Man (?) attacks teen in Seattle over MAGA hat

[spectre]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/21/m ... ed-seattle

A teenager in Seattle, Washington was harassed by a man and a woman on the street for wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat.

In a YouTube video of the encounter, Ashton Hess told the man who allegedly spat on his hat, "That's my property, dude. Come on."

[imkopaka]

When we allow speech to be labelled "violent," said speech will be responded to using violence. We warned them, but people didn't listen. Now we see the assaults begin - after all, they are only defending themselves against violent speech. It won't be long before it escalates again. Right now it is mostly limited to soft targets: teenagers in highly leftist areas of the country. How long before it spreads? Keep your head on a swivel and be prepared to defend yourself. While I'm not going to shoot someone for snatching a hat off my head, I'll certainly show them a few things I can do with my hands.

[OneGun]

This is a powder keg. Someone who carries wears a MAGA hat. Some liberal moron attacks the man or tries to take the hat because of alleged "hate speech". Man carrying thinks he is being assaulted and shoots.

Liberals throw labels around like "Nazi", "Fascist", "Hate", "Racist" and have no clue what these labels actually mean in the real world. They use the 1st Amendments right to free speech to limit other people's right to free speech.

Go Figure.

[spectre]

This is a powder keg. Someone who carries wears a MAGA hat. Some liberal moron attacks the man or tries to take the hat because of alleged "hate speech". Man carrying thinks he is being assaulted and shoots.

They are being assaulted, at least according to Texas law.

[imkopaka]

This is a powder keg. Someone who carries wears a MAGA hat. Some liberal moron attacks the man or tries to take the hat because of alleged "hate speech". Man carrying thinks he is being assaulted and shoots.

They are being assaulted, at least according to Texas law.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

What I get out of the above quoted laws is that this only qualifies as robbery if you are injured, threatened with injury, or placed in reasonable fear of injury when the hat is taken, and other than that it only qualifies as theft. If the theft occurred during the nighttime, you would be justified in using deadly force ONLY if you reasonably believed that putting your hands on the perp wouldn't be enough to your hat back or would subject you to risk of serious bodily injury (getting punched back does not qualify as serious. Serious involves things like getting hit with a weapon). While it would be easier (and perhaps more satisfying in theory) to pull an Indiana Jones and shoot the guy, in Texas it would almost certainly get you sent to prison. OneGun is right.

[eyedoc]

The people who have been killed by a punch would probably argue that punches can cause grievous bodily harm or death. If they could come back as a ghost that is.

[Allons]

Once again cowards attacking teens. Picking and choosing people who they know is probably not a threat.

[Oldgringo]

Why was he wearing the hat backwards?

[cirus]

This is a powder keg. Someone who carries wears a MAGA hat. Some liberal moron attacks the man or tries to take the hat because of alleged "hate speech". Man carrying thinks he is being assaulted and shoots.

That's about the only way to stop it illegal or not. They'll wise up when enough get shot. You just can't reason with some people. All they understand is pain.

[Maxwell]

They grabbed his hat off of his head. Whether they took it with them or threw it on the ground and spit on it that's assault and maybe criminal mischief for the spit.

Do you think the Seattle police will get involved?

Side question not directly related: Wasn''t there an aggravated assault case someplace against a guy spitting on people? This would have been a few years ago.