30 year old man assaults teen and steals MAGA hat

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, I assuming that you're giving more trust to an anonymous source than you are to a video that at least shows some of what happened. after all, the anonymous source was enough to convince you that the kids probably weren't "innocent little snowflakes".

No one disputes what the guy did, I question the value of said clips when they are used to push an idea/agenda (maga hate time!)

What the guy did was wrong, I wanted to know what motivated the aggressive behavior if you believe the 20-second clip tells the whole story good for you, I know 20-second clips don't tell the whole story.

Someone that came out anonymous that commented about what was said in the diner, they didn't want to go on the record. I don't blame them, who wants your name all over social media and your family being threatened over a soda/hat incident.

Too bad the other person in the video didn't upload his video, you could see him recording behind the situation in jeans.

Originally posted by snowdragon
No one disputes what the guy did, I question the value of said clips when they are used to push an idea/agenda (maga hate time!)

What the guy did was wrong, I wanted to know what motivated the aggressive behavior if you believe the 20-second clip tells the whole story good for you, I know 20-second clips don't tell the whole story.

Someone that came out anonymous that commented about what was said in the diner, they didn't want to go on the record. I don't blame them, who wants your name all over social media and your family being threatened over a soda/hat incident.

Too bad the other person in the video didn't upload his video, you could see him recording behind the situation in jeans.

The clip proves he did it, without proof the guy could just deny it, assuming he was ever found as the clip is the only reason he was able to be ID'd. I'd say that makes the clips value extremely high.

How do you know this specific clip doesn't show the whole story?

The anonymous source provided no evidence to support his claim, so why put so much trust into him and make no mistake, saying that the kids were probably not innocent is putting trust in the anonymous sources claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The clip proves he did it, without proof the guy could just deny it, assuming he was ever found as the clip is the only reason he was able to be ID'd. I'd say that makes the clips value extremely high.

How do you know this specific clip doesn't show the whole story?

The anonymous source provided no evidence to support his claim, so why put so much trust into him and make no mistake, saying that the kids were probably not innocent is putting trust in the anonymous sources claim.

You are clearly looking to climb a mountain over this.

Everyone, literally everyone on this forum has said the guy is wrong.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You are clearly looking to climb a mountain over this.

Everyone, literally everyone on this forum has said the guy is wrong.

Not everyone, I can name at least one person in this thread that hasn't.

But that isn't my point, I'm trying to understand why you're putting so much faith in an anonymous source that has provided zero evidence.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You are clearly looking to climb a mountain over this.

Everyone, literally everyone on this forum has said the guy is wrong.

just play their cute little game when one of theirs is beyond repugnant. watch me, now:

awful

an acceptable substitution is apparently "womp womp"

Originally posted by Robtard
I was unaware that splashing something with a cold beverage was "assault" though. Seem like a rather harsh sentence for such a benign crime.

Yeah, physically touching someone's body when they don't want it is battery. I can see how throwing ice water in someone's face could be escalated a bit higher.

It's the place we live in. You can't just throw icewater in people's faces. Use your words. Don't touch unless it's welcomed.

Originally posted by Robtard
What if the kid was a member of the Alliance and the guy was a member of the Horde? This would be HUGE news.

Triggered.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
just play their cute little game when one of theirs is beyond repugnant. watch me, now:

awful

I still love the fact you guys are triggered over this. So much butthurt.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You are clearly looking to climb a mountain over this.

Everyone, literally everyone on this forum has said the guy is wrong.

But you also seemed to question the validity of it because some anonymous person said "they was talking about hanging blacks!".

Is that not what you were implying?

I guess I'm also a bit confused. How is the witness able to remain anonymous when...people already gave his family death threats? Isn't the cat out of the bag...by the time you are getting death threats?

Are they under the impression these people are going "well, we threatened this guy for saying the white kids were racist, but we are PERPLEXED at this now anonymous person claiming the same exact thing" ? You see because people who send others death threats are known for being rational...lol. They'd just assume the anonymous person was the same person they threatened, and then would probably spread his name around.

Help me make sense of what is being claimed. Cuz if you're already getting threatened you aren't anonymous anymore. And it's not like the place this occurred was SWAMPED with people. So to me, what you posted sounds like someone bullshitting. "We don't wanna give out the name cuz we fear threats" makes sense. "We don't wanna name it cuz they've already received threats, which means somewhere they were named" makes no sense here. It would make sense if there were literally hundreds of possible people who could be reporting these things, but it was a friggin what a burger.

My question is more along the lines of how is he already getting death threats when that article appears to be the first time he made the claim.

Originally posted by Surtur
Triggered.

I still love the fact you guys are triggered over this. So much butthurt.

look at all the pretend wins you're racking up. good for you. *clap*

Originally posted by Surtur
People these days do not need a reason beyond "I don't like that hat cuz Trump". It's sad, but true. These people were never tolerant. They just usually could express that intolerance via their SJW bullshit. But these days it's clearly not working as well as they had hoped. So now, like a wounded animal, they are lashing out physically.

