Video: Leftist Mob Violently Ejects Trump Supporter From New York City Park

Video: Leftist Mob Violently Ejects Trump Supporter From New York City Park


Video here:

twitter.com/AlexR_DC/status/760259640416501764/video/1

Full article:

archive.is/f6M3A

This is the future for America.

Other urls found in this thread:

vid.me/Fztp
businessinsider.com/home-depot-under-fire-for-workers-hat-2016-5
nycourts.gov/reports/judicialcampaignethicshndbk.pdf
justiceduckling.blogspot.com/
protest.net/.
nycgovparks.org/rules/section-2-08
nycgovparks.org/rules/section-1-05
criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-it-legal-own-and-fly-a-drone.htm
faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/
upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/06/30/Judge-orders-man-who-shot-down-neighbors-drone-to-pay-850/2901435666642/
washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm
archive.is/weBwr
facebook.com/libtardmedia/videos/vb.1631240470426637/1696171180600232/?type=2&theater
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I truly wish I was surprised.

Video mirror:

vid.me/Fztp

and to think that jew pork is ameriga's most celebrated city

It is because of his White privelige that he was not shot like that nigger.

The rally had to get a permit to protest (violates 1st Amendment), he did not have a permit and was trying to ride off his.
Normal and expected.
If he wanted to counterprotest, he should have filed for the right to do so.

Simply being in the area while wearing a particular hat does not constitute a separate protest.

(((Rubinstein)))

Thanks for the sage, faggot.

The fact that this video was captured by a Jew in Jew York City is hardly noteworthy.

It does when it is a political statement on the hat.
Further, if the park or the section is rented for the rally, he is also now trespassing, no different than going into any other rented venue without permission.

Source?

Even if you're correct the mob was not justified in getting in his personal space and assaulting him.

Quality b8 m8

Goddammit. Can anybody webm a portion of it?

I'm a GNU+Linux fag

If Dylann Roof had waited a single year, he would have succeeded in his plan.

You really think it thought this through? It can't provide a source because it's worthless liberal scum. It would have served more purpose in its life if right after birth it's mother had sold it to one of epstien's clients to let them baby fuck it to death.

UPSTATE/DOWNSTATE SPLIT WHEN

...

MAGA is not a political statement now?

businessinsider.com/home-depot-under-fire-for-workers-hat-2016-5

Seemed quite fine in May for hats to be political statements.

That doesn't answer my question.

A person wearing an article of clothing in public constitutes a protest in the eyes of the NYC government?

Source?

This is how (((leftypol))) thinks.

*A person wearing an article of clothing with a political statement on it in public constitutes a protest in the eyes of the NYC government?

Use it to our advantage niggers, she clearly says :


This is what is going to happen to the entire nation if they get in power.

The subject looks like a massive fag, but regardless, this is what happens when you are disarmed.

You are present with a hat bearing a political statement opposing the permitted rally.

nycourts.gov/reports/judicialcampaignethicshndbk.pdf


If you don't like America, leave.
Trumpkins get upset over hats already.

Were niggers then justified in holding phone in his face and violently pushing the white satan?

...

If you don't like Holla Forums, leave

Worst part of living in New York is there are fucking leftists everywhere.

Even upstate there are a shitload of liberal colleges just polluting the local population.

Dropping a pdf isn't a source if you don't link to the part of the document that states that wearing a hat is a counter protest.

I like Holla Forums so I'm staying.
You don't like America, so leave.


Always.
Satan should never be treated nice.

If you want a better answer, use a proper rhetoric and not trying to play off charged language like you're cnn.

...

Answer it or don't. There's no need get get all snarky about it, user.

the Karl Rove thread got stickied you cuck shill so you can go home and wick your widdle booboos now.

Not that user but page 36 notes that "items that have campaign slogans imprinted on them are treated as campaign literature".

Snark is fun, I miss it when most of the discussions here had insults, not its just :
{{you}}
shill
cuck
and other such shit taking away from the decent banter there once was.

I'm not an american how can I leave your country?

(((Alexander Rubinstein))) that names echoes.

Webm Here
shit quality granted !

...

Thanks.

...

not a single one will be spared

That's bullshit, judicial election are highly regulated because judges cannot have opinions on the outcomes of cases during an election. Also, this was a public space, a bunch of neo-bolsheviks should not be able to run roughshod over who can and cannot be in a public, taxpayer funded space.

They just keep on giving, don't they?

A Wyatt Mann was a prophet.

