You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
1

[–] 13188023? 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Legally speaking, don't be so sure. A competent attorney could argue that at the beginning of the clip the proud boy (victim) was actually unjustifiably assaulting the first person who hits the ground. He could then argue that the antifa commie (perpetrator) was actually trying to intercede to stop a crime. It might be enough for a civil case. And I'm sure there are communist groups that are wiling to dump money into legal attack funds, to out-lawyer the victim.

1
5

[–] KosherHiveKicker 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The Auntefag repeatedly came after him with a deadly weapon with intent to harm.

He had every right to fight back after the first swing, and the second swing that the Auntefag intentionally stepped into.

0
3

[–] TheSeer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Weapon vs bare hands. Case closed. Antifa soyboy throws the first strike. The first two strikes! Proud Boy thought he was gonna die.

The defence lawyer should try argue that either he had on something on his forearms, like vambraces, or forearm guards, or that Proud Boy's fists constitute weapons in their own right!

But rest assured, the slogan 'Punch a Nazi' will be used much less enthusiastically this summer, than the last two years!

0
2

[–] Ke1tuMad5 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

was actually unjustifiably assaulting the first person who hits the ground

Good thinking, but - no. The proud boy had stepped pretty far away and was simply relatively passively standing in the street, when the Antifa thug came at him yielding a weapon. So it indeed was a self defense.