Hardcore Greg said:
HTownAg98 said:
Hardcore Greg said:
HTownAg98 said:
Hardcore Greg said:
HTownAg98 said:
Hardcore Greg said:
HTownAg98 said:
Hardcore Greg said:
HTownAg98 said:
He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.
Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".
This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.
And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.
There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.
Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.
The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?
If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.
Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.
Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.
So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?
That KKK member would have the right to defend himself, as would anyone. But again, the facts here are different.
Quote:
IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.
I understand that's your opinion, but that's not what the law is. Allllllll his prior bad acts are going to be admitted.
Quote:
By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".
Of course they would. That's an asinine suggestion.
So by this logic, as a result of his past actions and words (which we all agree are stupid and hateful) Chud could never legally defend himself against any black attackers...even if he was just minding his business and they recognized him from his online postings and started assaulting him...or maybe it's just 100% random.
But he would have to let them beat him or kill him because he has said crazy mean and rascist things online and therefore provoked the attack?
Is there any statute of limitations or anything, after which period of time he can eventually legally defend himself against non-white attackers?
In that scenario, of course he could defend himself. That's not a hard call. (Btw, who taught you logic? You've been inferring things I've never said, and trying to string things together that are distinctly different.)
You guys are literally arguing that someone's past patterns of behavior should determine whether lethal force is justified or not in a future unrelated scenario. I am asking when that resets and he regains his basic fundamental human right to defend himself from violent attackers. When is the slate wiped clean and prosecutors can no longer say "see, he was an ******* that liked to antagonize black people, so he had a duty to let this guy beat him to death".
I think you're trying to be deliberately obtuse, but what the hell, it's a slow Friday. The short answer is his right to say dumb stuff without being attacked has never gone away. Three scenarios:
Scenario #1. Chud is walking down the street, minding his own business, and someone attacks him. He has the right to defend himself, period.
Scenario #2. Chud is posting videos calling black people all kinds of epithets, and someone punches him. He probably has a good self-defense argument, but it's going to depend on all the facts.
Scenario #3. Chud starts posting videos about how he wants to confront people, hoping it provokes a confrontation, and brings along a gun for defense. Self defense goes away.
Once you do all the things in scenario #3, and keep doing provocations, and keep hoping to get in a fight, that self-defense right isn't coming back anytime soon. But if he were to repent, apologize, and stop doing incredibly stupid stuff, unprovoked attacks can be defended.
