Shooting at University of Washington (UPDATE: far-leftist shot)

[Vic]

Thanks for the update, hadn't seen it. I hope there's more evidence than the witness accounts of ANTIFA.

Yes, please read the linked article. There is audio/video from the incident, as well as posts/messages from the suspects on social media, that seem to establish intent and malice aforethought.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, please read the linked article. There is audio/video from the incident, as well as posts/messages from the suspects on social media, that seem to establish intent and malice aforethought.

I did. The Facebook message alone doesn't mean much, but if he was actively agitating peaceful protesters (with "fighting words" and not just disagreement), then I agree that it's not a legitimate self-defense case. From the video...

18:10 bit identifies the couple, don't see much else
18:19 shows a scuffle, can't make anything out of it
18:44 shows some ANTIFA people saying something about Nazis, not sure if I can even see the husband
Next bit shows the wife appearing prepared to pull out a gun after some guy gets assaulted, husband pushes her away, he says "They have to start it", situation defuses
19:53 shows the husband talking to ANTIFA's wall before walking away to hug his wife behind him, nothing really happens
19:54 shows the guy hit with paint and a USA! chant
20:24 shows the skinhead ANTIFA and some other guy pushing each other, but doesn't really result in a fight
Last video clearly shows the skinhead ANTIFA charging at the husband, as the original video a few months ago did

What am I supposed to get out of any of that?

EDIT: Wait a sec, husband pepper sprayed a group right before skinhead ANTIFA attacked, right? I'll admit he wasn't in danger prior to that, so that would be assault if he was not doing it in the defense of another, but the video isn't clear to see what else is happening.

 

[woolfe9998]

The Facebook post will mean a lot in court. It clearly indicates violent intent. You either have no idea about what really matters in court or you're just pretending you don't, once again trying to spin away to support your chosen side.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The Facebook post will mean a lot in court. It clearly indicates violent intent. You either have no idea about what really matters in court or you're just pretending you don't, once again trying to spin away to support your chosen side.

He said "if they get out of hand".

Here's the original video again which seems to show that some other pro-Trump guy was mobbed by a few ANTIFA prior to the husband reaching the scene:

https://vid.me/V3JL

 

[JSt0rm]

tell it to the judge hamburger.

 

[woolfe9998]

He said "if they get out of hand".

Here's the original video again which seems to show that some other pro-Trump guy was mobbed by a few ANTIFA prior to the husband reaching the scene:

https://vid.me/V3JL

These people came hunting for bear. He said he "couldn't wait" to go to this rally, then immediately starting talking of coming armed and cracking skulls. You can hang on to that "if they get out of hand" qualifier all you want, but a jury will see it as someone who came primed for violence. That Facebook post is damning but it's also not likely the only evidence they have.

We'll see how the charges play out. If you're right, they ought to be acquitted. Good luck.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

These people came hunting for bear. He said he "couldn't wait" to go to this rally, then immediately starting talking of coming armed and cracking skulls. You can hang on to that "if they get out of hand" qualifier all you want, but a jury will see it as someone who came primed for violence. That Facebook post is damning but it's also not likely the only evidence they have.

We'll see how the charges play out. If you're right, they ought to be acquitted. Good luck.

Do you feel the same way about the bottle-wielding woman punched by the white supremacist, her arrival on the scene with the intent of "collecting Nazi scalps"?

 

[woolfe9998]

Do you feel the same way about the bottle-wielding woman punched by the white supremacist, her arrival on the scene with the intent of "collecting Nazi scalps"?

Yes, but it would matter a lot more if she actually injured someone because it would prove her intent was aggressive rather than defensive which is what the Facebook post here suggests. While some have argued that her actions were provocative, the fact is, she's the one who got hit. If she was the hitter and claimed it was self-defense, then I do think the "Nazi scalps" remark would be a big problem for her.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, but it would matter a lot more if she actually injured someone because it would prove her intent was aggressive rather than defensive which is what the Facebook post here suggests. While some have argued that her actions were provocative, the fact is, she's the one who got hit. If she was the hitter and claimed it was self-defense, then I do think the "Nazi scalps" remark would be a big problem for her.

