"The Red Pill" and Feminist Violence

[Chimera]

No, not SATIRE! The Monster!

[Punoqllads]

Is ‘litote’ even a word? A real word, I mean, not like some French word.

[Helena330]

@Polar_Iceman

OK.
It seems that our society has surrendered to the fascists.
We no longer have free speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom of association.
We are not allowed to express non PC opinions, and are not allowed to defend ourselves.
We cross the thought police at grave risk.
George Orwell was a prophet; it’s just that he was a little early with his dates.

I’ll bet you don’t get a lot of dates, fortunately. I’m afraid for any woman that comes into contact with you.

[Sunny_Daze]

I don’t think we need to speculate about his dating life. It is fair ground to fear for the women in his life, based on his attitude here.

[Chimera]

@Sunny_Daze

I don’t think we need to speculate about his dating life. It is fair ground to fear for the women in his life, based on his attitude here.

I wouldn’t go so far as to assume that he has a dating life.

[Spice_Weasel]

He can probably get dates. Sustaining a meaningful relationship is more questionable.

I suspect the reason PUAs focus on getting laid is because nobody wants to be in a relationship with that sort of person. Getting laid is comparatively easy. So they tell themselves that’s all they want, anyway.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Spice_Weasel

He can probably get dates. Sustaining a meaningful relationship is more questionable.

I suspect the reason PUAs focus on getting laid is because nobody wants to be in a relationship with that sort of person. Getting laid is comparatively easy. So they tell themselves that’s all they want, anyway.

And they still fail. Much more than people actually looking for relationships.

[raventhief]

@Polar_Iceman

I don’t know; it is not the footage that was shown in the documentary.

However, the attitude of the obstructing crowd is pretty much the same as shown in the U of T footage.

Since the virtue signalers here are evidently incapable of going to Youtube and viewing the documentary, I will describe the specific incident.

The entrance to a lecture hall is blocked by a crowd of chanting and screaming “people”. They are physically blocking people from entering the hall. There is a group of police standing off to the side.
A man walks up and indicates an intention of entering the hall.
A “woman” detaches herself from the thugs and stands inches in front of him. She then places her face within inches of his and starts to scream vile abuse at him:
“You are fucking scum”; “You are a fucking c**t”; “You are a filthy rapist”; “You are a filthy fucking fascist”; “Etc, etc, more of the same”.
He says nothing and moves to one side, then the other in order to get around her. She moves in parallel with him each time, continuing to block him, and continues to hurl verbal abuse at him.
He turns to the police and says: “All I want to do is get inside and listen to a lecture.”
The police ignore him.
The abuse continues for another couple of minutes, then he turns and leaves the premises. Video ends.
I repeat my question: if he had decked her, would he be convicted of any charges?
As a supplementary question: could he file charges against the police for dereliction of duty?

Why the scare quotes around" people" and " women"?

[Rick_Sanchez]

@LSLGuy

Right *after *they hit you you’re welcome hit back reasonably proportionally. Or even more than that.

A year or so ago there was a youtube sensation where some wasted young folks were leaving a club/bar at closing time. Some woman was following some man out and eventually she shouted something, he turned around and took a badly thrown but full-effort punch from her to his face. He instantly entered a skilled fighters crouch, counter-punched, and knocked her unconscious with one shot to her face. As it happened, she hit her head on a curb as she fell inert and died a couple days later never regaining consciousness.

It was quite an intgernet sensation since it was all recorded on bystanders phones. It took just a couple days for the police to locate the guy. After no arrest and a short investigation no charges were filed.

Bottom line: you can legally kill a woman for hitting you ineffectually. Even after it was widely broadcast on the internet. The police will do nothing. Just don’t hit her for shouting at you. Don’t hit a him for shouting at you either.
Reality has a strong liberal bias. At least when viewed from the crazy bunker of the MRA crowd.

I just checked, and the girl in that video wasn’t killed, just FYI.

[Polar_Iceman]

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.
After watching the footage, he said.

1. The actions of the harpie constituted assault. The guy involved would have been justified in decking her.
2. The obstruction of access to the venue constituted an unlawful act; the police were derelict in their duty in not clearing access.
3. Under the circumstances, anyone being prevented from accessing the venue would be justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access. Courts would deem the obstruction by the protesters as an unlawful act and a justifying and mitigating factor.
4. In that the obstruction and the corresponding assaults by the protesters are unlawful acts, any action taken by the victims in mitigating an unlawful act are mitigating and exonerating acts.
   So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

[iiandyiiii]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.
After watching the footage, he said.

1. The actions of the harpie constituted assault. The guy involved would have been justified in decking her.
2. The obstruction of access to the venue constituted an unlawful act; the police were derelict in their duty in not clearing access.
3. Under the circumstances, anyone being prevented from accessing the venue would be justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access. Courts would deem the obstruction by the protesters as an unlawful act and a justifying and mitigating factor.
4. In that the obstruction and the corresponding assaults by the protesters are unlawful acts, any action taken by the victims in mitigating an unlawful act are mitigating and exonerating acts.
   So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

I don’t believe you.

[jz78817]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.

yeah, sure you did.

