Imagine accusing a Jewish grampa a NAZI. And the idiot said she'll get a RETIRED old man fired.
I drink a beer with you any day.
Topic: Another assault for wearing MAGA hat, retaliates with a sword #magasamurai (Read 343 times)
October 17, 2024, 05:13:40 AM
Imagine accusing a Jewish grampa a NAZI. And the idiot said she'll get a RETIRED old man fired.
I drink a beer with you any day.
October 17, 2024, 05:09:22 AM
I am up 3100% on MAGA's Hat. Sniped.
Peace sells. Who is buying?
Peace sells. Who is buying?
April 19, 2019, 12:12:27 PM
He got exactly what he asked for. The impression I'm getting is that that hat would get you killed in the US. That must suck for people there that the country has gone to this. Still, there are good news every once in a while, like this...
https://youtu.be/fuHepjHA2JY
Imagine accusing a Jewish grampa a NAZI. And the idiot said she'll get a RETIRED old man fired.
https://youtu.be/fuHepjHA2JY
Imagine accusing a Jewish grampa a NAZI. And the idiot said she'll get a RETIRED old man fired.
April 17, 2019, 02:51:30 AM
So in the US, you can walk the streets with your sword ?
Everything's fine in your country.
Oh look, somebody must have stolen this one's MAGA hat too...
Come on killer, get your revenge !
Everything's fine in your country.
Oh look, somebody must have stolen this one's MAGA hat too...
Come on killer, get your revenge !
April 16, 2019, 09:25:34 PM
I would have just broken a bone or two instead to remind people they can't just jump on anyone without consequences. Though if the cost of having to pay for his hospital bill is much more than what I'll pay for outright offing him...
Suddenly remembered that guy in China who ran over a kid twice coz it's cheaper if the kid died.
The article you linked to claims the alleged "assailant" slashed at the guy who knocked his hat off. Carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3" in San Francisco is a violation, which is probably why this guy is getting treated the way he is. But obviously he was instigating the situation by wearing his assault hat, so there's that.
My kids came to pick me up from SFO the other night, so we stopped in the Mission for burritos. I got, not one, but three dirty looks for wearing a woodland camo hat. The only reason those dirty looks didn't turn into dirty words, chaffed knuckles, and bloody noses is because the woodland camo hat in question is adorned with a SF 49ers logo.
For such peace-loving, hippy-filled, progressive city it sure is full of intolerant bigots.
That's beyond fcuked up. Seriously, an assault hat? What's next, assault shirts? Have you no heart, terrorizing people just like that?!
Surprised they didn't call SWAT on you though for carrying such a dangerous apparel in public.
Suddenly remembered that guy in China who ran over a kid twice coz it's cheaper if the kid died.
I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword.
The article you linked to claims the alleged "assailant" slashed at the guy who knocked his hat off. Carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3" in San Francisco is a violation, which is probably why this guy is getting treated the way he is. But obviously he was instigating the situation by wearing his assault hat, so there's that.
My kids came to pick me up from SFO the other night, so we stopped in the Mission for burritos. I got, not one, but three dirty looks for wearing a woodland camo hat. The only reason those dirty looks didn't turn into dirty words, chaffed knuckles, and bloody noses is because the woodland camo hat in question is adorned with a SF 49ers logo.
For such peace-loving, hippy-filled, progressive city it sure is full of intolerant bigots.
That's beyond fcuked up. Seriously, an assault hat? What's next, assault shirts? Have you no heart, terrorizing people just like that?!
Surprised they didn't call SWAT on you though for carrying such a dangerous apparel in public.
April 15, 2019, 06:48:58 AM
lot of exchange between moglie and techshare.
My view is that man should be charged for possession of weapon only.
Everybody has full right to defend himself/herself. If multiple people start chasing you, I bet you will be scared. I do not think chaser have any good intentions. Since that guys used sword so many people are in assumption that guy was wrong. Might be if he hasn't used sword then news article headline might be as below.
