Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 212

Thread: Trump protester blindsided as led out of rally

  1. #31
    The Washington Post is reporting that John McGraw, the old man, after sucker-punching the black guy, said this:

    “We don’t know who he is, but we know he’s not acting like an American,” McGraw added. “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.”
    Whatever your feelings about protestors, I think that is extreme.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Top Rated Influencer Danke's Avatar


    Posts
    41,852
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    “It’s happening at all these rallies now and they’re letting it ride,” Jones said. “The police jumped on me like I was the one swinging.”

    Then don't go to Trumps rallies. Pretty simple.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    “It’s happening at all these rallies now and they’re letting it ride,” Jones said. “The police jumped on me like I was the one swinging.”

    Then don't go to Trumps rallies. Pretty simple.
    He's upset that the tired old bag of media-manipulation and opposition-suppression tricks doesn't work anymore. Poor baby.

    Used to be that when a man set out to look for a fight, he wasn't surprised when he got one.

  6. #34
    If a 78 year old man with a ponytail whupped my ass, I'd keep moving and hoped nobody saw it.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    This is awesome. He's building an army. This epitomizes dedication, though I'd rather see the old guy save some venom for the authorities.
    Yeah. Awesome.



    If you think that's awesome, just wait until you see:



    Now how awesome is that eh?

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    The Washington Post is reporting that John McGraw, the old man, after sucker-punching the black guy, said this:



    Whatever your feelings about protestors, I think that is extreme.
    Is sure as hell ought to be. Just look at these numb nuts falling all over themselves to defend it.
    http://glenbradley.net/share/aleksan...nitsyn_4-t.gif “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    An actual libertarian would recognize this guy as not a protester but a criminal committing intentional trespass with malice.

    But I come to understand that in the New Libertarianism, private property is fungible if you don't like the property owner or what he does with his own property. Because principles.
    Because in your stupid little universe, "liberty" means the right to sucker punch people at will, "because principles" eh?

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Is sure as hell ought to be. Just look at these numb nuts falling all over themselves to defend it.
    One of the defining principles of Libertarianism is the NAP. Threatening someone's life because they made you mad, is way over the top.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    An actual libertarian would recognize this guy as not a protester but a criminal committing intentional trespass with malice.

    But I come to understand that in the New Libertarianism, private property is fungible if you don't like the property owner or what he does with his own property. Because principles.
    I thought about starting a thread about this when I read, but decided not to.

    But yes, you sometimes have the right to defend yourself from disruptions, and under traditional law, you can defend yourself from insults too, and you would not be the one starting it - fighting words.

    But it could be taken too far, and itself be used as an excuse - so what is the limit, when are words considered force-able enough to use force - like fighting words under common law, and things like that -- and does it merit that in this particular incident?
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 10:01 PM.

  12. #40
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Jake Tapper just asking Trump about this "sucker-punch" at debate.

    Technical question for above discussion . . .
    the black protesters were technically under custody of security being escorted out of the arena?



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    One of the defining principles of Libertarianism is the NAP. Threatening someone's life because they made you mad, is way over the top.
    some words are the use of force, and always have been under the law. I suggest we go back to that time - where people could protect themselves. If you keep insulting someone, that person has the right to use force to defend himself if he chooses.
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 09:43 PM.

  15. #42
    The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    I thought about starting a thread about this when I read, but decided not to.

    But yes, you sometimes have the right to defend yourself from disruptions, and under traditionally law, you can defend yourself from insults to, and you would not be the one starting it - fighting words.

    But it could be taken to far too, and itself be used as an excuse - so what is the limit, when are words considered force-able enough yo use force - like fighting words under common law, and things like that -- and does it merit that in this particular incident?
    I find it difficult to imagine a situation, outside of a crime in progress, where someone can yell "$#@! you!" to your face and slugging him isn't a fully justified action. We'd have to go into weird edge cases like people suffering from Tourette's to find such a situation.

    Note this trespasser and the photographer from the BLM stunt both did exactly that, proving malice if it wasn't obvious already.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    One of the defining principles of Libertarianism is the NAP. Threatening someone's life because they made you mad, is way over the top.
    In this instance, the provocation is the violation of NAP, not the response. Aggression most certainly can be verbal, as the fighting words doctrine describes.

    It's not because they "made you mad", it's because they intentionally sought to inflict injury onto you which justifies the response and makes it consistent with adherence to NAP.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    Jake Tapper just asking Trump about this "sucker-punch" at debate.