1. The actions of the harpie constituted assault. The guy involved would have been justified in decking her.

So sayeth the “lawyer” you just made up.

2. The obstruction of access to the venue constituted an unlawful act; the police were derelict in their duty in not clearing access.

bullshit. The police are under no obligation to provide/clear access to private property.

3. Under the circumstances, anyone being prevented from accessing the venue would be justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access. Courts would deem the obstruction by the protesters as an unlawful act and a justifying and mitigating factor.

I want access to your house. You’re assaulting me by preventing me from entering. I will get the police to knock down your door so I can enter. If you continue to resist, I will deck you. Or I’ll just shoot you to get in. by your logic, I’d be justified.

4. In that the obstruction and the corresponding assaults by the protesters are unlawful acts, any action taken by the victims in mitigating an unlawful act are mitigating and exonerating acts.
   So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

LOL. logic befitting a three-year-old. go back to your “incel” subreddit and moan about how those evil harpies won’t let you treat them like shit.

[Spice_Weasel]

Congratulations, you got the answer you wanted!

Are you feeling existentially fulfilled now?

I found something for you! He even mentions your specific situation within the first thirty seconds.

[DrFidelius]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.
After watching the footage, he said.

1. The actions of the harpie constituted assault. The guy involved would have been justified in decking her.
2. The obstruction of access to the venue constituted an unlawful act; the police were derelict in their duty in not clearing access.
3. Under the circumstances, anyone being prevented from accessing the venue would be justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access. Courts would deem the obstruction by the protesters as an unlawful act and a justifying and mitigating factor.
4. In that the obstruction and the corresponding assaults by the protesters are unlawful acts, any action taken by the victims in mitigating an unlawful act are mitigating and exonerating acts.
   So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

What fancy lawyer words did the “real lawyer” use instead of “harpie” or “deck?”

[Leaper]

If OP ever actually took action based on this “advice” from the “lawyer”, I predict it would end up a lot like one of those sovereign citizen cases, where the defendant is screaming that the judge doesn’t REALLY know the law, and demanding that the ruling follow what he thinks the law is.

[Punoqllads]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.
After watching the footage, he said.

1. The actions of the harpie constituted assault. The guy involved would have been justified in decking her.
2. The obstruction of access to the venue constituted an unlawful act; the police were derelict in their duty in not clearing access.
3. Under the circumstances, anyone being prevented from accessing the venue would be justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access. Courts would deem the obstruction by the protesters as an unlawful act and a justifying and mitigating factor.
4. In that the obstruction and the corresponding assaults by the protesters are unlawful acts, any action taken by the victims in mitigating an unlawful act are mitigating and exonerating acts.
   So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

A sock puppet over your hand does not constitute a real lawyer.

[LSLGuy]

@Rick_Sanchez

I just checked, and the girl in that video wasn’t killed, just FYI.

Thanks for the correction. I was going from memory. Not that I followed the case very closely when it happened.

What was the woman’s final condition? No lasting harm, mild concussion, permanent paralysis, what?

Do you have a link or a name I could search for? Not that I doubt you, I’d just like to close the loop on my own knowledge.

[Chimera]

@Polar_Iceman

So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you do that next time you’re in a similar situation and report back here about how that went.

Or don’t report back, because you’ll be in jail and we’ll be reading about you in the newspaper.

ps. it is spelled “Harpy”, no attorney used that word with you and I don’t think you’ll find anyone on this board who actually believes that you consulted an attorney.

Otherwise, you’re just a crying little toad and you should shuffle along. Quite clearly you are never going to find the support you’re begging for on this board.

[LSLGuy]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.
…

Taking you at your word …

The specifics of these legal issues depend greatly on which country and which state you’re in. We’ve heard from several people citing various local state statutes. And even from a lawyer in the UK.

The UT event took place in Canada. Which apparently is not the event in the OP video. Which raises a couple questions:

Which country, state, or province did the scene in the video take place?
Which state’s or province’s statutes was your lawyer source using to evaluate the case? Were they the same place? Is that lawyer licensed in that jurisdiction? Even though many states share very similar wording in their statutes, there can often be a wide variation in the details of how local courts treat commonplace legal ideas like “mitigation” or “exoneration”.

So: did you get good quality info, or just info you prefer to believe in?

[raventhief]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the fact that all I was getting here was a competition between individuals competing in the moral superiority Olympics, I spoke to a real lawyer about this.
After watching the footage, he said.

1. The actions of the harpie constituted assault. The guy involved would have been justified in decking her.
2. The obstruction of access to the venue constituted an unlawful act; the police were derelict in their duty in not clearing access.
3. Under the circumstances, anyone being prevented from accessing the venue would be justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access. Courts would deem the obstruction by the protesters as an unlawful act and a justifying and mitigating factor.
4. In that the obstruction and the corresponding assaults by the protesters are unlawful acts, any action taken by the victims in mitigating an unlawful act are mitigating and exonerating acts.
   So decking the harpie, and any of her comrades, would be justified and lawful.

Was this “lawyer” based in the jurisdiction where the “harpie” [sic] would have been “decked”?