Man was lynched by unknown people.
My view is that man should be charged for possession of weapon only.
Everybody has full right to defend himself/herself. If multiple people start chasing you, I bet you will be scared. I do not think chaser have any good intentions. Since that guys used sword so many people are in assumption that guy was wrong. Might be if he hasn't used sword then news article headline might be as below.
Man was lynched by unknown people.
April 15, 2019, 05:40:37 AM
ahahahahah
So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE:
-Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can
-Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you
-This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!!
-Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you
You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about.
So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE:
-Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can
-Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you
-This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!!
-Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you
You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about.
Once again you ignore the facts of the situation as if they change nothing...
-He was assaulted
-He attempted to flee
-Multiple people chased him
-Only after this did he attempt to defend himself, ceasing his attack once it was made clear to the assailants he would not be made a victim
I know as a subject in a nation where it is illegal to defend yourself from violence this is difficult for you to understand, but here we have rights, even if it makes soft little flowers such as you cry yourself to sleep at night over the poor criminal who got a boo boo after attacking some one on the street.
April 15, 2019, 05:31:25 AM
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
Hmm... No...
If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun.
Proportional use of force.
So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works.
Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are.
Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours.
As usual you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The laws vary from state to state, some states have "stand your ground" laws where once some one instigates violence against you, you have no requirement to retreat and are legally authorized to use lethal force if you are in fear for your life.
For reference here is some information on how the California self defense laws work.
https://cinteanlaw.com/california-stand-ground-law/
The man in California was assaulted. He attempted to flee but was pursued by MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS. This is WELL WITHIN the standard of fearing for life or injury as set by California code. Additionally because of the fact it was MULTIPLE people pursuing him, the use of a weapon is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and proportional use of force. You can boo hoo about proportional use of force all you want, but how is one man supposed to defend himself from multiple assailants without a weapon? What is proportional about fighting off multiple attackers bare handed? We have the right to self defense in this country, we aren't forced to be subjects and victims in waiting like you in your nation, and I am grateful for it. You don't get to assault people then cry they fought back, that's not how it works. The moral of the story?
DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT PEOPLE
ahahahahah
So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE:
-Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can
-Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you
-This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!!
-Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you
You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about.
April 15, 2019, 03:28:18 AM
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
Hmm... No...
If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun.
Proportional use of force.
So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works.
Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are.
Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours.
As usual you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The laws vary from state to state, some states have "stand your ground" laws where once some one instigates violence against you, you have no requirement to retreat and are legally authorized to use lethal force if you are in fear for your life.
For reference here is some information on how the California self defense laws work.
https://cinteanlaw.com/california-stand-ground-law/
The man in California was assaulted. He attempted to flee but was pursued by MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS. This is WELL WITHIN the standard of fearing for life or injury as set by California code. Additionally because of the fact it was MULTIPLE people pursuing him, the use of a weapon is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and proportional use of force. You can boo hoo about proportional use of force all you want, but how is one man supposed to defend himself from multiple assailants without a weapon? What is proportional about fighting off multiple attackers bare handed? We have the right to self defense in this country, we aren't forced to be subjects and victims in waiting like you in your nation, and I am grateful for it. You don't get to assault people then cry they fought back, that's not how it works. The moral of the story?
DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT PEOPLE
April 15, 2019, 02:59:03 AM
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
Hmm... No...
If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun.
Proportional use of force.
So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works.
Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are.
Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours.
April 12, 2019, 02:35:13 PM
I have just one question for you...
And you clearly avoided mine.
You're one to talk about logical fallacies and diversions.
But if you think that the one initiating the illegal act is responsible for everything legally, I'm just going to quote this to you anytime you discuss law in any way.
This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read here.
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
April 12, 2019, 03:27:41 AM
I have just one question for you...
And you clearly avoided mine.
You're one to talk about logical fallacies and diversions.
But if you think that the one initiating the illegal act is responsible for everything legally, I'm just going to quote this to you anytime you discuss law in any way.
