Another peaceful protest by the woke left.

[roguenuke]

For your convenience the video will play at the relevant time:

There was no actual violence there. And we also cannot tell what was going on there in reality. They were saying they were going after Terese. But there is no explanation of why or their plan.

Did you support going into the Capitol to "talk" to members of Congress? Did you believe that they would simply talk to them?

Anyone who is trying to participate in actual violence against someone else should be arrested, no argument. But you can't only try to condemn it when it is your side "targeted" and then when it is the other side claim that they would stop or not really do anything violent if they caught up to people they are going after.

 

[Cardinal]

For your convenience the video will play at the relevant time:

It looks like somebody may have swatted somebody's camera, and that the person holding the camera was in absolutely no danger whatsoever. Is this the violence you're referring to?

 

[CaughtInThe]

you guys do understand what other word the word woke is most associated with in conservative circles, right?

 

[Grim17]

It is possible that she is lying. She could also be telling the truth. It could also be something in between, which is usually the case. There is reported to be no police reports backing the claim that someone was assaulted. considering she claimed that it happened right in front of officers, who allegedly saved the guy being assaulted, it is strange that there would be no police report about the assault.

She could be lying about the assault, but to assume she is lying is a convenient way for those who disagree with her politics to dismiss the entire debacle.

There is video of her being chased by the mob, as well as video of mob members assaulting people who were recording with their phones.

.

 

[Grim17]

There was no actual violence there.

So people being assaulted for recording the events taking place isn't violent?

.

 

[roguenuke]

She could be lying about the assault, but to assume she is lying is a convenient way for those who disagree with her politics to dismiss the entire debacle.

There is video of her being chased by the mob, as well as video of mob members assaulting people who were recording with their phones.

.

To assume she is telling the truth about the entire situation is just as convenient for your side of the issue. I'm assuming that she isn't telling the whole truth about the situation because that is normal. She is likely leaving out at least some information.

The video shows people "swatting" at phones being put into their faces. There is a lot of missing video there. It was all edited. There is no evidence of police reports filed, so there is easily some skepticism about how things actually went down.

 

[Grim17]

It looks like somebody may have swatted somebody's camera, and that the person holding the camera was in absolutely no danger whatsoever. Is this the violence you're referring to?

So let me get this straight... You now claiming that physical assaulting on someone isn't violence?

 

[roguenuke]

So people being assaulted for recording the events taking place isn't violent?

.

Swatting at people's phones is normal for pretty much any protests. That most certainly is not cause to claim "violence".

 

[Cardinal]

So let me get this straight... You now claiming that physical assaulting on someone isn't violence?

What do you think the charge would be for slapping somebody's camera, while causing absolutely no damage to the camera or the person holding it, or for showing no attempt by others to harm the person?

You know the saying, "This could have been an email?" Well, did "Somebody slaps phone, causing no damage to the phone or the person" need to be a thread?

 

[Grim17]

To assume she is telling the truth about the entire situation is just as convenient for your side of the issue. I'm assuming that she isn't telling the whole truth about the situation because that is normal. She is likely leaving out at least some information.

The video shows people "swatting" at phones being put into their faces. There is a lot of missing video there. It was all edited. There is no evidence of police reports filed, so there is easily some skepticism about how things actually went down.

What's wrong with people denouncing the violence if what she said was true? We already know they chased down the woman who sponsored the event, and we know that people taking video with their phones were assaulted, so does that violence not count?

.

 

[Grim17]

Swatting at people's phones is normal for pretty much any protests. That most certainly is not cause to claim "violence".

That is assault, and yes it has become normal but only for leftist protestors. Just because it always happens, does that make it ok for them to do? Is it not still an act of violence?

 

[Court Jester]

Next time that group has an event they ought to invite Kyle Rittenhouse to provide security.

Sometimes the only thing which violent mobs understand is defensive legal lethal force.

 

[Grim17]

What do you think the charge would be for slapping somebody's camera, while causing absolutely no damage to the camera or the person holding it, or for showing no attempt by others to harm the person?

You know the saying, "This could have been an email?" Well, did "Somebody slaps phone, causing no damage to the phone or the person" need to be a thread?

You didn't answer the question... Was it, or was it not assault?

 

[roguenuke]

What's wrong with people denouncing the violence if what she said was true? We already know they chased down the woman who sponsored the event, and we know that people taking video with their phones were assaulted, so does that violence not count?

.

Nothing, if true. You started from the position that it was absolutely true. There is no real evidence of violence here, especially not significant or on any sort of major scale.

Yes, violence and threats of violence are bad. But I want to also know the circumstances, the actual situation, not bias views. I ask for the same when someone claims that they did not get something due to some sort of bias from a school.

 

[roguenuke]

That is assault, and yes it has become normal but only for leftist protestors. Just because it always happens, does that make it ok for them to do? Is it not still an act of violence?

No it is not just "leftist protestors".

 

[bomberfox]

Whelp guess Grim is gettin all to excited to give me the go ahead to hunt down some bougie mofos.

Oh wait maybe shouting to gun down hecklers is a bad idea….

 

[Cardinal]

You didn't answer the question... Was it, or was it not assault?

No, based on three ways it could have unfolded:

1) Slaps at phone: no damage to phone, no harm to person, no fear for one's safety - No case, civilly or criminally.
2) Slaps at phone: damage to phone, no harm to person, no fear for one's safety - civil case, can sue for damage to phone, no assault charges
3) Slaps at phone: damage to phone, harm to person, fear for one's safety - civil and criminal cases -- can sue for damages to phone and medical damages, and there is criminal liability.

As what you showed us fits entirely within 1), no cop would have bothered making an arrest and sure as hell it wouldn't have held up in court.

You started an entire thread over a nothingburger.

 

[Grim17]

Nothing, if true. You started from the position that it was absolutely true. There is no real evidence of violence here, especially not significant or on any sort of major scale.

I did not say it was absolutely true... I take people on their word unless they have a history of lying, or their accusations don't seem reasonable or plausible. Based on what was seen in the videos, and the violent history of far left protestors on college campuses, I have no legitimate reason to doubt her. Do you use the same criteria when evaluating someone's claims, or does politics play a part?

Yes, violence and threats of violence are bad. But I want to also know the circumstances, the actual situation, not bias views.

That mob did engage in both, but I've yet to see one person on the left denounce it as such. They are instead either attacking the speaker, the event sponsor, or just flat out dismissing their behavior.

I've linked to videos and news reports of what took place, and that pretty much describes the circumstances.


What's interesting is, nobody has addressed the mob's attack on free speech and their attempt to silence views they disagree with.

I ask for the same when someone claims that they did not get something due to some sort of bias from a school.

 

[Grim17]

No, based on three ways it could have unfolded:

1) Slaps at phone: no damage to phone, no harm to person, no fear for one's safety - No case, civilly or criminally.
2) Slaps at phone: damage to phone, no harm to person, no fear for one's safety - civil case, can sue for damage to phone, no assault charges
3) Slaps at phone: damage to phone, harm to person, fear for one's safety - civil and criminal cases -- can sue for damages to phone and medical damages, and there is criminal liability.

As what you showed us fits entirely within 1), no cop would have bothered making an arrest and sure as hell it wouldn't have held up in court.

You started an entire thread over a nothingburger.

Got it... Physical assault is only physical assault when it meets your standards, which obviously involve the political views of the victim.

You've clarified your view, thanks for the honesty.

 

[Grim17]

No it is not just "leftist protestors".

Is that truly your position, or is this some attempt to falsely portray something I've said about another event?

If that's truly your position, then I over estimated you in a very big way.

.

 

[Cardinal]

Got it... Physical assault is only physical assault when it meets your standards, which obviously involve the political views of the victim.