Is it really that different in your eyes as opposed to other times throughout history? Did people ever need a reason beyond religion, politics, sports etc... People have been whooping other people's asses in bars and on the streets for these reasons ever since there have been bars asses and streets.

Go to a Boston or new York sports bar a few times wearing a hat from the opposing city's team after that city loses a game or series and see if people are willing to fight u over a hat.

Now everyone has a cell phone and posts a vid so they and their side can have a nice collective cry over it, but it's been happening for ages.

As for the topic, if what the anonymous witness said is true, then 16 is plenty old enough to know that saying those things in public (especially at a bar) around the wrong person can and probably will lead to an ass kicking and deservedly so.

If they aren't true then the guy should definately been fired and technically arrested under the letter of the law.

Though if a spokesman for the police department said they would only charge him if he turned himself in and they weren't going to waste the departments time and resources finding a guy who took a hat off some kids head and splashed some water I wouldn't really care.

Here is the thing: you don't have the right to assault someone just because they say something offensive. 16 or 60. But we've seen no evidence so far those anonymous claims are true.

Originally posted by Surtur
Here is the thing: you don't have the right to assault someone just because they say something offensive. 16 or 60. But we've seen no evidence so far those anonymous claims are true.

Also do u really see people "these days" as being much different than the past. Do u think that no one ever got into a scuffle over an I support JFK shirt or a Go Nixon hat in a bar in the sixties? Or do u think the same stuff probably happened, but no one had a way to record and post it?

I mean there are a shit ton of bars around the world that have signs hanging saying things like "no talking politics or religion" for a reason, and they've been hanging there way before Trump or sjw's.

Originally posted by Raptor22
that's all well and good to say, but what percent of people in your opinion, that are preaching that, would actually refrain from whooping someones ass (if they physically could) in a bar or on the street if someone said the wrong thing to/around them or their wife/kids/mother etc... I personally think that fear of getting their own ass beaten is a bigger deterrent than whether or not it's within their rights.

Loads of people would refrain. Not because they agree, but so they don't wanna wind up getting arrested like this guy.

There is also the potential threat to their wife/kid/mother. Everybody has a camera on their phone and people on social media can quickly identify someone. Including finding out their address. This guys brother got death threats cuz they thought they still lived together.

Also do u really see people "these days" as being much different than the past. Do u think that no one ever got into a scuffle over an I support JFK shirt or a Go Nixon hat in a bar in the sixties? Or do u think the same stuff probably happened, but no one had a way to record and post it?

I mean there are a shit ton of bars around the world that have signs hanging saying things like "no talking politics or religion" for a reason, and they've been hanging there way before Trump or sjw's.

Sure they did before, but it seemed like we'd made some progress when it comes to beating people down for political views. I guess not.

Hilarious. Now you will see copy cats. I bet the guys who got drinks all over their face was stunned!! Lol

Originally posted by Raptor22
that's all well and good to say, but what percent of people in your opinion, that are preaching that, would actually refrain from whooping someones ass (if they physically could) in a bar or on the street if someone said the wrong thing to/around them or their wife/kids/mother etc... I personally think that fear of getting their own ass beaten is a bigger deterrent than whether or not it's within their rights.

Also do u really see people "these days" as being much different than the past. Do u think that no one ever got into a scuffle over an I support JFK shirt or a Go Nixon hat in a bar in the sixties? Or do u think the same stuff probably happened, but no one had a way to record and post it?

I mean there are a shit ton of bars around the world that have signs hanging saying things like "no talking politics or religion" for a reason, and they've been hanging there way before Trump or sjw's.

It doesn't matter how many people you think would do it, a grown man attacking a 16 year old is still wrong.

And I called it:

Man who attacked Texas teen for wearing ‘MAGA’ hat speaks out, explains why he stole the hat

No mention of the teens talking about hanging blacks or anything. So we can take two things away from this. One is that the hat set him off, so it's Trump Derangement Syndrome. Two is that some pathetic leftist out there saw a story about a 16 yr. old being assaulted for having a MAGA hat and decided to...smear the kid as a racist.

Indeed, tolerant as hell.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It doesn't matter how many people you think would do it, a grown man attacking a 16 year old is still wrong.

I did state my belief that alot of people would say that u don't have the right to assault someone for saying something offensive but if placed in a similar situation might act in a manner different from their previous statements. And I was curious to what Surturs opinion was on what percent of people would say that and then actually practice what they preach. That's kind of why I asked him his opinion on the matter.

As to the second part, I disagree. There are plenty of things a 16 year old can say or do that would earn them a deserved ass whooping from an adult.

The law disagrees with you, you are never allowed to use physical force against someone because you don't like what they said.