This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read here.
April 11, 2019, 12:07:39 PM
No you're clearly not advocating for anything.
You're a psychopath.
But you're not alone, tons of people here agree with you. Just happy you have a country on your own.
You're all just saying "it's ok to mutilate someone if they pushed you"
Wahou.
For fuck's sake that's not something difficult to understand!
If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?
Yes or no question. Nothing else.
You're a psychopath.
But you're not alone, tons of people here agree with you. Just happy you have a country on your own.
You're all just saying "it's ok to mutilate someone if they pushed you"
Wahou.
For fuck's sake that's not something difficult to understand!
If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?
Yes or no question. Nothing else.
If I am clearly not advocating for anything, why did you state I am advocating for something? A more important question is do you have the right to push (physically assault) some one? No? In that case this is the genesis of the criminal activity, and therefore legally the responsible party.
I have just one question for you...
Did you stop beating your wife?
Yes or no question. Nothing else.
April 11, 2019, 07:17:29 AM
For fuck's sake that's not something difficult to understand!
If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?
Yes or no question. Nothing else.
If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?
Yes or no question. Nothing else.
April 11, 2019, 07:11:49 AM
I am not advocating for anything. -snip- You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.
No you're clearly not advocating for anything.
You're a psychopath.
But you're not alone, tons of people here agree with you. Just happy you have a country on your own.
You're all just saying "it's ok to mutilate someone if they pushed you"
Wahou.
April 11, 2019, 05:36:27 AM
Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.
Are you sure? Quote
In al-Rawd al-Murabbi’ (p. 677) it says:
If a person or one of his womenfolk, such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife, is attacked, or his property, whether a slave or an animal, is attacked, then he has the right to defend that by the least means that he thinks will ward off the attack. If he is able to ward it off with the least means then it is haraam for him to do more than that because there is no need for it.
If he cannot ward off the attacker except by killing him, then he may do that, i.e., kill the assailant, and he is not liable for that, because he killed him to ward off his evil.
If a person or one of his womenfolk, such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife, is attacked, or his property, whether a slave or an animal, is attacked, then he has the right to defend that by the least means that he thinks will ward off the attack. If he is able to ward it off with the least means then it is haraam for him to do more than that because there is no need for it.
If he cannot ward off the attacker except by killing him, then he may do that, i.e., kill the assailant, and he is not liable for that, because he killed him to ward off his evil.
And straight from the Qur'an:
Quote
Surah Al-Hajj – Verse 39
اُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِاَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَي نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ
39. “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) for they have been oppressed, and verily Allah is well able to assist them.”
اُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِاَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَي نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ
39. “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) for they have been oppressed, and verily Allah is well able to assist them.”
I'm not a Muslim but for me it looks kinda straight forward.
April 11, 2019, 05:33:30 AM
The polarization has reached to such level that a person is chased for practising his right to free speech and just because he was chased he decided to effing cut off his hand!
Assaulted, then chased.
It's against the law to have a sword like that with you though.
I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.
Also, he is not the perpetrator here regardless of his possession of contraband.
April 11, 2019, 05:26:30 AM
Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.
Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.
I am not advocating for anything. I am stating the FACT that in The United States of America, if some one physically assaults you, you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to use force against them to stop the assault. He was assaulted, he attempted to flea, he was chased. What do you want him to do just stand there and let these people beat him? Would they stop at just beating on him or would they go further? He had no way of knowing. You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.
It's against the law to have a sword like that with you though.
April 11, 2019, 05:05:27 AM
Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.
Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.
I am not advocating for anything. I am stating the FACT that in The United States of America, if some one physically assaults you, you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to use force against them to stop the assault. He was assaulted, he attempted to flea, he was chased. What do you want him to do just stand there and let these people beat him? Would they stop at just beating on him or would they go further? He had no way of knowing. You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.
April 11, 2019, 05:02:13 AM
Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.
Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.
Jump to: