Yes, this incident could never have happened in the present-day Flyover states. Many or most of the participants would have brought guns and been happy to use them.
These effeminate California antifa and Nazis weren’t even fighting like Real Americans™.
Yes. Her and her mob inflicted pain and possibly injury to a man who was merely speaking. They should be arrested. Do you support or advocate mob violence in response to speech?
Do you support or advocate responding to a post without reading it? (septimus already condemned the violence)
Do you support or advocate moving goalposts? (Ms. Falarca’s pugilism vs. the mob violence)
Apology accepted, of course.
Oh, it’s not working out nearly as well as I’d liked.
But consider the alternative: as you just pointed out, you doubt BAMN’s approach will do any good; and, as you added, it will only serve to enrage and stupefy various folks; and you then added that you don’t approve of violence anyway.
So on the one hand, it’d seem ill-advised of me to abandon my current approach for one that a wise and trusted source doesn’t approve of and doubts would do any good and assures me will only enrage and stupefy people.
And so you have my full attention if you’d like to instead suggest a third option.
But on the other hand, I can’t help but pause for a bit and think back to when, as you said, I cast my vote for a candidate who said “when they go low, we go high.”
Was that an incredibly stupid thing for her to say? Well, maybe; tell me we ought to ditch that foolishness for “when they go low, we go low right back”, and, hey, maybe I’ll agree with you. But to take it a step further than that – to admire someone for what you never doubted was assault; for committing a crime against somebody who, as far as you can tell, was just standing there obeying the law as the police stood by and did nothing – what, are we going “when they go high, we go low”, now?
Should I go find a law-abiding citizen who disagrees with me and assault him?
(bolding mine)
I’m not sure that characterizing the racist white nationalist as you are is accurate.
I think it’s arguable that he may have violated [California Penal Code Section 404.6 (Incitement) and/or California Penal Code Section 415 (Disturbing the Peace)
](Inciting a Riot (California Penal Code Section 404.6 PC))IMO he was clearly and deliberately provoking a crowd to attack him. He was, in the vernacular “trying to start some shit”.
As such, I think that painting him as an innocent bystander who was somehow targeted by a violent mob is tainting the discussion and the analysis of events.
I’m naturally all ears for more facts.
But, again, I was replying to what I’d copy-and-pasted the OP as saying: that he “never doubted that she was guilty of assault”. He also explained, in that same post, that she “certainly wasn’t acting in self-defense”.
If the OP would like to add that he believes the guy she assaulted had so encouraged or so urged, with the intent to cause a riot – or that he fought someone, or challenged someone to a fight, or whatever with the noise or the words and et cetera – then he’s free to do so, as are you. But I have it on good authority that she was committing assault; that it’s not even to be doubted; and that the rest is arguable.
::shrugs:: Okay, so argue it.
You know what, I actually owe you an apology. Despite all of you implications that what she did was OK because she didn’t hurt him I did miss the ONE admission you made buried in Post#19
As for the second point, you admirably demonstrate the double-standard I address.
Do you think those pushes or punches inflicted injury or pain on the neo-Nazi? No and grabbing a woman’s crotch does not inflict injury or [physical] pain on her.
Do you think they inflicted the same level of humiliation and revulsion that pussy-grabbing inflicts? Yes. It can be very humiliating and revolting for men to be physically attacked by a woman and not be able to do a thing about it. They are not even allowed to defend themselves lest THEY get arrested for assault. And FTR that means that I find BOTH women hitting men out of aggression AND uninvited pussy-grabbing wrong. At least be honest about it - the only reason you draw a distinction between the two is because pussy-grabbing is sexual in nature.
Let me ask you this, if the roles were reversed and it was a female white supremist and a man started laying hands on her (but not hurting her) and it escalated into her being thrown down and kicked would you admire him?
You can view the evidence yourself; bobot provided a link to a video that shows the entire encounter.
I have no qualms admitting that I admire some people who act illegally. MLK is one of my heroes; he was arrested 30 times for violating the laws of Alabama and other heinous cesspools. John Brown of Osawatomie and Harper’s Ferry was a murderer and was hung for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia; he is also one of my heroes. The American Founding Fathers committed crimes against their King.
OTOH, Trump, Bannon, Cheney, Rove et cetera have never been charged with any felony AFAIK, yet they all deserve to burn for eternity in Hell.
Those of you who say that Ms. Felarca committed assault, and therefore that ends the need for further discussion have such a kindergarten understanding of morality, I can only stand back and pity you, rather than pretend you have something useful to contribute.
So you think that feeble pushing rose to the same level of reprehensible violence as involuntary pussy grabbing? Let me stand back and just pity you too.
In what world is admiration condemnation? Do you even read, bro?
That’s retarded.
Shut up, and speculate!
