Clashes At SoCal Pro-Trump Rally

  • Thread starter Deleted member 491001
  • Start date
No, but it seems like cheering on violence is popular. As long as its against the other side.
There's a large difference between applauding defensive violence and advocating driving cars into people.
 
In short...the SJW are eating themselves...it's a disease...
Literally a Symptom of a idioloidiolgy gone viral, morphed into a mental virus. It's just going to have to play itself out. Where it ends up no one knows. This particular strain has never bin seen before, causes complete madness.
 
It's a little confusing in the article too; they called the 30 anti-Trumpers "counter-protesters"
lol, I guess there really couldn't be a decent expectation for good journalism. I think they just bungled their wording.

I can't really imagine caring enough to go to a rally as a protester or a supporter. My view has always just been to just take care of my own shit and give to charity whenever I'm able. It's never occurred to me to attend rallies for either side. "Just get off my ass" is the only thing I ask for politically.
 
No, but it seems like cheering on violence is popular. As long as its against the other side.

So who has been attacking who first.

The anti Trumps protesters.

Don't start no shit and there won't be no shit.

Free speech does not include attacking people and when you do fuck them and I hope they get the shit beat out of them. It's self-defence.
 
I am surprised that crowd did not shoot at the freed dives as they flew overhead.
 
HA! So the trump protesters tried to create a human wall and got there ass's beat and arrested. What did they think was going to happen with 30 people vs 2000. In recent times the left wing men that are throwing public temper tantrums over right wing views are huge pussies to begin with. Pepper spray or not they're not winning a fight 1 on 1 let alone being out numbered 2000 to 30.
 
There's a large difference between applauding defensive violence and advocating driving cars into people.


Defensive? Video showed a couple guys on top of someone curled into a ball punching him in the face. Punching someone in the vack of the head while they run away is not defense. Neither side had any intention of being defensive. They just wanted to hurt people.

So no, i dont view the trump supporters as the morally righteous group here. The anto trump protestors sure as hell arent either. Fuck em. Im glad they are in jail.

If we are gonna cheer on violence, lets get real violence.
 
reminds me of the time my boys were in a massive brawl (defending a drunk girl who a guy was fpndling in the guise of CPR) on PB one July 4th. Shit got outta hand, crowd formed a wall while dude and his friends got pieced up, but when teh cops finally got in they didn't play. Dude's getting tased left and right mid run, it was awesome. half the crowd got peppar sprayed. no joke it was a good 3-400 people involved

literally due to that you can no longer drink on the beach during the day there
if WSHH existed back then it would be the most famous video ever, but we didn't have camera phones really
 
Defensive? Video showed a couple guys on top of someone curled into a ball punching him in the face. Punching someone in the vack of the head while they run away is not defense. Neither side had any intention of being defensive. They just wanted to hurt people.

So no, i dont view the trump supporters as the morally righteous group here. The anto trump protestors sure as hell arent either. Fuck em. Im glad they are in jail.

If we are gonna cheer on violence, lets get real violence.
Beating the fuck out of a guy who pepper sprays someone is defensive. The idea that defensive violence must end once the initial aggression has been thwarted is a silly conceit. Showing up wanting to hurt someone but waiting for them to attack first is also defensive.

In the context of a political rally, it remains morally superior to beat the fuck out of some ruffian than it is for the ruffian to employ political violence to suppress legitimate political expression.
 
Beating the fuck out of a guy who pepper sprays someone is defensive. The idea that defensive violence must end once the initial aggression has been thwarted is a silly conceit. Showing up wanting to hurt someone but waiting for them to attack first is also defensive.

In the context of a political rally, it remains morally superior to beat the fuck out of some ruffian than it is for the ruffian to employ political violence to suppress legitimate political expression.

Beating the fuck out of an unresisting person on the ground is defending yourself now? Exactly how far does it have to go before it isnt defending yourself any more?
 
Beating the fuck out of a guy who pepper sprays someone is defensive. The idea that defensive violence must end once the initial aggression has been thwarted is a silly conceit. Showing up wanting to hurt someone but waiting for them to attack first is also defensive.

In the context of a political rally, it remains morally superior to beat the fuck out of some ruffian than it is for the ruffian to employ political violence to suppress legitimate political expression.

This.

You need to post more often in the wr.
 
Beating the fuck out of an unresisting person on the ground is defending yourself now? Exactly how far does it have to go before it isnt defending yourself any more?
Society's definition? Probably until you beat the snot out of him and he won't think about ever doing it again.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ts-son-molester-bloody-pulp-article-1.1872584

A dad walks in on his son getting molested. Goes on to beat the child molester. No charges for Dad and I think it's a good call.
frolander19n-1-web.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beating the fuck out of an unresisting person on the ground is defending yourself now? Exactly how far does it have to go before it isnt defending yourself any more?
There are legal limits, which are good. I'd say those limits lie roughly where the violence against the aggressor ended in this case, which is to say, he wasn't killed but probably took more of a beating than he would have preferred.

In principle, the fellow who initiated the violence remains the aggressor even when he is losing. Perhaps another way to restate that is that a man who pursues a strategy of aggression that initiates violence remains the aggressor even if forced into the use of defensive tactics.
 
2000 people lol.... how many were at the anti trump march?
 
There are legal limits, which are good. I'd say those limits lie roughly where the violence against the aggressor ended in this case, which is to say, he wasn't killed but probably took more of a beating than he would have preferred.

In principle, the fellow who initiated the violence remains the aggressor even when he is losing. Perhaps another way to restate that is that a man who pursues a strategy of aggression that initiates violence remains the aggressor even if forced into the use of defensive tactics.

California law says that he must pose an imminent danger. A man pinned under 2 people is not much of an imminent danger. Thinking he might get back up is not self defense.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/ herself/ [or] someone else).

If he got a beatdown and then arrested, great. Had it coming. A mob punching a person on the ground os not in the moral high ground. Cheering for them males people every bit as much of a scumbag as the agressors in this situation.
 
Back
Top