    Technical question for above discussion . . .
    the black protesters were technically under custody of security being escorted out of the arena?
    Yes, and I would tend to say it was wrong just for that reason. You don't hit someone already under restraint.

    But if it was before that - the security had a right to remove the protester by force. The protester was not exercising free speech. He was just trespassing to disrupt someone else's speech.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Because in your stupid little universe, "liberty" means the right to sucker punch people at will, "because principles" eh?
    In my universe, Donald Trump also has freedom of speech and this little turd you're now defending was violating Trump's liberty.

    Or is liberty only for people you like? Is that how it goes in Gunnyland?

  20. #47
    fyi - the right to defend yourself before force has been overtly shown - ie someone is threatening you - is similar.

    Picture if you will Han Solo - before George Lucus turned yellow and Mickey Mouse offed him!

    Han Solo had every right to shoot Greedo. Greedo was pointing a blaster at him and threatening to kill him. Han didn't have to tell Greedo he had a blaster too - in fact it was a good thing not to.

    That might have been the whole point of Star Wars. "Use the force" - Luke.
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 09:57 PM.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Because in your stupid little universe, "liberty" means the right to sucker punch people at will, "because principles" eh?
    Be careful Gunny. thoutomater has done more for the Liberty movement than anyone on these boards and therefore no one has a right to challenge his love and support for all things Trump. Or so he says. That would include you.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    fyi - the right to defend yourself before force has been overtly shown - ie someone is threatening you - is similar.

    Picture if you will Han Solo - before George Lucus turned yellow and Mickey Mouse offed him!

    Han Solo had every right to shoot Greedo. Greedo was pointing a blaster at him and threatening to kill him. Han didn't have to tell Greedo he had a blaster too - in fact it was a good thing not to.

    That might have been the whole point of Star Wars. "Use the force" - Luke.
    That's the-most-$#@!ing-god-damned-idiotic-analogy WRT this thread. Seriously. Take a break.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    In this instance, the provocation is the violation of NAP, not the response. Aggression most certainly can be verbal, as the fighting words doctrine describes.
    He wasn't using "fighting words", and he was being escorted out of the arena by security. They had the situation under control. Then this guy sucker-punched him, and later threatened to kill him. That's not NAP in any sense of the word.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    He's upset that the tired old bag of media-manipulation and opposition-suppression tricks doesn't work anymore. Poor baby.

    Used to be that when a man set out to look for a fight, he wasn't surprised when he got one.
    drumroll. Maybe the old man shouldn't have hit him after he was in custody, but the protester was certainly looking for trouble. Yes, under traditional law, that counted for something in judging the case.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    He wasn't using "fighting words", and he was being escorted out of the arena by security. They had the situation under control. Then this guy sucker-punched him, and later threatened to kill him. That's not NAP in any sense of the word.
    I'm only talking about the situation up to the old man hitting him.

    While I agree that he shouldn't have hit him after being in custody - it didn't do much harm for all the commotion, and was something the protester was trying to generate - so in a civil case, I wouldn't give him a nickle.

    But that protester had the right to be force-ably removed. If he kept resisting, they could have drawn guns on him. I'm not sure why all the argument that it is ok to disrupt speeches, hurl insults, and trespass is ok - and you can't do anything about it. Those are all violations of rights caused by the disrupter first. This was hardly initiated by anyone else.

    FYI - there isn't an audio feed with the video I saw. I don't know what if anything the disrupt er of the speech continued to say. Only that was why he was being removed.
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 10:17 PM.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    I'm only talking about the situation up to the old man hitting him.

    While I agree that he shouldn't have hit him after being in custody - it didn't do much harm for all the commotion, and was something the protester was trying to generate - so in a civil case, I wouldn't give him a nickle.
    Oh, then I think we are in complete agreement there.

    But that protester had the right to be force-ably removed. If he kept resisting, they could have drawn guns on him. I'm not sure why all the argument that it is ok to disrupt speeches, hurl insults, and trespass is ok - and you can't do anything about it. Those are all violations of rights caused by the disrupt-er.
    I don't think anyone's saying the protester shouldn't have been removed. In fact, no one here has said the security guards shouldn't have removed him. It was the old guy sucker-punching him and threatening the dude's life that was over the top.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Race riot! Everybody look!

    Meanwhile probable Hillary supporters pull a gun on Trump supporter...
    exactly.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    That's the-most-$#@!ing-god-damned-idiotic-analogy WRT this thread. Seriously. Take a break.
    Hardly. It's a god damn long time running debate about a sissy-fying change George Lucus made that was very influential to my generation when they were growing up.

