Support NeoGAF

[Crossing Eden]

Y'all sitting here talking bout "laws" and now more than ever it's apparent that Congress and Washington ain't working for the people.

Shaking my damn head.

There's a very VERY clear pattern of events that tend to happen vs. people suddenly being incredibly interested in very very strict definitions of a law system that constantly gets changed at best and at worst blatantly ignored in favor of the perpetrator, usually dependant on his race/gender. And brother dean "you deserved to be raped" saxton, richard "Ethnic Cleansing" spencer, ilo "I'm also a literal nazi who loves doxxing trans people and inciting violence against women" yiannopoulos, are all perfect examples of that. As there are specific laws in other places that would lead to them getting jail time. None of their shit even falls under the legal definition of free speech in the first place! Ugh!

 

[psyfi]

Sounds about right

 

[Breads]

What??

Quote the whole thing if you have a point to make.

 

[Messofanego]

Are we really trying to argue whether or not a poster called their cousin.

Really now?

Diversion tactic so people can stop discussing the actual issue into some dumb meta argument that will get this thread locked.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Unfortunately, I don't, but I am happy to move on amicably regardless.

Again I may be irate, but i'm one of the most honest people on this forum.

That's your take on it. Not mine.

According to the law it's the legal take on it. Legally He was already guilty for harassment and disturbing the peace.

I don't have a take on his speech because I frankly don't care. That isn't a discussion I am interested in having with you, sorry.

Clarify, his right to speech or what he was saying?

Diversion tactic so people can stop discussing the actual issue into some dumb meta argument that will get this thread locked.

Funny how that dude dipped when called out on it.

 

[Messofanego]

Funny how that dude dipped when called out on it.

These couple of people are obsessed with you lol

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm not in favor of hitting people in head with a baseball bat, but:

a) This guy repeatedly hurled abuse at children, and apparently has quite a history of it

b) The schools failed to protect their students

c) The police failed to protect the students, and it sounds like they failed to uphold the law (if the statements about them being on the scene and protecting the pastor are correct)

Given all of that, I'm going to have to empathize with the student (who is also a victim of the pastor's abuse), who lashed out with the bat. Given everyone else who has done wrong in this scenario, I'm going to judge her the least harshly.

This was my take as well, after watching the video. Obviously can't condone the whack...but I understand it.

 

[Psychoward]

According to what standard?

The standard of disliking people who talk about how girls deserve to be raped and assaulting them

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

There's a very VERY clear pattern of events that tend to happen vs. people suddenly being incredibly interested in very very strict definitions of a law system that constantly gets changed at best and at worst blatantly ignored in favor of the perpetrator, usually dependant on his race/gender. And brother dean "you deserved to be raped" saxton, richard "Ethnic Cleansing" spencer, ilo "I'm also a literal nazi who loves doxxing trans people and inciting violence against women" yiannopoulos, are all perfect examples of that. As there are specific laws in other places that would lead to them getting jail time. None of their shit even falls under the legal definition of free speech in the first place! Ugh!

If you think what they're doing is illegal then call the local police wherever they decide to show up. Update us on how that goes.

 

[Crossing Eden]

The standard of disliking people who talk about how girls deserve to be raped and assaulting them

There's such an obvious amount of universally agreed on dubious things that people would be better off without that I always question the intentions of people asking "by what standard." Standards that're already actively enforced in other places....Ծ_Ծ

If you think what they're doing is illegal then call the local police wherever they decide to show up. Update us on how that goes.

It's not that I think it's illegal, it's that what he's doing is genuinely illegal according to the laws of the states he does it in. Coupled with the history of physical assault of the same victims that he's harassing. Like, there's literally no nuance to this situation. Yet somehow people like you constantly try to downplay the severity of his actions. Hell if I lived in the same state and saw this guy on campus, you're goddamn right i'd call the police on this creepy ass neckbeard.

 

[StayDead]

This was my take as well, after watching the video. Obviously can't condone the whack...but I understand it.

