victories to out debating literally 100 opponents to physically literally scalping 100 Nazis and anything in between. We don't know and neither do you. We have her picking up objects in the middle of a riot. Until you see her physically use those weapons, that is ALL you have.
She obviously didn't mean literal scalping, she was just talking about violence. Scalping is a violent act. To say it could mean a "moral victory" is strange.
Because the media isn't attributing the sins of sides here. Innocent until proven guilty is still a founding principal of democratic law, and individually, she, personally, has not done anything criminally or morally wrong, Unless rhetoric is somehow moralistically bullshit and free speech is just a dream. One has to take responsability for what they say, true, but not for everyone elses subjective interpretation of those words.
This isn't about law for me, it's about the court of public opinion. This person showed up to a friggin free speech rally with Antifa intending to disrupt it. She made threats online beforehand about what she planned to do. She is seen in several photo's in the thick of it at various points, meaning she saw what was going on and chose to stick around. We have more than one image of her with two different weapons.
Her FB post is open to interpretation, unless you really believe that she literally can scalp 100 men. And no, again, you are attributing the MO of the group to the individuals.
I think she just meant violence. I can't see any other way to interpret it.
Heh, unless we are talking about infants, then I believe no person on this planet is a paragon of pure innocence. Then again, we don't judge people based on that either, at least not other adults. However, you are trying to marginalize her and attribute her to the group you hate. Which is not correct. You need to judge her based on what we KNOW to be the truth and only on that. What we know is that she attended the rally under the ANTIFA flag, we KNOW she got king hit by someone from the opposite camp, and we KNOW she had a potential makeshift weapon in her hands. These are the facts, and they are undisputed. What is in dispute, is her intentions, and the reasoning of the guy who hit her. Both are subjective, and both are far outside of the scope people will be able to agree upon.
What we know is she made threats online, was shown with various weapons, had various chances to leave the area and decided to stay in the thick of it. And Bash just said he saw a picture of her with M80's and then just kinda shrugged it off and said it's not an "official source" so I mean....yeah.
My entire point is this isn't some angel here, and it goes far beyond the "nobody is perfect" type of deal IMO.
I didn't say she was unaware of their NATURE, Surter, I said she is not aware of the ANTIFA organizers intents at any one time or rally. Can you prove she was there for the previous riot? Can you actually say, with real certainty she knew shit was going to go down the way it did? You are making a lot of claims here, that's not my fault.
Dude, you're trying to lawyer this. Of course I can't prove 100% she knew what Antifa planned. I'm just going with what is most logical based on the information. For a member of Antifa to think they would be going to a rally held by people they deemed to pretty much all be nazis and think it would be peaceful is beyond belief, IMO. No, I can't prove it, but I would just be utterly amazed if she genuinely thought nobody was going to do anything violent. Especially given her own violent threats.
Plus like I said above, the M80 thing, if true, is pretty important. I'd heard she was seen with one, and I'd heard she was also seen actually hurling bottles at people, but I had not seen pics of those things. So if she had an M80 the self defense goes utterly out the door and I would think you'd agree. So I'd be curious about whatever image shows it.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
From what I heard they've been given stand down orders.
That actually makes the situation much... much worse...
When you got a powder keg consisting of two opposing political groups who are ready and willing to get physical... and you let certain jackasses light the fuses.... then I guess you guys are fortunate that it didn't blow up anywhere near as badly as it could have...
I still remember news feeds from the LA riots from the 90s...
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Like I mentioned tho, we don't know one way or the other, and in either case it doesn't matter.
I'm aware that we don't know for certain, I even basically say that in the post you quoted.
However IMO, it's far more likely that the bottle wasn't meant for self-defense.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
From what I heard they've been given stand down orders.
There is footage of some of the cops just going and sitting in their cars during this, it's bizarre.
Then I find out there is apparently such a thing as a "symbolic arrest". It is not a fake arrest, but rather you can call up the cops before hand and tell them you are going to be protesting and tell them when and where you want to be arrested. I'm not kidding, this is a thing apparently.
So I can't help wonder if that is also why some of them sat back. That is just insane to me though because protesting in itself is not illegal. Peaceful protesting is not illegal, thus any person doing this is admitting they are not going to be peacefully protesting. It is just bizarre.
Oh and btw, they cancelled Ann Coulters speech at Berkeley because of the existence of apparently "credible security threats". I wonder from whom?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
because photoshop doesnt exist. way to dodge the question.#words&feels
What are you talking about? I didn't dodge your question. I told you where it came from: you lol. I even cited you in the first post I mention it in.
So you're saying the picture is a possible fake, do you have a link?
Originally posted by Surtur
What are you talking about? I didn't dodge your question. I told you where it came from: you lol. I even cited you in the first post I mention it in.So you're saying the picture is a possible fake, do you have a link?
what part of "valid sources" are you too special to understand, surt? should i get the crayons?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I cannot believe we are still talking about this.Why are the folks who claim to be patriots defending fascists? Why are the folks who claim to hold traditional values defending a man beating a woman?
It is more party-before-country and ideology-before-principle bullshit that is ruining America.
Just to be clear who are the fascists in this situation, in your opinion?