Wow. You really Are an asshole. And a dishonest open at that. You thought about pitting me for posting a question in General Questions specifically to lawyers? :smack: Now you claim that I was not concerned about the people stomping on the guy. You quoted me, me you dummy:
As far as the stabbings, they don’t have anything to do with this incident. But I will say, from what I saw in the other video, the neo-nazis (or whatever stripe of asshole they were, were grossly outnumbered and were being attacked. I’m glad they were able to defend themselves against the shitheads. My sympathy tends to go to the side that did NOT start the violence, and tin this case was vastly outnumbered. So congratulations to the Antifa schmucks. You gave neo-nazis the moral high-ground.
Well, look, if I’m ever on trial for assault – or testifying against someone on trial for assaulting me – then I can but stand back and hope the judge and jury apply what you deride as a “kindergarten understanding of morality”: finding me ‘not guilty’ if that’s so, and finding my assailant ‘guilty’ if that’s so.
I’d stand back and hope the same thing when it comes to various other crimes: you know, that the “kindergarten understanding of morality” would win out if somebody were said to have committed armed robbery, or felony murder, or petit larceny, or whatever: that the law would be applied accordingly. (Wait, what am I saying? I’ve served on juries; that’s exactly what happened, because of course it is.)
You pity those who never moved past a “kindergarten understanding of morality”. Thing is, I’m not 100% sure that Ms. Felarca ever even made it to that point.
I’m not 100% sure you’re there yet, either.
It appears so. At least we’re clear that he admires it.
As you yourself point out I did do you the favor of quoting your post almost in its entirety. Where is the dishonesty? As for the stabbings being irrelevant, some would find that crime worse than the feeble pushings of a small woman. Some might wonder what the cops are doing to those who inflicted grievous injury — it wasn’t the “antifa.” Evidently YMMV.
I did leave out the closing of your post:
“I’m looking for straight legal answers here. Not interested in the righteousness of stupidity of either side’s beliefs. // Thanks.”
Since you weren’t interested in your own righteousness or stupidity I didn’t answer you in GQ. But I can’t imagine why you think such discussion is off-limits here. If I had written in the OP of this thread “I’m not interested in whether or not I’m an asshole” would your comment be out of line? 
In fact, although you framed your question as an innocent legal one, it reeked with your own pretensions, immorality, and whining hatred of those who oppose racism. You wanted the small Asian woman arrested for pushing and are unconcerned with (indeed happy about — “I’m glad they were able to defend themselves against the shitheads.”) the knife attacks by the Nazis.
If you want the thread to be about you, fine. Ask to have the title above transferred to the thread title.
"
Hey, Pepper — in future when you respond to one of my posts please include a note like “I read the post in its entirety.” In this case it sure seems like you haven’t read it; or if you did the frothing in your brain hindered comprehension.
I called attention to Martin Luther King, Jr. and America’s Founding Fathers as criminals whose crimes are often forgiven. You replace them with armed robbers and murderers.
If you want an honest debate, take the time to actually read my post and answer it honestly. If frothing-at-the-mouth non sequiturs is all you have, I’m afraid I’m uninterested.
Yes, I did also express admiration for John Brown, the great abolitionist who was a murderer.
He murdered slave-owners who were themselves attacking anti-slaver activists. Some respected historians judge that the North would not have pursued the Civil War with such huge zeal without the inspiration of John Brown; this would make him directly responsible for the emancipation of millions of enslaved blacks.
But go ahead and double-down. Demonstrate your kindergarten morality by claiming that my admiration for John Brown equates to admiration for more reprehensible murderers like Son of Sam, Jack the Ripper, and Dick Cheney. Ha ha ha!
Well, it’s possible.
Then again, it’s possible the error in comprehension was yours; after all, it wasn’t all that long ago that you read one of my posts and apparently jumped to the wrong conclusion – making a horrid assumption instead of asking a simple question.
I corrected you then, of course. But did I muse, then, about whether frothing in your brain hindered your comprehension? Did I request that, in the future, you preface your replies to me with a disclaimer? Did I insist on an apology?
(Mind you, I’d love an apology; that you chose to imply an insult rather than ask a question, it – well it haunts me; to this day, it haunts me; it’s a stark reminder, to me, of what your type of folly can swiftly lead to.)
Possibly I’ll do you the courtesy of jumping through your hoop if you’ll likewise do me the courtesy of admitting you’ve jumped to conclusions and learned your lesson?
Or we could dispense with courtesies on both sides. Your call all the way.
Well, not “replace” so much as – counterpoint? Let’s say “counterpoint”.
You mentioned a couple of examples, and I of course mentioned the opposite, since a crime can fall anywhere along the spectrum. And it of course seems to me that this assault – the one you grant she committed – more closely resembles the latter than the former; she seems more like someone who’d assault a terrific guy like me, and less like someone who deserves a holiday.
But if you’d like to argue the opposite position, feel free: given what you know, is she likely to assault me? Or is she more like King and the Founding Fathers?
Well, I want an honest debate, and I’ve never yet frothed in my life.
I read, pode. Did you read the OFP?