I also want to throw my agreement here.

Violence doesn't solve anything, but I understand why she hit him. The sad thing is in this guys head he'll just use that as justification to spread his evil views even more.

 

[andymcc]

Like I'm seriously baffled that it took that long for him to get whacked. Like I said before, open carry state... in front of a school. I'm surprised someone didn't at least draw on him. Where were the overprotective second amendment diehards?

 

[Psychoward]

There's such an obvious amount of universally agreed on dubious things that people would be better off without that I always question the intentions of people asking "by what standard." Standards that're already actively enforced in other places....Ծ_Ծ

Yeah like look, I get that some people don't agree with her methods. Fine. The thing that I find disturbing is the disingenuous nature of how people are trying to treat her as worse than the person she hit and/or don't at least see why she did what she did. Or that it's fucked she faced jail time and a felony case while the guy who was preaching sexual violence on a high school campus and assaulted a completely innocent woman gets off with barely a slap on the wrist.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Yeah like look, I get that some people don't agree with her methods. Fine. The thing that I find disturbing is the disingenuous nature of how people are trying to treat her as worse than the person she hit and/or don't at least see why she did what she did. Or that it's fucked she faced jail time and a felony case while the guy who was preaching sexual violence on a high school campus and assaulted a completely innocent woman gets off with barely a slap on the wrist.

Exactly. Exactly why so many people faced backlash. You can do the "I don't condone violence" thing, but holy sht at equating her actions to his. The lack of empathy for the highschoolers, who're the victims, not this neckbearded fuck, is astounding. Like it's literally one of those moments where you have to stop and think "Wtf is going on in this country?"

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

There's such an obvious amount of universally agreed on dubious things that people would be better off without that I always question the intentions of people asking "by what standard." Standards that're already actively enforced in other places....Ծ_Ծ


It's not that I think it's illegal, it's that what he's doing is genuinely illegal according to the laws of the states he does it in. Coupled with the history of physical assault of the same victims that he's harassing. Like, there's literally no nuance to this situation. Yet somehow people like you constantly try to downplay the severity of his actions. Hell if I lived in the same state and saw this guy on campus, you're goddamn right i'd call the police on this creepy ass neckbeard.

Then find out where he is holding up his sign and call the police. Why does being in the same state and campus matter when reporting an illegal activity? People can swat streamers when they don't even live in the US so I don't see why you can't call the police in this situation. I'm sure the local police would happily like to take this guy down if it was legal, and if you believe what he is doing is illegal then report him to the police.

 

[Riposte]

It's not that I think it's illegal, it's that what he's doing is genuinely illegal according to the laws of the states he does it in. Coupled with the history of physical assault of the same victims that he's harassing. Like, there's literally no nuance to this situation. Yet somehow people like you constantly try to downplay the severity of his actions. Hell if I lived in the same state and saw this guy on campus, you're goddamn right i'd call the police on this creepy ass neckbeard.

There's going to be nuance to any free speech case (and this wasn't even a "case"). Free speech is something that gets argued over in court and it's more protected than not. A lot of the common tropes against it (e.g., fighting words, vague notions of "threat") fall flat on their face. There's the small matter of protests in public spaces along the lines of the highly vulgar Westboro Church are considered protected speech. Maybe this guy was being too disruptive compared to them, but there's nothing really decided about it.

Also your cousin's opinion doesn't really mean anything at all. I'm not saying you didn't call her, I'm saying it doesn't matter if you did or not. Ideally, if you wanted to prove your point, you would link court cases or the written work some known-names on the matter, like Ken White, or the ACLU, or even a wikipedia page. If she has any real authority on the matter, skip the telephone game and just link an explanation on the internet directly from her. I'd gladly admit if I'm wrong, but posting a description of a law without an expert analysis of how it intersects with free speech is pointless.