She has been clearly shown at the frontlines of the scuffle with a weapon in her hands. Granted, she isn't known to have injured someone, so it would be a case of conspiracy to assault or second-degree riot or something along those lines, but still criminal and showing aggressive intent.

I don't see how the Washington Facebook post shows aggressive intent. It's explicitly defensive, "If someone does X to me, I'll do Y to them".

 

[Vic]

I did. The Facebook message alone doesn't mean much, but if he was actively agitating peaceful protesters (with "fighting words" and not just disagreement), then I agree that it's not a legitimate self-defense case. From the video...

18:10 bit identifies the couple, don't see much else
18:19 shows a scuffle, can't make anything out of it
18:44 shows some ANTIFA people saying something about Nazis, not sure if I can even see the husband
Next bit shows the wife appearing prepared to pull out a gun after some guy gets assaulted, husband pushes her away, he says "They have to start it", situation defuses
19:53 shows the husband talking to ANTIFA's wall before walking away to hug his wife behind him, nothing really happens
19:54 shows the guy hit with paint and a USA! chant
20:24 shows the skinhead ANTIFA and some other guy pushing each other, but doesn't really result in a fight
Last video clearly shows the skinhead ANTIFA charging at the husband, as the original video a few months ago did

What am I supposed to get out of any of that?

EDIT: Wait a sec, husband pepper sprayed a group right before skinhead ANTIFA attacked, right? I'll admit he wasn't in danger prior to that, so that would be assault if he was not doing it in the defense of another, but the video isn't clear to see what else is happening.

Actually, the FB post means pretty much everything. Washington is one of those "fucked up states" (as spidey would say) where a self-defense argument is generally not allowed for the instigator of a violent conflict. The FB post establishes intent to instigate violence. The video merely proves they were successful in doing so.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Actually, the FB post means pretty much everything. Washington is one of those "fucked up states" (as spidey would say) where a self-defense argument is generally not allowed for the instigator of a violent conflict. The FB establishes intent to instigate violence. The video merely proves they were successful in doing so.

Where does it say he wants to instigate violence? It says he will respond violently if "the snowflakes get out of hand". If it's demonstrated that his definition of "get out of hand" was "call me a Nazi" or "burn an American flag", then yeah he's clearly guilty. If his definition is "initiate violence against an innocent bystander", then that remains to be seen until we have a clearer picture of the people he pepper sprayed and why. His mouth appears closed and his person in the back of the scuffle when it all went down; he didn't go up to someone, start screaming "SNOWFLAKE! SNOWFLAKE!", and then get his wife to shoot them.

 

[woolfe9998]

She has been clearly shown at the frontlines of the scuffle with a weapon in her hands. Granted, she isn't known to have injured someone, so it would be a case of conspiracy to assault or second-degree riot or something along those lines, but still criminal and showing aggressive intent.

I don't see how the Washington Facebook post shows aggressive intent. It's explicitly defensive, "If someone does X to me, I'll do Y to them".

The "I can't wait" suggests an attitude that he was looking forward to the violence. I also think a jury will see it that way.

As for the chick in Berkeley, I saw no actual attempt to use a weapon. Even if she had an intent which she never pursued (or simply never got the chance) it's not going to be a crime. Intent alone isn't a crime. Which is not to say that her intentions were in any way laudable or admirable. They were not.

I have no problem with the assumption that the wrongdoer could be someone on the left in a given situation. What I find most interesting here is that you described your desired outcome right at the outset of the thread, making your bias quite clear. This isn't just about free speech for you. It's about which side you've picked.