    Not being able to defend yourself against someone pointing a gun at you and threatening to kill you is waayyy too far in the other direction. "but Greedo didn't use force! he was only threatening it with words!! waaah"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 10:31 PM.

  30. #56
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    After videos surfaced of a protester being assaulted with a punch and elbow to the face at a Trump rally — along with reports of a top Trump aide yanking a reporter — dominated the news cycle, Mr. Trump expressed hope that the violence was not a result of his tone.

    “I hope not, I truly hope not,” Mr. Trump said. He added, “People come with tremendous passion and love for the country” that sometimes turns to anger because of the state of the country."
    http://www.nytimes.com/live/republic...nn-march-2016/



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    Oh, then I think we are in complete agreement there.



    I don't think anyone's saying the protester shouldn't have been removed. In fact, no one here has said the security guards shouldn't have removed him. It was the old guy sucker-punching him and threatening the dude's life that was over the top.
    But we would have had just as much media commotion if the guards had tried to remove him, and than the guards had to physically fight because he resisted being removed with media shouts of brown shirts etc. In fact, the earlier case of the reporter appears to be an example of causing the situation (and creating a story). In fact, they were creating that story before this.

    Not everyone would be in agreement with number one. Go to a good liberal site, and heaven forbid if you use force for any reason.
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 10:30 PM.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ Liberty View Post
    He wasn't using "fighting words", and he was being escorted out of the arena by security. They had the situation under control. Then this guy sucker-punched him, and later threatened to kill him. That's not NAP in any sense of the word.
    Without knowing anything, if it is like the rest of this society - after starting all that, the protester probably tried to file false charges against the old man - which is the use of force, so saying I'd kill him - which is usually not taken seriously in that context, isn't much. He didn't just say that. I don't know who he was - He could have been a terrorist, was part of it too.

    Without viewing the state as special - using the state to initiate force - like through false witness - is still initiating force.
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 03-10-2016 at 10:39 PM.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    In my universe, Donald Trump also has freedom of speech and this little turd you're now defending was violating Trump's liberty.

    Or is liberty only for people you like? Is that how it goes in Gunnyland?
    Okay look, I understand that you find complex reasoning...well....difficult. You may not be aware of this, but you really can support the freedom of association without tolerating, encouraging, cheering for, or agitating for the initiation of violence against outgroups whom you do not like.

    My opposition to the idiot who punched this man and later threatened to kill him, does not in any way imply that I oppose Trump's freedom of association. If anything Trump is doing the world a favor by identifying all of you douchebags so that the rest of us know what we are dealing with.

    I mean, I get that you are a Trump supporter, so do I need to try explaining that at a first grader level?

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Okay look, I understand that you find complex reasoning...well....difficult. You may not be aware of this, but you really can support the freedom of association without tolerating, encouraging, cheering for, or agitating for the initiation of violence against outgroups whom you do not like.

    My opposition to the idiot who punched this man and later threatened to kill him, does not in any way imply that I oppose Trump's freedom of association. If anything Trump is doing the world a favor by identifying all of you douchebags so that the rest of us know what we are dealing with.

    I mean, I get that you are a Trump supporter, so do I need to try explaining that at a first grader level?
    I'm cheering it because it was well-deserved, way overdue, fully justified, and because it is part of a decades-long pattern of political manipulation which has had far far far far far worse effects than having a deserving face punched.

    I don't waste a tear for the agitator because I know that because of people like him, many good people have suffered a lot worse than a punch in the face.

    If the wheels of justice actually turned then your argument would be correct. But they don't. There are no lawful avenues left for redress of justifiable grievances, so I'll not be one to self-righteously jeer when someone finally gets some of what's coming to them. And the reason why there are no such avenues left is precisely because of the effect of political stunts like this was intended to be, and because of the media that sensationalizes it.

    I'm not at all bothered by this because I see the big picture. In the big picture, the guy who got slugged is the bully and the guy who did the slugging acted defensively.

    It's not like people are getting randomly slugged in the face by Trump supporters. And there ARE people who do randomly slug others in the face, and those are the least likely of all to be Trump supporters.

    When you can show me someone peacefully going about their business having their liberty violated by a Trump supporter, then I'll be on your side in protesting it.

    But someone who goes out looking for trouble? Why should I not cheer their success?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •