TexasCHLforum.com

Can't find the words to express my thoughts on this.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/ ... um=social

Yeah, it's ok, it was only conservatives attacked. He didn't hurt and leftist feelings, which would cause them to seek out a safe space. That would have put him behind bars for years!!

I saw in a Rolling Stone article that covered this event, an interesting description of how they identified this guy:

"As soon as the protest ended, the trolls and hackers who used the site launched a fevered search for Stiles’ assailant – a suspect they took to calling “Bike Lock Guy.” From the moment it was formed in 2011, /pol/ had been a breeding ground for some of the right’s most virulent movements, an online swamp for everyone from Gamergaters and men’s rights activists to overt racists and white supremacists. Now its digital sleuths were poring over videos for clues about Bike Lock Guy, eagerly swapping tips with one another. “Look into the OakRoots anarchist group in Oakland,” one wrote of a lead that turned out to be false. “You will find him.”"

By April 17th, two days after the battle in the park, the 4channers had compiled a list of “Bike Lock Guy Identifiables.” The man they were looking for was five-feet-six or so, slimly built and had worn a hoodie, dark jeans, black gloves, a black backpack and knockoff-Rayban sunglasses. When one /pol/ user theorized that “given his footwork,” the suspect might belong to a martial arts or boxing gym, another posted a list of local facilities. When the hackers ran the evidence they had – partial photographs of Bike Lock Guy’s unmasked eyebrows and “nasolabial” angle – through an image search, it came back with a hit: a 28-year-old Bay Area college professor named Eric Clanton."

I know...it's Rollingstone but assuming this is an accurate account of how it went down, it's interesting.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... ks-630213/

This is the leftist capital, I'm not really all that surprised.

Ok, had this happened here, bike lock guy comes at you with bike lock (which for all intents and purpose is a mace) justified drawing your weapon? Justified self defense shoot if he actually continues his attack?
I say yes and yes, you guys opinion?

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:20 pm Ok, had this happened here, bike lock guy comes at you with bike lock (which for all intents and purpose is a mace) justified drawing your weapon? Justified self defense shoot if he actually continues his attack?
I say yes and yes, you guys opinion?

I may be stating this wrong, but I believe deadly force is legal to prevent unlawful use of force against yourself or another.

Remember when a lot of people got upset when someone was profiled because they wore a hoodie. Lots of freedom to wear hoodie protests were held.

Seems bad guys wear hoodies.

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:20 pm Ok, had this happened here, bike lock guy comes at you with bike lock (which for all intents and purpose is a mace) justified drawing your weapon? Justified self defense shoot if he actually continues his attack?
I say yes and yes, you guys opinion?

That happened so fast and the guy ran fast like a coward afterwards. By the time you realized what happened and drew, you would have shot the wrong guy! IMHO

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:23 pm

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:20 pm Ok, had this happened here, bike lock guy comes at you with bike lock (which for all intents and purpose is a mace) justified drawing your weapon? Justified self defense shoot if he actually continues his attack?
I say yes and yes, you guys opinion?

I may be stating this wrong, but I believe deadly force is legal to prevent unlawful use of force against yourself or another.

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.

I despise Commiefornia liberal judges and politicians as much as the next person, but there's no way even the most liberal judge or da would allow this plea deal unless the perp had some major dirt on antifa or some other radical extremist organization. It makes more sense than having an antifa sympathizer that deep in the justice system.

Look for more assaults in the future. For every 2.33 Trump supporters assaulted, you only get 1 year of probation.

I didn't realize how clearly the antifa "with us or against us" rhetoric mirrors that of historic communists and fascists. I wonder how they'd respond to the accusation that they're all totalitarians whose overarching goal is to line their ideological opponents up against a wall?

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:17 pm I didn't realize how clearly the antifa "with us or against us" rhetoric mirrors that of historic communists and fascists. I wonder how they'd respond to the accusation that they're all totalitarians whose overarching goal is to line their ideological opponents up against a wall?

They would accuse the accuser of hate speech. They are above reproach.

We're getting to the point where the courts and legal system are a joke. The police in Progressive controlled areas already take the side of the Progressives and stand ready to crack down on anyone from the right who dares to oppose the left.

Once folks realize the legal system and "authorities" are not legitimate, at least for one segment of the population, things will start to happen to little creeps like this.

Jeff B.