 

[Vic]

Where does it say he wants to instigate violence? It says he will respond violently if "the snowflakes get out of hand". If it's demonstrated that his definition of "get out of hand" was "call me a Nazi" or "burn an American flag", then yeah he's clearly guilty. If his definition is "initiate violence against an innocent bystander", then that remains to be seen until we have a clearer picture of the people he pepper sprayed and why. His mouth appears closed and his person in the back of the scuffle when it all went down; he didn't go up to someone, start screaming "SNOWFLAKE! SNOWFLAKE!", and then get his wife to shoot them.

Yaknow, I'm sure that's going to be a great discussion in front of the jury.

 

[alien42]

Where does it say he wants to instigate violence? It says he will respond violently if "the snowflakes get out of hand". If it's demonstrated that his definition of "get out of hand" was "call me a Nazi" or "burn an American flag", then yeah he's clearly guilty. If his definition is "initiate violence against an innocent bystander", then that remains to be seen until we have a clearer picture of the people he pepper sprayed and why. His mouth appears closed and his person in the back of the scuffle when it all went down; he didn't go up to someone, start screaming "SNOWFLAKE! SNOWFLAKE!", and then get his wife to shoot them.

holy shit, you are still defending yourself and these violent right wing terrorists?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Did you forget the context of this thread, you subhuman leftist f*ck?

nugent, is that you??

 

[umbrella39]

nugent, is that you??

I feel a couple of dormant alt's ready to take their swing at the leftist pieces of shit on these boards!!! Incoming...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I have no problem with the assumption that the wrongdoer could be someone on the left in a given situation. What I find most interesting here is that you described your desired outcome right at the outset of the thread, making your bias quite clear. This isn't just about free speech for you. It's about which side you've picked.

Actually, I didn't. I said "hopefully a liberal got shot", before any details were known, I made zero assumptions. This thread was made in response to a previous thread made the same day about Richard Spencer being sucker-punched while talking to a camera and several people cheering and celebrating. I hoped a liberal was shot, but I didn't claim to know that a liberal was shot. This is all about free speech for me.

The "I can't wait" suggests an attitude that he was looking forward to the violence. I also think a jury will see it that way.

As for the chick in Berkeley, I saw no actual attempt to use a weapon. Even if she had an intent which she never pursued (or simply never got the chance) it's not going to be a crime. Intent alone isn't a crime. Which is not to say that her intentions were in any way laudable or admirable. They were not.

I have no problem with the assumption that the wrongdoer could be someone on the left in a given situation. What I find most interesting here is that you described your desired outcome right at the outset of the thread, making your bias quite clear. This isn't just about free speech for you. It's about which side you've picked.

Yaknow, I'm sure that's going to be a great discussion in front of the jury.

I don't disagree that a jury will probably convict both of them regardless. I was expecting charges to be filed to begin with from a state like Washington.

 

[woolfe9998]

Actually, I didn't. I said "hopefully a liberal got shot", before any details were known, I made zero assumptions. This thread was made in response to a previous thread made the same day about Richard Spencer being sucker-punched while talking to a camera and several people cheering and celebrating. I hoped a liberal was shot, but I didn't claim to know that a liberal was shot. This is all about free speech for me.

Hmm, I have trouble seeing no anti-left bias in a remark like this:

Can't wait to revel in photos of the assault once they're available! Hopefully it was a liberal that got shot. Scroll down on the police Twitter to see some of the weapons confiscated from violent leftist thugs.

Let's see, You prefer that a liberal got shot. You commented on "violent leftist thugs" without making a similar assumption about "violent fascist thugs" and you seemed really excited about the whole thing.

You can claim your remarks show no bias. I think the remarks speak for themselves.

I don't disagree that a jury will probably convict both of them regardless. I was expecting charges to be filed to begin with from a state like Washington.

Yes of course, if there is a conviction it must be because of liberal jurors. Because fascists are never violent, right? You sound like every other conservative crackpot in this country. Anything not supporting your team must be a product of some sort of liberal bias or conspiracy.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Hmm, I have trouble seeing no anti-left bias in a remark like this:

Let's see, You prefer that a liberal got shot. You commented on "violent leftist thugs" without making a similar assumption about "violent fascist thugs" and you seemed really excited about the whole thing.