As in all things legal, it depends. If you ask a lawyer anything, the answer is always "it depends." The act, in a vacuum, is potentially assault. But the totality of circumstances will determine whether it is assault.

So you have 1) the potentially criminal act, 2) the circumstances (intent is wrapped into this), and 3) the final result.

The potentially criminal act: slapping the camera phone.
Circumstances: protesters that clearly intend no harm to the person herself: illustrated by the protesters not pursuing the "victim" and the "victim" not attempting to flee the protesters. Threat of harm and fear for personal safety are crucial components for an assault charge.
Final results: no damage to phone and no harm to person.

Neither a civil nor criminal case would result from this. You just want to believe it would because you don't like the protesters and you identify politically with the "victim" in this story.

So tell me, how much interest do you think this thread would have gotten if "Protesters slap phone, no damage or harm result" was the title?

 

[Roadvirus]

What a totally peaceful, respectful protest that was completely free from violence, held by the rational folks on the political left when Allen West came to campus to give a speech.



That was a fine demonstration of how tolerant and supportive of free speech the leftist of today are.... Don't-cha think?

.

 

[Cardinal]

Pictured here: nothing that happened at the event in question.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

From the video, here are quotes from the event organizer Therese Purcell:

"I realized I was the target for these protestors and 200 of my fellow students started hunting me down on campus, chasing me, screaming 'go get her, go get her, go capture her, get the girl in the red dress'..."​

​

"While this was all happening the mob continued to chase other members of our club, YAF, they physically assaulted one of our board members. They kicked him, they punched him..."​

From Mediaite here's what was said in a statement put out by the university:

The University at Buffalo said in a statement that they are “conducting a thorough review” of West’s time at the university. Members of the university have a right to express themselves, they added, but “not in such a way as to limit or prevent the speaker’s freedom of expression or interfere with university operations.”​

Here are some links from local TV stations on what happened:

UB Police investigating harassment reports after Colonel West visit

AMHERST, N. Y. – The University at Buffalo Police Department is investigating reports of harassment following a visit by Colonel Allen West last week. The former Republican congressman was invited to speak on-campus Thursday by a conservative student group, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). The...

wutv29.com

Buffalo University student says she was targeted during protest over conservative speaker

WASHINGTON (TND) — A student at the Univeristy at Buffalo is speaking out after she says she feared her own life when protests escalated on campus during an event featuring Lt. Col. Allen West and his lecture titled “America Is Not Racist: Why American Values are Exceptional. ” Therese Purcell...

mynbc15.com

Buffalo University student says she was targeted during protest over conservative speaker

WASHINGTON (TND) — A student at the Univeristy at Buffalo is speaking out after she says she feared her own life when protests escalated on campus during an event featuring Lt. Col. Allen West and his lecture titled “America Is Not Racist: Why American Values are Exceptional. ” Therese Purcell...

local21news.com

Buffalo University student says she was targeted during protest over conservative speaker

WASHINGTON (TND) — A student at the Univeristy at Buffalo is speaking out after she says she feared her own life when protests escalated on campus during an event featuring Lt. Col. Allen West and his lecture titled “America Is Not Racist: Why American Values are Exceptional. ” Therese Purcell...

abcnews4.com

If this is the kind of assault on free speech you all support, then please step up and say so.

.

And yet still no-one can show us any violence

 

[element94]

That's a lie and you know it.

Name one book that has been banned and is no longer available to the public?

.

So, you are saying their attempts to ban books is some kind of meaningless stunt?
Tell me they are not attempting to ban some books in schools. Banning is banning, meaning banning from schools, which they seek to do even though it is Authoritarian. Which, of course, is trying to control thought by a group of people's stipulations in a supposed a free country. Republicans also can't seem to keep out of people's pants with their constant complaining about LGBTQIA+ and their pursuit of happiness, not to mention the pursuit of happiness of anyone else who doesn't agree with them.