A Chart to Help Those on the Fence About Punching Nazis

good point - only one person was behind the wheel and caused a death - and he is apprehended & awaiting his day in court. If more Nazis run people over, more Nazis will be arrested. If a counter-demonstrator from ANTIFA runs somebody over, they will be arrested.

Fringe?

Get the fuck out of the basement or attic of your moms house and actually go outside you stupid nitwit.

There is noting fringe about what the left is doing on college campuses.

It's ok to use violence in self-defense, full stop.

False, so utterly and ridiculously that it bears no further elaboration.

In self defense.

It's not self defense if some person is only holding a sign at a protest that you don't like and saying things that you don't like. As long as that person makes no move to harm you than any physical actions you take against that person is not self defense.

A bunch of dumb ass retards holding Tiki torches and chanting stupid slogans is not a green light for "self defense" and your argument they were inciting violence doesn't match any video I've seen of their retarded protest.

Please feel free to post links to the videos that show these idiots making death threats while holding their Tiki torches.

correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the left in general been saying
right = conservative = white = racist = sexist = the fly in the ointment of their quest for a "perfect world?"

Poor little fascist. Got his feelings hurt.

It's okay. Way things are going you can eventually outlaw me as well.

When you order my execution though for not thinking the correct way I would like the execution to be a firing squad.

One group had a permit. One did not.

Agreed wholeheartedly. However, I feel that your definition of threatening and my definition of threatening differ.

He doesn't care.

Yes actually, both did. Your argument is invalid. wapo fact check

In blaming both sides for the violence in Charlottesville that left one person dead, President Trump twice asserted that the people protesting white supremacists and neo-Nazis lacked a permit, unlike the groups that gathered to protest the possible removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

But that’s turned out to be false, according to documents and interviews obtained by our Washington Post colleague Justin Wm. Moyer.

The Pinocchio Test
President Trump twice claimed that counterprotesters lacked a permit to demonstrate in Charlottesville. But they did have permits for rallies on Saturday — and they did not need one to go into or gather near Emancipation Park, where white nationalists scheduled their rally. No permits were needed to march on the U-Va. campus on Friday night. The president earns Four Pinocchios.​

Actually two counter protest groups were given permits after the city banned the far right group and revoked their permit. That was why federal courts ruled in favor of the far right having a right to a permit. Antifa never had a permit and their only purpose is to commit crimes thus why they wear masks, carry weapons, and explicitly say violence is their primary method.

The proper way this should be done is with police there with overwelming force and to immediately arrest anyone who commits violence, is wearing a mask, or who is carrying a weapon. Proper planning is required to keep geoups seporated, police snipers should be preplaced and anyone commiting violence should immediately be met with deadly force sufficient to end their criminality. That is after all the justification for requiring permits to begin with.

I would also require anyone applying for a permit to post an extremely substantial bond and any destruction of property, criminal acts by any event attendees, or any violence and that bond is forfeit with event organizers personally agreeing to make good and suffer any criminal penalities.

Elwood isn't talking about the protest groups that protested the Nazi group. Yes they did have permits.

14th Doctor was talking about the events surrounding the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown. Those protesters didn't have a permit.

14th Doctor was complaining they were arrested while these Nazi scum weren't and Elwood pointed out that the Ferguson protesters didn't have the permit.

Sorry, I can't keep up.

You're slightly off here. The two counter protest groups were given the permit after the court ruled the Nazi could have their protest. The mayor was upset so not only did he issue two permits to the counter protesters he allowed them to protest practically in the face of the Nazi scum instead of making them protest somewhere else.

Oh and than the Mayor told the police to stand down.

The courts didn't rule in favor of the Nazi scum because of the city giving two permits to the counter protesters. The court ruled in favor of the Nazi scum because they have a right to protest.

1) Nazis applied and were granted a permit

2) City revoked permit. Nazis sued with ACLU agreeing to represent them.

3) City issues two more permits but for counter protest groups neither of which were Antifa.

4) Courts rule if they give permits to one side constitutionally they must give permits to the other side. Nazi permit was reinstated.

5) Nazis act like asshats chanting objectionable things which are still never the less protected free speech.

6) Antifa and BLM turn violent, everything goes to shit, and then Nazis start running around being violent.

7) Fuck stick of a mayor orders police including state troopers, state National Guard, and police brought in from other cities to stand down and not intervine in the melee. This was absolutely criminal because the only purpose of having so much law enforcement was to maintain public order but instead streets are turned over to violent groups.

Then our interpretation of the swastika differs. It means "we are coming to kill you".

Did you bother to read the text I actually quoted? The Nazi's in VA had a permit last week. The rioters in Ferguson, MO (you know, the article in the post I quoted) did not.

14th Doctor is, erroneously, trying to point out racism in the police response to the two incidents. Yes, lots of people in Ferguson, MO were arrested for failure to disperse because...they didn't have a permit and there was actual violence by a great many protesters. The police didn't arrest the Nazi's in VA because:

#1: They had a permit.
#2: Their behavior didn't cross the threshold for the crime of menacing, or whatever it's VA equivalent it.

What does this mean:



I think it means the same thing as the Swastika.

Does that mean I can attack these people:

Then you are severely, grotesquely misinformed. Whether a jury will believe you is then up to that jury.

A swastika is offensive, but it is not threatening. There has to be a physical action that would make a rational person reasonably fear that they are about to be in imminent physical danger before you can claim self-defense. You feel that the swastika alone is enough, I (and the laws in the United States) do not. Like I said, your definition of threatening and mine differ.

You're absolutely 100% right. They're worse.

High End Estimate: Nazi's - 24,000,000 deaths. Communists - 95,000,000 deaths.
Low End Estimate: Nazi's - 10,000,000 deaths. Communists - 55,000,000 deaths.

Can you show me this positive or negative list of thongs that can be involved in a threat according to the laws of the United States? Because this is the first time that I have heard of it.

Even if those numbers were correct (and they're not, but that is a different thread), the flag doesn't mean that this is the immediate intent of its bearer, contrary to the swastika.

And you show in one post that you are a disgrace to the human race. And a threat to the human race.

Frankly you need to be locked up with the Nazis. You're literally no different than them.

You're evil.

Please. I don't want to see Elwood's thongs.

Are you really saying that the act of holding a swastika flag means that the holder is going to try to kill anyone who sees it?

The law, as I'm familiar with it, reads: "A person commits the crime of menacing if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury." (Section 13A-6-23) Menacing is the first, and most minor, step towards confrontation. Legally, self-defense can only be used when "A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose." (Section 13A-3-23)

And there we are. Murderous thugs march through your streets, threatening blacks and Jews under the swastika. And therefore, I am evil.

Oh and @Elwood you forgot this communist:



Responsible for the deaths 45 million of his own people in roughly four years.