You can claim your remarks show no bias. I think the remarks speak for themselves.

Yes of course, if there is a conviction it must be because of liberal jurors. Because fascists are never violent, right? You sound like every other conservative crackpot in this country. Anything not supporting your team must be a product of some sort of liberal bias or conspiracy.

Are you accusing me of having a political bias or are you accusing me of assuming that the person shot was left-wing? I have never pretended to not be extremely right-wing, so I don't understand your point. I'll repeat myself since you seem to have had a knee-jerk reaction. Shortly before I made this thread, someone made another cheering the assault of Richard Spencer, a fascist to be sure, but one peacefully speaking at that moment. Many people responded with glee that someone they disagreed with was assaulted. Hearing of this shooting, not knowing who was shot, I preemptively hoped that a liberal was shot. Turnabout is fair play.

It's a liberal state, of course it will have liberal jurors, who will follow their liberal laws accordingly. I personally think carrying in a liberal state with fewer protections of self-defense is pretty risky, and the couple should have decided to live in Florida or Texas or some other place instead.

 

[greatnoob]

Hmm, I have trouble seeing no anti-left bias in a remark like this:



Let's see, You prefer that a liberal got shot. You commented on "violent leftist thugs" without making a similar assumption about "violent fascist thugs" and you seemed really excited about the whole thing.

You can claim your remarks show no bias. I think the remarks speak for themselves.



Yes of course, if there is a conviction it must be because of liberal jurors. Because fascists are never violent, right? You sound like every other conservative crackpot in this country. Anything not supporting your team must be a product of some sort of liberal bias or conspiracy.

When backed into a corner, lie through your teeth.

I personally think carrying in a liberal state with fewer protections of self-defense is pretty risky.

That makes you an extremely paranoid moron. Replace 'liberal' with any minority group that you've been very vocally against and you've ratted your ownself.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

When backed into a corner, lie through your teeth.

Lying about what? Here's the thread where you happily celebrate a Nazi being punched for his political viewpoints.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...et-punched-in-the-head.2497533/#post-38693604

As you'll notice, this thread was created a few hours after that one.

 

[greatnoob]

Lying about what? Here's the thread where you happily celebrate a Nazi being punched for his political viewpoints.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...et-punched-in-the-head.2497533/#post-38693604

As you'll notice, this thread was created a few hours after that one.

You said it yourself: a Nazi being punched for his political viewpoints.

Does that make you angry because you share similar 'viewpoints' to said Nazi?

Also, 'celebrate' how?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You said it yourself: a Nazi being punched for his political viewpoints.

Does that make you angry because you share similar 'viewpoints' to said Nazi?

Also, 'celebrate' how?

Which viewpoints do I share with him? I'm pro-immigration.

I'm sure that gif montage I linked gave no indication of your feelings on the matter. You were just posting pictures. "When backed into a corner, lie through your teeth."

 

[greatnoob]

Which viewpoints do I share with him? I'm pro-immigration.

I'm sure that gif montage I linked gave no indication of your feelings on the matter. You were just posting pictures. "When backed into a corner, lie through your teeth."

Hahahaa, that's a good one! Just like how @buckshot24 is a democrat, @Doc Savage Fan apparently didn't vote for Trump and @Svnla (the third-world Asian immigrant) is supposedly white.

Lol, seems like you've been triggered by a gif of a Nazi being punched (I didn't celebrate anything) but here in this thread you were 'hoping' a liberal was shot. Classic.

 

[alien42]

Lying about what? Here's the thread where you happily celebrate a Nazi being punched for his political viewpoints.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...et-punched-in-the-head.2497533/#post-38693604

As you'll notice, this thread was created a few hours after that one.

a known Nazi got punched, everyone should celebrate.
a Trumper shoots another Trumper and your dumbass assumption was the exact opposite of reality.

unless you are just comparing liberals to Nazi's in which case you are still a raging dumbass.