Also I'm really taken aback by just how fucking violent these mobs are getting. Last video I bothered watching in its entirety was the one at a Trump rally where they enclosed these two girls in their car and started banging on it while constantly screaming at them.

Its not a public space when its rented out for a rally.
Try it at the first rally near you, and make sure to bring a copy of the statues and laws to the officers you think will protect you.

As I said previously, even if you're correct the mob was not justified in getting in his personal space and assaulting him.

The cops stood by and did nothing.

Thread theme.

...

Mobs assaulting individuals for wearing a hat is exactly why Trump is running a campaign.

I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE MOTHERFUCKER!

What the fuck?

Telling an anti-white protester that they're breaking a law is quite brutal of the police.

I think the police would be hard pressed to respond to anything the protestors did even if one pulled out a knife and stabbed the guy

These niggers really have no fucking clue what they are doing. They have no notion of what they are about to bring about. We're going to have the second revival of the KKK because of their niggardly ways.

the democrats will do it for us

The very second one of those people puts their hands on him, that fulfills the legal definition of battery.

If the cops won't stop it, it's time to start shooting.

Civil War II: The Blue and the Red.

we need something better than the KKK.

Oh I agree on assault, but it is up to the police as to where it occurs or not.

Personal space is not a legally recognized concept in the US, much like air space.


2 meters, dark blonde, facial haired, male, and happy.


Its up to the police to decide, given the man has also committed textbook trespassing by entering a private event, they are allowed to remove him from the premises.
The police decided that as he has committed an offense by entering, he has surrendered a wide number of his legal rights in regards to being made to leave.

Again, he is free to have gone and gotten a permit to counter protest, the schedules are freely available

justiceduckling.blogspot.com/
protest.net/.


Shoving them all in jobs and making them productive members of society works well.
Does great on Japs and Whites as well.

No, it doesn't.

Protests (aka "demonstrations") are disruptive to normal happenings in an area, hence the permit. One guy walking through a park is not.

Stop trying to rationalize fucking niggers acting like fucking niggers, you fucking nigger.
The amount you people will twist over niggers' shameful behavior is insane.

The man was clearly pushed, that's assault.


Blacks are just like whites or eastern Asians, right? Absolutely no difference other than skin color.

Go back to Holla Forums

Permits are not necessary if the protest is held in public space and the protestors are not impeding pedestrian foot traffic, vehicle traffic entrances or streets. The trump supporter was not even engaged in a counter-protest to begin with, the protestors engaged him of their own volition and violently assaulted him.

Spotted the #NeverTrump fag

One guy walking into the area designated for the protest.
Are you saying I can walk into your house? Its not disruptive.


If the police don't react because the man is already a criminal, then it doesn't matter.
You don't get to claim protection of the law while breaking it, this isn't the UK.

Yes?
Works well as slaves or as menial wage cucks.
Or are the concepts too hard?


You may argue that, but as the police did not act, and theirs is the voice of mattering, they spoke and the world listened.

Its the same as anybody else playing with accused, suspected and other words.
All in all, we have a legal system to sort out guilt.
Or do you agree mob violence and thoughts are the proper method of meeting out justice now?

What an absurd statement.

Even if he wasn't permitted to be in the park while wearing a political hat that doesn't mean the BLM protestors were justified in assaulting him.


You're delusional.

You can simplify that all down to saying blacks commit crime at twice the rate of whites?
10% of blacks are criminal versus 5% of whites.


Okay so you agree, i can walk into your house and you will do nothing to stop me.
Let's see what's that new word I was complaining about being used so much, oh right
You are a cuck.

Oh okay, so you also endorse crime and have no interest in producing useful members of society, either as human cattle or as replacement for menial labor.

why do you think someone's house is analogous to public space?

See, this is the shill's phase where it simply grows so obnoxious that most people do not want to continue arguing.

In the eyes of the shill and its bosses, they see this as "persuading people".

Because Jews think they own everything.

Because it ceases to be a public space once the protest got their permit.
Ergo, for simplicity, your house is used.
I'd have suggested a carded big box store or country club, but I did not see any method of checking the protestors in, so that example is much less valid.


Is that what Trumpkins do when they complain about somebody wearing a hat, then act offended that nobody allows them to walk with their hat?

How about going for the MAGA yarmuckle chaim?
It makes it easier to receive your Trump endorse conditioner.

What are you babbling about in regards to mob justice? No, the police in hand do not have the final word in anything, that's exactly why we have a legal system in which the assaulted Trump supporter can press charges, or he could sue in the civil system.

Also, you're wildly incorrect as far as the march/rally goes. A public park does not cease to be a public park if a section of it is "rented out", and I highly doubt that anythig was rented in this case, given that the group is explicitly about Ocuppying public space, an expression completely antithetical to any notion of payment

[citation needed]

A permit does not make a public space into private property.

You're not even trying to blend in anymore…

Can you provide what law you're referring to that costitutes a protest to be private property? There is no way that a common citizen can predict that a every day public area will be immediately turned into a private gathering. As well
Thats how I know you're not a lawyer, being in the presence of an outlaw does not indicate them to be at your whim. They are still protected by their constitutional rights unless in direct violation of your own immediate rights (life, liberty, property of yourself and others)

Also a person wearing a political hat is protected by freedom of speech. Just because he was caught in the middle of a protest does not mean he has no rights there. It is still a public area.

If you have to ask permission, then by definition it's not a "right."

There is when there is a registration process with signs.
If they do not wish to be informed, that's their issue, just like with Hillary voters.

You are allowed to remove a trespasser from your property so long as you use a minimum of force and with the intent of solely ejecting them.
As it so known that the man was trespassing, he is to be ejected from the park.

nycgovparks.org/rules/section-2-08
nycgovparks.org/rules/section-1-05

And so no, it is not a public area.
His free speach went out the window with the Patriot act and its creation of regulations.


Why do you think I put that up their first?


Don't you have a latte to go get with free trade wood pikes to sodomize yourself with?

Okay good to know that if someone who isn't posing any kind of threat walks up my driveway, I can start immediately shoving him back onto the sidewalk instead of calling the police.

I'm sure those girl scouts trying to sell cookies are going to be surprised as fuck.

In a perfect universe, that cunt would be shown what true violence is. Why does it have to be this way, Holla Forums?

Move here first and acquire citizenship.

Then leave.

and again: [citation needed]
post proofs for your claims or I'll filter and report you

Yes?
Its rather surprisng how many things do not actually have legal backing but are heald to.

Such as you are also allowed to retrieve your property from the other persons yard, first by ingressing on their marked paths to ring the door, then if not home by taking a direct as possible route to acquire and leave.

As well, any person with consent, deliverymen typically, are still to walk on the sidewalk or other marked areas.
Solicitors actually frequently lack such consent and may not enter your yard period.

OTOH, I can fly my drone however I wish around your yard and person so long as I do not move to touch you.
You moving to interfere is now a federal aviation felony and possible terrorist action for moving against an aircraft.

I liked it back when they were right there with model planes…


I already did shabbos with the regulations on permits.
But go ahead with your petulant fit, demonstrate your love of Bernie Sanders and soon to be forced acceptance of Trump by the barrel of my gun and the glory of marching boots.

"Permittees shall be held liable for any and all damages or injuries to persons or property that may occur or be caused by the use of the permit. By accepting a permit, permittees agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City and the Department from any and all claims whatsoever that may result from such use."

Where are you quoting that says "permitees are able to remove non attendees from the park"?

Also this is the only mention of not being able to have a political thing without a permit and does NOT mention any articles of clothing.

"No person shall post, display, affix, construct or carry any placard, flag, banner, sign or model or display any such item by means of aircraft, kite, balloon or other aerial device, in, on, or above the surface of any park for any purpose whatsoever without a permit issued by the Commissioner. Each separate item placed in violation of this section shall constitute a separate violation."

This guy is talking out of his ass.

We really are like that mouse experiment on overpopulation, aren't we?

Battery
At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.
Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others.
Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. The main distinction between the two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery is a fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim.
Elements
The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.
The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.
Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

pt. 2


And here's my state's law on battery:


750.81.amended Assault or assault and battery; penalties; previous convictions; exception; “dating relationship” defined.
Sec. 81.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who assaults or assaults and batters an individual, if no other punishment is prescribed by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), (4), or (5), an individual who assaults or assaults and batters his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(3) An individual who assaults or assaults and batters an individual who is pregnant and who knows the individual is pregnant is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(4) An individual who commits an assault or an assault and battery in violation of subsection (2) or (3), and who has previously been convicted of assaulting or assaulting and battering an individual described in either subsection (2) or subsection (3) under any of the following, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both:

(a) This section or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state substantially corresponding to this section.

(b) Section 81a, 82, 83, 84, or 86.

(c) A law of another state or an ordinance of a political subdivision of another state substantially corresponding to this section or section 81a, 82, 83, 84, or 86.

(5) An individual who commits an assault or an assault and battery in violation of subsection (2) or (3), and who has 2 or more previous convictions for assaulting or assaulting and battering an individual described in either subsection (2) or subsection (3) under any of the following, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both:

(a) This section or an ordinance of a political subdivision of this state substantially corresponding to this section.

(b) Section 81a, 82, 83, 84, or 86.

(c) A law of another state or an ordinance of a political subdivision of another state substantially corresponding to this section or section 81a, 82, 83, 84, or 86.

(6) This section does not apply to an individual using necessary reasonable physical force in compliance with section 1312 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1312.

(7) As used in this section, "dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context.

You are wrong. You would be guilty of misdemeanor battery if you start putting hands on an obviously non-threatening person who walks onto your property.

criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-it-legal-own-and-fly-a-drone.htm

Navigatable airspace is a 1000 feet above ground in urban areas. Gas yourself chaim.

Sorry, nope, right out of my registration card.

Yet how odd for you it must be, that the video evidence supports my stance and leaves you flummoxed.
This must be for you, what it feels like when you show bernite that niggers are violent, a Clintonite of her crimes, and a cuck that he lost.

B T F O

"People who own property beneath the navigable airspace have Constitutionally-protected property rights, as well as protections against personal injury under tort law"
From the same website. Your card doesn't give you the right to occupy private property. Its saying you can fly it in non navigable airspace, it says nothing about flying on others property (which that 400 feet of air is)

No I just cant stand bullshit artists. I already know the police don't enforce the law.

Are you stupid?

By definition of law, the video shows a battery occuring - a misdemeanor.

How can you disagree that this is battery?

How much of the vertical space do you own?

Because he dindu nuffin.

Nah hes just some autist that thinks it gives him a false sense of superiority to pretend to be intellectual and then give up on his claims when proven wrong. I remember this trolling back on 4chan, it was one of the reasons why I left. I'd spend hours getting citations and writing up about why he was wrong only to find out he had left the thread and made 3 more of a different type that were also false.

...

You have some pretty sad skills there.

faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

Faa owns from the ground up.
Drones may fly in any public airspace following the guidelines.
Same as with model aircraft.

Now there was a period of when it was 83 feet, but that has been done away with it would seem.
As well, drones are now quasi aircraft and hobby craft, leading to them getting some interesting cases, though none of them have been explored since January when they came into being.


Some people will do that, I find it easier to just use my burner and reboot it to do that.

Because if it was, the officers would have reacted.
What is the man going to do, claim battery, then have the officer step up and say he saw nothing to constitute, but did see the man trespassing and being ejected?

...

Is it even established that it was private property?

You have a duty to inform a trespasser to leave before you "eject" them. You can't start using force if there is no threat.

I'll link you the relevant law if you start weaseling around here. You're fucking wrong on this.

He's not trying to win an argument, just to derail the thread.

cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/

The courts are more and more in my favor despite the legal grey area. Name one case where a man was convicted with violating faa regulations after taking out a drone.

They shout racist out before the shove.
THat is meeting the definition.


upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/06/30/Judge-orders-man-who-shot-down-neighbors-drone-to-pay-850/2901435666642/

That was easy.

Also nice try on the FAA regulation bit, drones weren't covered until 2016, when suddenly the cases of them being shot at stop, almost like people are aware shooting is not tolerated now…

No court or jury is going to consider the half a second between screaming at someone and laying hands on them as a reasonable amount of time for someone to leave.

It's not even informing him that he's trespassing. It's just namecalling.

Again, where does it say he was on private property?

Even if shouting "Racist" at someone is informing someone that they are on private property (It isn't) or if it's telling them to leave (It's not), they still used disproportionate levels of force as he was not immediately threatening towards person or property.

You really fucking suck at this.

racist leave is pretty clearly directed at him to leave.

That was proportionate, no skin broken, no injuries, no lasting discomfort.
You know, exactly why as I said the police don't care but at the same time your allegations have merit.

They didn't say "leave", they said "Out". The implications are semantically and legally different given the context of the protest. Even if you don't agree to that, they still never informed him that he was on "private" property.

In fact, he was steadily walking with his back turned to them in the direction they were moving him. He arguably was, in fact, leaving, private property or no. So your entire point is moot. They didn't have to use force at all, they were successfully removing him peacefully and he was more or less cooperating. They escalated it past the legally acceptable level.


Too bad battery or assault don't give a shit about broken skin, injuries, or lasting discomfort. Spitting on someone is considered such, and that doesn't result in any of those three. You don't even know what is legally considered a proportionate response regarding self defense of self or property. Why the fuck are you still even trying?

I should ask you why you are arguing with reality?
You spend your time here instead of getting something productive done and looking to change the world.

Anyways, as a verbal command was given, as I expected you would then attempt semantics to say how you din du nuffin.
Not surprising.

And yes, which is why I said while it meets the requirements, the actions of the officer spoke louder and showed it was not of their concern.

You seem to be ignoring what I am saying, are you sure you're not glancing over to leftpol and trying to argue there?

wew lad

I am comfy with my life, you want to change things.

If anything, I have more to say of the 2s and 3s here than the large numbers.

This is the future you chose, and continue to choose.

you sure that's not a kike?

Anyone else notice the strange, strange irony of those niggers marching in lockstep picking on one single harmless person and being violent while screaming "fascist out"?
no, personally I'm for fascism, of course. I think whites should march in lockstep with firearms and mow all those dirty monkeys down, doing the world a favor. Obviously. I'm on Holla Forums.

but that aside from that, is anyone else noticing the irony here? also, Hillary Clinton literally is the Corporate Liberal candidate – she IS the oppressor those niggers hate. Trump is just some rich asshole, at worst. Clinton is the corrupt enforcer for le ebul bourgeoisie patriarchy.

Am I way off base here or are these niggers, even the smart ones, super retarded?

Because good men are doing nothing.

bump

Niggardly: Stingy, miserly (a real word, been in the dictionary since dictionaries were a thing)

A D.C. Mayor's top aide was forced to resign for using the word "niggardly" correctly in a sentence back in 1999. This is why it's important that you know what niggardly means, know its correct usage, and use it whenever the occasion allows.

Niggerly: acting like a nigger, (not a real word but go ahead and use it anyway) ←-use this instead if you don't mean miserly or stingy

forgot the link to niggardly:

washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

archive.is/weBwr

Only if the MSM gets a hold of the event in question before the populace has time to record what actually happened.


This isn't England, the NYPD has monitored numerous mosques throughout the City regardless of the faggy leftists. The person who said "I know where you live", is merely making a statement of (possible) fact. If however, he were to say "I know where you live and I'm going to kill you and burn down your house", then it would be a threat.

Why is there always a short "activist" that comes out of nowhere and pushes/hits/punches a mob target and then disappears. These people can't even attack someone from the front when they are surrounded by a fucking mob.

Its the protest leprechaun.
They're a curse from having brought over the Irish and made them police.

I can get a permit to make a public city park whites only? Where do I sign up?

Back follow the links, I'd say special event 20+ category.

...

Because there is a police line and some paramedics a couple feet away.

Remember that thread where the youtuber pulled out his pistol when they tried to assault him and they ran for their lives? That's what will happen when they're actually confronted.

So what are you protesting?
Protesting?
What's your rally for?
Oh we just wanted to have a fucking picnic in peace.

Special Events is a separate category than protests.
Also there is one for picnics.

To expand on what I said, look here

This is the sort of legal bullshit the left will use to try and avoid consequences. They'll resort to lawfare to try and keep themselves from facing any repercussions. But if you escalate it, they'll run like pussies back behind the police line.

Seems pretty consistent.
And I love this lawfare argument, as though somehow you should be able to breach whatever laws you like, just because you don't want to follow them.
Real niggerly of you there.

Sure why not? Leftshits do it all the time so why can't I?

Tell you what kid, your arguement boils down to "The cops didn't do anything so its okay."

So if I were to cap some random commie faggot in my town, and the sheriff here decided not to prosecute, would I be innocent? Of course I would because leftists aren't people, but that's besides the point


I know right. :^)

#NewYorkValues

Yes you would.
But then, you would lose your own position of being a greater man upholding the law and following it.
Feel free to join us in the reality pool, just know we all float the same.

:^)


So? The law is just paper and is arbitrarily enforced. Commies know this and more of us are starting to realize it. Commies won't be able to hide behind it and their little police lines for long.

Thats why the BLM puppets will always be a joke and never be taken seriously by any party.

See and this is why we have guns, because psychos like you claim to uphold the law, then cast it aside whenever it gets in your way.

And this is why I have armor! So when you fucking leftshits decide to harass us, those guns won't mean as much as you think they do.

Care to point out where I claimed to "uphold the law"? All I did was make a comment about lawfare, and how anons trying to use the law to protect themselves from assault by these subhumans would fail.

In fact, if anything, I've been advocating an extra-legal solution to lefty problem for this entire thread. You need to keep up slowpoke.

Where the fuck is Moon Man when you need him?

You armor your eyeballs against 4.6 x 30?
That is some weird foresight there.

You come into t a thread about freedom of expression and assembly, versus assault and battery with trespassing.

Your only interest here is if you care for the law, as otherwise its just your typical from power bit that should be expected.

If you want extralegal, we have a better term here for that, being a nigger.

(checked)

He can be anyone at anytime user. You just gotta believe.

I could probably find some goggles that will do that. But the best way of avoiding that is for you leftists to not try and assault me because you can't control yourselves.

The better question is what gun do you have that actually shoots that cartridge? Are you a fed? I don't know of any particular civie gun in the US that shoots that cartridge.


And? The law is completely arbitrary depending on who enforces it. That conversation is pointless.


Then why are you here? You just admitted the law was completely arbitrary in . And a major part of your argument is that the cops didn't do anything so its okay. If you were serious, you would answer . But you aren't.


That's comical. One of Holla Forums's idols is a man that shot over 60 left wing polyps on their little island.

he also picked the wrong target

Shit I've been made.
Abandon thread!

facebook.com/libtardmedia/videos/vb.1631240470426637/1696171180600232/?type=2&theater

Fuck off cuck, this isn't in Britain, where you can be arrested for "wearing uniform with political objectives" just by wearing a jacket.

So leftshits get to use these tactics, but we don't get to turn them back on them? Sounds like you wanting us to lay down our guns so you can shoot us with impunity.

Speak for yourself, not all of us idolize that zionist freemason good goy.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
make sure to add this one to the faces of Holla Forums

Of course that's what he wants.


He came out later and said that was a cover so the media wouldn't try to crucify the right. There's a screenshot of the article floating around Holla Forums.

Nope a declaration is time enough, the Tamir Rice case showed this.
Out is easily constructed as a direction given the man is trespassing.
THat the protest was in its permitted zone.

As later anons also pointed, the man was already obeying when "assisted", so yes it would be ruled sufficient.


Not likely, its a pretty nice round, anything good enough is going to remove your neck being upright.
I do home smithing, its something fun I wish more people got into, but then most of them want to prance on about these protests of do nothing and the counters and bullshit over hats and shirts.

I didn't bother as his questions were answered and visible.
Do you constantly explain misonogony is false and niggers are criminals, or do you just let your previous arguments stand?

Ooh big man Breivik, shooting a bunch of kids.
Truly the mark of somebody moving things forward.
You know he could have shot up a flat of Somalis there and done a fuck load more good?


Feel free to use them, you just will have lost your difference and joined us.
I have no issue with it, we're always looking for more low ranking leftist to use as fodder.
In essence, you want to claim to be something different, but want to also use the same tactics.
Not how it works, you want to use leftist methods, you're a leftist.
You want to claim to be an upstanding follower of the law, I suggest realizing lawfare is what you should aspire to.


Don't worry, our vaunted and beloved government is working on getting there.

Consider killing yourself.

>>>Holla Forums is that way, faggot.
Whether you like it or not, Trump will MAGA, you cocksucker.

Because I should just accept statism and be oh so happy with people having their freedom to assembly shat upon?

Or maybe THAT was the cover. I gotta admit, the guy is a genius and put a lot of thought into it.

Clearly the answer is to have maga hats made with the maga stitched in cursive script. That way, niggers will not be able to read it.

I think we all know who really won that fight.

In the end… The real upset isn't him being escorted away from this protest… It's that it's being done by these protesters themselves while agressively pushing and shouting anti-White slurs like "no fascist", "no racist", "White supremacist" instead of by guards, police.

I looked around and there is nothing I could find that implies that getting a permit for a demonstration is equivalent to renting the park.

You remind me of people who film movies and try to pretend they have the right to stop you using the street. When you point out they can't, they say "we have a permit" even though they know very well there permit gives them the right to film, it doesn't give them exclusive use of the street.

No, the police decided to let the situation play out because that was the path of least resistance.

calling a non-Black racist whilst assaulting him and discriminating against him

DOTR

It is now.

...

...

I had that happen to me before and it pisses me off so badly. Coupled with the chanting I would have lost it. These are not people. They are demons and I want to exercise them all.