Calling the police would be the correct course of action, yeah. The school also should not have allowed students to engage him or form a crowd.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Then find out where he is holding up his sign and call the police. Why does being in the same state and campus matter when reporting an illegal activity? People can swat streamers when they don't even live in the US so I don't see why you can't call the police in this situation. I'm sure the local police would happily like to take this guy down if it was legal, and if you believe what he is doing is illegal then report him to the police.

Do you believe what he's doing is illegal?

There's going to be nuance to any free speech case. Free speech is something that gets argued over in court and it's more protected than not. A lot of the common tropes against it (e.g., fighting words, vague notions of "threat") fall flat on their face. There's the small matter of protests in public spaces along the lines of the highly vulgar Westboro Church are considered protected speech. Maybe this guy was being too disruptive compared to them, but there's nothing really decided about it.

This guy literally wasn't being covered by free speech laws so the issue of free speech doesn't even matter to this discussion.

Also your cousin's opinion doesn't really mean anything at all. I'm not saying you didn't call her, I'm saying it doesn't matter if you did or not. Ideally, if you wanted to prove your point, you would link court cases or the written work some known-names on the matter, like Ken White, or the ACLU, or even a wikipedia page. If she has any real authority on the matter, skip the telephone game and just link an explanation on the internet directly from her. I'd gladly admit if I'm wrong, but posting a description of a law without an expert analysis of how it intersects with free speech is pointless.

Yet her words checked out and were verified by other posters who posted the laws literally minutes after that part of the discussion. So it kinda does mean something. I just know I trust her opinions on free speech WAY more than people who have a gross misunderstanding of what it entails yet always forget about harassment laws.

Calling the police would be the correct course of action, yeah. The school also should not have allowed students to engage him or from a crowd.

The school should not have allowed him to be anywhere near the grounds and should've pursued legal action.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Do you believe what he's doing is illegal?

No, but I'm not a lawyer and reading legalese makes my head hurt. If I thought he was doing something illegal then I would report him to the police myself, which is something I have done before and the people who I reported wasn't in the state I lived in.

 

[Angelus Errare]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

 

[Crossing Eden]

No

All that needs to be said really.

but I'm not a lawyer and reading legalese makes my head hurt. If I thought he was doing something illegal then I would report him to the police myself, which is something I have done before and the people who I reported wasn't in the state I lived in.

Well instead of shitposting you could read up on the laws posted ITT. Because they're very succinctly laid out.

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

Lmfao

 

[DizzyCrow]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

Perfect.

 

[Riposte]

Do you believe what he's doing is illegal?


This guy literally wasn't being covered by free speech laws so the issue of free speech doesn't even matter to this discussion.


Yet her words checked out and were verified by other posters who posted the laws literally minutes after that part of the discussion. So it kinda does mean something.


The school should not have allowed him to be anywhere near the grounds and should've pursued legal action.

Addendum: The legal opinions of NeoGAF members also doesn't count as established, well-known expertise. I don't think I said anything confusing when I mentioned court cases, ACLU, etc.

He wasn't on a public space (near the school)?

By verified do you mean mashoutposse's post? I already mentioned that posting a description of a law is pointless, because it has to be proven he actually broke them. This is where the grayness of free speech is made immediately apparent. Not that it's random, there are a lot of precedents. For example, "3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person" - this sort of thing never holds up in court, because it's extremely difficult to justify. Ken White, aka Popehat, on "fighting words"

Trope Seven: "Fighting words"

Example: "There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of ”fighting words" or ”incitement," said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be "fighting words."

In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives — that's in serious doubt — it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

That's almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

Disclaimer: I am not blood related to Ken White. He is not my cousin or my uncle.

EDIT: To add, it's possible the "preacher", had he been charged, would've been guilty of something. I wouldn't argue against that entirely. But it is not certain and it's not certain you know what you are talking about.

 

[Kimawolf]

Do you believe what he's doing is illegal?


This guy literally wasn't being covered by free speech laws so the issue of free speech doesn't even matter to this discussion.


Yet her words checked out and were verified by other posters who posted the laws literally minutes after that part of the discussion. So it kinda does mean something. I just know I trust her opinions on free speech WAY more than people who have a gross misunderstanding of what it entails yet always forget about harassment laws.


The school should not have allowed him to be anywhere near the grounds and should've pursued legal action.

In the U.S. federal law trumps state law. Just like a state can do anything but make abortion illegal due to federal law.

As for this guy. I personally think some people need a good beat down every now and then. Racists, abusers etc. He get no sympathy from me.

I wish she would had taken time to think of possible consequence of her actions. She shut a guy up for a few days but now her life could be possibly ruined from getting a felony conviction. And make no mistake a judge won't give a fuck if she is a internet hero. So hopefully she only got probation. I would gope she could plead down to a lesser charge but i doubt it considering its on film and she hit a dude in the head with a baseball bat. Lucky for her he didn't die.

 

[chadtwo]

The standard of disliking people who talk about how girls deserve to be raped and assaulting them

This is a weak response, particularly in the context of the preceding discussion in which I posed the question, for a couple of reasons.

First, that's a great standard that you, I and most people share, but unfortunately not everyone. Ideally the jury process screens out people with overt prejudice, but it's not even close to perfect. If my own sincerely held moral convictions tell me that it is ok to make threats like the preacher did, then where does that leave us? Your standard isn't universal and therefore fails where the law does not.

Second, even among those who share this standard, there is room for a tremendous breadth of opinion on the moral rightness of the woman's actions. That is, a dislike of people who hold signs advocating rape does not logically necessitate the belief that the law should overlook physical violence against those individuals.

In short, your standard is not universal and internally inconsistent. I don't mean this as an attack -- my point is that any moral standard by which juries could be told to deliberate is inadequate in just the same ways, which is why legal standards should ultimately prevail, in my opinion.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Addendum: The legal opinions of NeoGAF members also doesn't count as established, well-known expertise. I don't think I said anything confusing when I mentioned court cases, ACLU, etc.

He wasn't on a public space (near the school)?

He was across the street, this is some "i'm not touching" you level ridiculousness. Harassment is harassment and he had clear intent.

By verified do you mean mashoutposse's post? I already mentioned that posting a description of a law is pointless, because it has to be proven he actually broke them.

There's literally video evidenc of him harassing the students....a history of said harassment, and said harassment leading to the assault of another woman...how in the world is it not proven?

This is where the grayness of free speech is made immediately apparent.

Not that it's random, there are a lot of precedents. For example, "3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person" - this sort of thing never holds up in court, because it's extremely difficult to justify. Ken White, aka Popehat, on "fighting words"[/QUOTE]
Except that there's literally video evidence of his actions, more than several eye witnesses who're his victims, multiple adults, etc. It's absolutely justifiable as evidence in court

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

All that needs to be said really.


Well instead of shitposting you could read up on the laws posted ITT. Because they're very succinctly laid out.


Lmfao

So you see someone doing something that is reprehensible and you believe is illegal, but you won't take any action that is expected of a responsible citizen to stop it because of, imo, lame reasons. And I'm the one that's shitposting. I think we've got a slacktivist here. You can't even be bothered to make a simple phone call. You're pathetic and just full of hot air.

 

[oldboss]

i hope she didn't get covered in too much piece of shit blood. Gotta be nasty.

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

ahaha, fucking perfect.

 

[Yayate]

So you see someone doing something that is reprehensible and you believe is illegal, but you won't take any action that is expected of a responsible citizen to stop it because of, imo, lame reasons. And I'm the one that's shitposting. I think we've got a slacktivist here. You can't even be bothered to make a simple phone call. You're pathetic and just full of hot air.

It happened a year ago and he more-recently got arrested for assaulting a women that tried to debate his views with him. You are the one that's shitposting.

 

[Crossing Eden]

So you see someone doing something that is reprehensible and you believe is illegal, but you won't take any action that is expected of a responsible citizen to stop it because of, imo, lame reasons. And I'm the one that's shitposting. I think we've got a slacktivist here. You can't even be bothered to make a simple phone call. You're pathetic and just full of hot air.

I literally just said to stop shitposting, not that I wouldn't be willing to call the police on this man. I don't think you genuinely care about me doing so so much as your aim is to shitpost enough in order to say the bolded unprovoked as some sort of "gotcha." Thanks for proving the point tho.

 

[Messofanego]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

 

[Eusis]

Guy is clearly an asshole but assholes have the right to free speech as much as anyone. Using violence is always the wrong way. Nobody deserves to be physically hurt because he says something others don't like.

Even free speech needs SOME limits as shouting fire in a crowd makes clear. Something like this shouldn't be allowed at a school at the very least, but preferably no where.

EDIT: And given how things have gone in other countries curtailing hate speech I'm seriously doubting we can't do similar while still following the spirit of the first amendment.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

I literally just said to stop shitposting, not that I wouldn't be willing to call the police on this man. I don't think you genuinely care about me doing so so much as your aim is to shitpost enough in order to say the bolded unprovoked as some sort of "gotcha." Thanks for proving the point tho.

Congrats on your internet points, keyboard warrior. You made two silly qualifications on why you wouldn't call the police so maybe it isn't unreasonable for me to think you weren't interested in taking any action. Please continue being dismissive to people who disagree on the legality of the situation even if you don't know what they're feelings are about it. What a horrible attitude you have.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Congrats on your internet points, keyboard warrior.

Dude really? This isn't youtube or gamefaqs.

You made two silly qualifications on why you wouldn't call the police

An interesting interpretation of your posts, as well as mine. Here's a thought, literally point out to where I said this.

so maybe it isn't unreasonable for me to think you weren't interested in taking any action.

Your line of logic genuinely makes zero sense.

Please continue being dismissive to people who disagree on the legality of the situation even if you don't know what they're feelings are about it. What a horrible attitude you have.

You're literally disagreeing with the law tho....over a grown man.....who has a history of violence..saying that teenagers deserve to be raped. You think that doesn't fall under the definition of harassment laws? I'm not the only one who called you out on your shitposting either.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Dude really? This isn't youtube or gamefaqs.


An interesting interpretation of your posts.


Your line of logic genuinely makes zero sense.


You're literally disagreeing with the law tho....over a grown man.....who has a history of violence..saying that teenagers deserve to be raped. You think that doesn't fall under the definition of harassment laws? I'm not the only one who called you out on your shitposting either.

Hell if I lived in the same state and saw this guy on campus, you're goddamn right i'd call the police on this creepy ass neckbeard.

You don't this statement you made was a weak excuse for no action? That's how I read it and instead of saying in the next post something like, "No, I will call police.", you chose to deflect and ask me a stupid question.

As I understand the law, which I assume you're an expert in from your behavior, but I'm a layman, he isn't doing anything illegal. People have been making awful signs and saying awful shit at random people, but they've been protected by the first amendment in the past. But if it is illegal why don't you report him to police since you seem so sure of it when he shows up with his sign again.

 

[bebop242]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

Brilliantly done.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You don't this statement you made was a weak excuse for no action? That's how I read it and instead of saying in the next post something like, "No, I will call police.", you chose to deflect and ask me a stupid question.

So you're arguing over the semantics in an effort to call me a weak activist? Yet again I don't think you're being genuine. ESPECIALLY considering your post history. So please. Stop shitposting.

As I understand the law, which I assume you're an expert in from your behavior, but I'm a layman, he isn't doing anything illegal.

You'd be wrong.

People have been making awful signs and saying awful shit at random people, but they've been protected by the first amendment in the past. But if it is illegal why don't you report him to police since you seem so sure of it when he shows up with his sign again.

He's already been arrested, is on probation, and is banned from the campus. And looking up recent things about the guy he hasn't been seen since.

You're literally asking me to do something that's already been accomplished.
Btw nice false equivalence. But somebody already addressed the bolded in this thread. You're welcome to try reading it.

 

[SigSig]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

excellent

 

[Media]

Everyone is arguing to the fact that the police should have handled it are ignoring the many times people have brought up the fact that the police have been called on this guy numerous times and they didn't do anything until he kicked someone.

I'm a victim of rape, so my horse is this race is a bit more lathered than most but look at this way.

These kids go to that school everyday. They are there likely more than they are at home.

If this dude stood on your front walk everyday, yelling about how your daughter or wife deserved to be raped, and you called the cops a bunch of times and they just shrugged, can you honestly say you wouldn't try and end it yourself?

 

[Got]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

in a just world...

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Terrible thing for her to do.

Everybody knows you go for the sides of the knees.

 

[Metaphoreus]

By verified do you mean mashoutposse's post? I already mentioned that posting a description of a law is pointless, because it has to be proven he actually broke them.

It's actually pointless because it's irrelevant to whether the girl was justified in using deadly force--or any force, for that matter--against the preacher. As the 9th Circuit put it in a case applying a self-defense rule similar to Arizona's:

[W]hen a person receives harsh words from another, insulting words, demeaning words, or even fighting words, there is no privilege to assault the speaker with deadly force. Stated another way, a person insulted by a personal slur cannot stab the offending speaker in the neck, bash their skull with a baseball bat, send a bullet to their heart, or otherwise deploy deadly force in response to the insult.

Put differently, even when speech is not protected under the First Amendment, that doesn't mean the listeners are entitled to use force against the speaker. So it just doesn't matter whether the preacher was violating A.R.S. 13-2904.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Everyone is arguing to the fact that the police should have handled it are ignoring the many times people have brought up the fact that the police have been called on this guy numerous times and they didn't do anything until he kicked someone.

I'm a victim of rape, so my horse is this race is a bit more lathered than most but look at this way.

These kids go to that school everyday. They are there likely more than they are at home.

If this dude stood on your front walk everyday, yelling about how your daughter or wife deserved to be raped, and you called the cops a bunch of times and they just shrugged, can you honestly say you wouldn't try and end it yourself?

Exactly, it literally took until he physically assaulted someone unprovoked for the police to actually do something. What if he had done something a lot worse than an unprovoked kick to the chest, and person reading this, please consider the fucked up context of that question. The one in which a man who's advocating for sexual assault on campuses stopped at kicking a woman in the chest.

It's actually pointless because it's irrelevant to whether the girl was justified in using deadly force--or any force, for that matter--against the preacher. As the 9th Circuit put it in a case applying a self-defense rule similar to Arizona's:



Put differently, even when speech is not protected under the First Amendment, that doesn't mean the listeners are entitled to use force against the speaker. So it just doesn't matter whether the preacher was violating A.R.S. 13-2904.

Again the discussion wasn't whether or about she was legally in the wrong, but about whether to condone her actions. For many people that've left the thread they decided to go with "but she was breaking the law." As if that's some golden standard when the dude she assaulted was too, breaking the law.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Diversion tactic so people can stop discussing the actual issue into some dumb meta argument that will get this thread locked.

Yep. Transparent as fuck. Those posters are the ones being dishonest here.

 

[4 is a cutie]

If he didn't want to be assaulted by batgirl he shouldn't have been so provocative in how he dressed and what signs he held up, he was asking for it. Besides if it was assault assault the body has ways to shut that down.

So hopefully a judge questions why the man was there and why he acted the way he did if he didn't want to get assaulted. I don't think we should ruin this girl's life over 3 minutes of fun, after all girls will be girls.

whew

 

[A Link to the Past]

I love how the thread devolved into desperately trying to prove that Crossing Eden is a liar

 

[FyreWulff]

They shouldn't have ever arrested her. Don't want none, don't start none.

The issue isn't that he was stopped, but how he was stopped. In this case, being struck in he head with a bat. So what you're saying here is that if somebody is telling minors they should be raped, that in your mind it is legally justifiable to strike them in the head with a bat[/b[. That's at least what your actions of aquitting would be doing.

It should be. You can say whatever you want, but you should also be aware there are consequences, like getting i-framed by a woman with a bat.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Again the discussion wasn't whether or about she was legally in the wrong, but about whether to condone her actions. For many people that've left the thread they decided to go with "but she was breaking the law." As if that's some golden standard when the dude she assaulted was too, breaking the law.

Sometimes there's a difference between whether an act is legal and whether it is moral (or should otherwise be condoned). This isn't one of those times.

For those who treat the legality of the girl's behavior as the only consideration, it's no answer to point to the supposed illegality of the preacher's conduct--except to the extent that it legally justifies the girl's behavior. (It doesn't.) This is just one giant non sequitur. The girl was legally and morally in the wrong, regardless of whether the preacher was, too.

They shouldn't have ever arrested her. . . .

You can say whatever you want, but you should also be aware there are consequences, like getting i-framed by a woman with a bat.

Right, there are consequences for saying mean things, but shouldn't be consequences for physical assault. What a morally perverse worldview.

 

[Nephtis]

She wouldn't have been identified has the assistant principal not been there. People probably would have been willing to turn a blind eye.

She does deserve punishment because violence should never be the solution to these type of problems. I wish they weren't felonies though.

 

[Riposte]

Again the discussion wasn't whether or about she was legally in the wrong, but about whether to condone her actions. For many people that've left the thread they decided to go with "but she was breaking the law." As if that's some golden standard when the dude she assaulted was too, breaking the law.

You still haven't really linked anything solid to back your reasoning and, again, someone posting that law a few pages back doesn't help much. I would like it if you could explain how the Supreme Court decision on the Westboro Church doesn't apply here. You've begun to mention Harassment (a different law), but that too has to be seen through the lens of speech. Looking around, as I'm not as familiar, it seems just as vague and open to contention (e.g., whether the guy was targeting a "specific" person, one aspect of legal harassment). This is to be expected. This is what I meant by "proven". Not showing evidence that it "happened", but what it means in context of the first amendment. You were being pretentious about your knowledge/cousin's knowledge of the law for some reason, but if you are not going to back it up with reputable sources, there's no point in being smug about it. I doubt there's anything else to say about this.

I actually don't understand your point. Why would I condone either of their actions? I'm pointing out how he may not have broken the law (or wouldn't be guilty in a hypothetical case), because you seem dead certain he did, even though you also seem to imply it doesn't matter if he didn't. I don't think think assaulting him with a weapon is wrong because it's against the law, I think it's wrong for the same reason it was made a law in the first place. Likewise, doing something that's not against the law doesn't improve my impression of someone and it seems he's not much better at keeping his hands to himself. Honestly, I find the whole notion of "I know it's illegal, but I condone it" from a internet voyeur to be kind of grotesque - celebrating violence with none of the cost. ChefRamsay said it well. I wonder if this recent antifa flavored chest-beating made this girl lose perspective and derail her life for a few minutes of adrenaline-fueled triumph. Nothing heroic about it.

BTW, I'm not accusing you of being a liar.

Even free speech needs SOME limits as shouting fire in a crowd makes clear. Something like this shouldn't be allowed at a school at the very least, but preferably no where.

EDIT: And given how things have gone in other countries curtailing hate speech I'm seriously doubting we can't do similar while still following the spirit of the first amendment.

"Shout fire in a crowded theater" is a debunked cliche that has no real relevance to the conversation of free speech. Just look to actual crimes if you want to point out the limits of speech, like perjury.

 

[Yayate]

I wonder if this recent antifa flavored chest-beating made this girl lose perspective and derail her life for a few minutes of adrenaline-fueled triumph. Nothing heroic about it.

Might wanna look at the date this actually happened.

"Shout fire in a crowded theater" is a debunked cliche that has no real relevance to the conversation of free speech. Just look to actual crimes if you want to point out the limits of speech, like perjury.

Other countries criminalize hate-speech and they're just fine. Plenty of countries would consider this an actual crime.