Topic: Nick Fuentes arrested for macing that unarmed old lady who knocked on his door
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #122,016
lolChuckle Brother 2 !ErY2TknG0w joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 37 minutes later[^] [v] #1,332,993
Shut the fuck up Matt
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,332,994
His cellmate is about to whisper into his ear, "Your body, my choice."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,332,995
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 second later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,332,996
he has fag hair
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,332,998
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,001
She was going onto private property to harass him, and he used non-lethal force.
Legally, what's the appropriate reaction in that situation? Do nothing and bother the cops?
Legally, what's the appropriate reaction in that situation? Do nothing and bother the cops?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,004
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,005
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,009
@previous (boof)
Having obsessed stalkers knocking on your door all the time because you wrote mean stuff online isn't something that ignoring will fix.
Having obsessed stalkers knocking on your door all the time because you wrote mean stuff online isn't something that ignoring will fix.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,010
oh I thought this was America --Randy Marsh
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,011
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,012
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,013
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,043
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,044
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,061
Hahaha
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,062
@1,333,001 (E)
A. Mace isn't necessarily considered to be non lethal
B. In many states, you cant leave your secured home to confront someone and then claim you were in fear for your life
A. Mace isn't necessarily considered to be non lethal
B. In many states, you cant leave your secured home to confront someone and then claim you were in fear for your life
(Edited 6 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,192
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> A. Mace isn't necessarily considered to be non lethal
Who considers mace lethal?
> B. In many states, you cant leave your secured home to confront someone and then claim you were in fear for your life
Stand your ground laws are for public areas, you can't trespass on a private residence and use that defense.
> A. Mace isn't necessarily considered to be non lethal
Who considers mace lethal?
> B. In many states, you cant leave your secured home to confront someone and then claim you were in fear for your life
Stand your ground laws are for public areas, you can't trespass on a private residence and use that defense.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,203
@1,333,062 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Mace isn't necessarily considered to be non lethal
Huh? It's definitely non-lethal.
> Mace isn't necessarily considered to be non lethal
Huh? It's definitely non-lethal.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,215
@1,333,001 (E)
Hard agree. If there's random assholes off the internet coming to my house, lines have already been crossed.
Hard agree. If there's random assholes off the internet coming to my house, lines have already been crossed.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,217
@1,333,192 (E)
@1,333,203 (H)
Not in every state. You can kill someone with Mace
Also, it's not trespassing necessarily to ring someone's doorbell. You can't leave a secured home to use a weapon on someone because they rang your doorbell
Maybe read up on self defense law
It's also not self defense to leave your locked home to assault someone and he stole her phone as well. And it's not usually legal to assault someone if they trespassed. Which she likely hadn't been served a trespasse warning previously to this
@1,333,203 (H)
Not in every state. You can kill someone with Mace
Also, it's not trespassing necessarily to ring someone's doorbell. You can't leave a secured home to use a weapon on someone because they rang your doorbell
Maybe read up on self defense law
It's also not self defense to leave your locked home to assault someone and he stole her phone as well. And it's not usually legal to assault someone if they trespassed. Which she likely hadn't been served a trespasse warning previously to this
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,218
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,220
@1,333,192 (E)
@1,333,203 (H)
@1,333,217 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Ask yourselves this
1. Was she trespassing by the legal definition?
2. How are you allowed to defend yourself from a trespasser?
3. Are you legally allowed to leave a secured residence to use a weapon on a trespasser?
4. Does stealing her phone count as theft?
@1,333,203 (H)
@1,333,217 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Ask yourselves this
1. Was she trespassing by the legal definition?
2. How are you allowed to defend yourself from a trespasser?
3. Are you legally allowed to leave a secured residence to use a weapon on a trespasser?
4. Does stealing her phone count as theft?
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Chuffed !m8sJfgzmLE joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,228
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> 4. Does stealing her phone count as theft?
That's called consequences! Don't go harassing people in real life not expecting some blowback? Same reason road rage is everyone's problem - gotta own your part in it.
> 4. Does stealing her phone count as theft?
That's called consequences! Don't go harassing people in real life not expecting some blowback? Same reason road rage is everyone's problem - gotta own your part in it.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,235
@previous (Chuffed !m8sJfgzmLE)
I'm talking about legal consequences for him and not emotional outbursts
I'm talking about legal consequences for him and not emotional outbursts
Chuffed !m8sJfgzmLE replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,268
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yes on the theft then probably :o. I wouldn't want to argue she's ugly and a dum dum in court; not a very convincing argument :o.
Yes on the theft then probably :o. I wouldn't want to argue she's ugly and a dum dum in court; not a very convincing argument :o.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,284
@1,333,235 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Don't stalk people and harass them on their own property if you don't want to deal with angry people. Don't have your camera recording when someone opens their front door if you want to keep it.
Don't stalk people and harass them on their own property if you don't want to deal with angry people. Don't have your camera recording when someone opens their front door if you want to keep it.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,285
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,297
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You are allowed to defend your property. She had no legal right to record the inside of his house or stay on his property without permission.
You are allowed to defend your property. She had no legal right to record the inside of his house or stay on his property without permission.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,316
@previous (K)
> You are allowed to defend your property. She had no legal right to record the inside of his house or stay on his property without permission.
She didn't record the inside of his property nor did she stay after he asked her to leave
You're a fool
> You are allowed to defend your property. She had no legal right to record the inside of his house or stay on his property without permission.
She didn't record the inside of his property nor did she stay after he asked her to leave
You're a fool
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,322
@1,333,220 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
There was a case in my country where a guy broke into a house, and the men inside the house chased him down the street, dragged him back, tied him to a chair and beat him into a pulp with a bat. Then said it was self defence.
There was a case in my country where a guy broke into a house, and the men inside the house chased him down the street, dragged him back, tied him to a chair and beat him into a pulp with a bat. Then said it was self defence.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,323
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,324
@1,333,322 (L)
> There was a case in my country where a guy broke into a house, and the men inside the house chased him down the street, dragged him back, tied him to a chair and beat him into a pulp with a bat. Then said it was self defence.
That's what he gets for breaking into someone's home. Especially when they are inside.
> There was a case in my country where a guy broke into a house, and the men inside the house chased him down the street, dragged him back, tied him to a chair and beat him into a pulp with a bat. Then said it was self defence.
That's what he gets for breaking into someone's home. Especially when they are inside.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,325
@1,333,323 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I don't have a ton of love for B&E or home invasion types of people. Hopefully a wash and everyone promised to be better next time.
I don't have a ton of love for B&E or home invasion types of people. Hopefully a wash and everyone promised to be better next time.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,326
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,334
@1,333,316 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The video was recording before he opened his door, so she was 100% intending to record the inside of his home. That's not OK even if you're standing outside. It's still his property, and that's still an invasion of privacy.
She could record him in public, that's her right, but she doesn't get to go to his place and harass him with impunity.
She didn't stay because he pepper sprayed her. It takes actual pushback to get obsessed stalkers to back off.
Do you honestly think a woman who came all the way there, and had the video recording before he opened was just going to leave the moment he told her too? Obvious bullshit. She didn't decide to spend her day doing that to politely leave after 5 seconds of interaction. She wanted to scream and harass him, and he knew who she was because he'd seen her before.
The video was recording before he opened his door, so she was 100% intending to record the inside of his home. That's not OK even if you're standing outside. It's still his property, and that's still an invasion of privacy.
She could record him in public, that's her right, but she doesn't get to go to his place and harass him with impunity.
She didn't stay because he pepper sprayed her. It takes actual pushback to get obsessed stalkers to back off.
Do you honestly think a woman who came all the way there, and had the video recording before he opened was just going to leave the moment he told her too? Obvious bullshit. She didn't decide to spend her day doing that to politely leave after 5 seconds of interaction. She wanted to scream and harass him, and he knew who she was because he'd seen her before.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,348
@previous (K)
That doesn't mean she was going to record inside of his house. What in the fuck are you talking about?
You can record the outside of someone's property
She wasnt yet trespassing
You're a fool
That doesn't mean she was going to record inside of his house. What in the fuck are you talking about?
You can record the outside of someone's property
She wasnt yet trespassing
You're a fool
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,351
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,360
@1,333,348 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> That doesn't mean she was going to record inside of his house.
Yes it does, she had it pointed at him when he opened the door. The inside did get recorded. "I didn't walk inside" isn't an excuse, that's a private area, and you don't have a right to film the insides of private areas.
> She wasnt yet trespassing
She was. You can walk onto someone's property to harass them like that, because any reasonable person would understand they were not welcome. This isn't a solicitor with a reasonable expectation the person answering might sign up for something.
> You're a fool
If he loses this case, he has precedent to go up to the houses of people who got or provide abortions, and then shove a camera in their face.
You should think about how these standards will backfire, but as always the left only thinks they will be the ones to exploit it.
> That doesn't mean she was going to record inside of his house.
Yes it does, she had it pointed at him when he opened the door. The inside did get recorded. "I didn't walk inside" isn't an excuse, that's a private area, and you don't have a right to film the insides of private areas.
> She wasnt yet trespassing
She was. You can walk onto someone's property to harass them like that, because any reasonable person would understand they were not welcome. This isn't a solicitor with a reasonable expectation the person answering might sign up for something.
> You're a fool
If he loses this case, he has precedent to go up to the houses of people who got or provide abortions, and then shove a camera in their face.
You should think about how these standards will backfire, but as always the left only thinks they will be the ones to exploit it.
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,363
I can just interject for a moment and let everyone know that not having a right to film in a private property does not mean that it is forbidden to film inside private property, and instead it means that if the property owner asks you to stop filming and delete the footage you have a legal obligation to comply.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,364
@1,333,360 (K)
The only recording of the inside of his house was done by him when he stole her phone
No she wasn't. She can walk into someone's property and ring their doorbell once. You have no idea what you're talking about
The "left" didn't come up with these laws and how they work. You're a fool
The only recording of the inside of his house was done by him when he stole her phone
No she wasn't. She can walk into someone's property and ring their doorbell once. You have no idea what you're talking about
The "left" didn't come up with these laws and how they work. You're a fool
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 55 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,365
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,367
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If she's in his yard or whatever then it's still his property, whether or not she filmed inside the house.
If she's in his yard or whatever then it's still his property, whether or not she filmed inside the house.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,368
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,369
@1,333,364 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> The only recording of the inside of his house was done by him when he stole her phone
Because he immediately knocked it out of her hands, don't be dense. If he had opened the door and politely asked her to leave, she would have footage inside his house.
> No she wasn't. She can walk into someone's property and ring their doorbell once. You have no idea what you're talking about
Only if you have some expectation you're allowed to be there.
If you know 100% they don't want you there, it is considered trespassing. Anyone arriving simply to harass, with no excuse whatsoever for why they'd be there, is trespassing.
>
> The "left" didn't come up with these laws and how they work. You're a fool
How will the left act if this interpretation is accepted, and they say you can do this?
Who is it good for when people can show up, knowing they aren't welcome, and record the inside of your home?
> The only recording of the inside of his house was done by him when he stole her phone
Because he immediately knocked it out of her hands, don't be dense. If he had opened the door and politely asked her to leave, she would have footage inside his house.
> No she wasn't. She can walk into someone's property and ring their doorbell once. You have no idea what you're talking about
Only if you have some expectation you're allowed to be there.
If you know 100% they don't want you there, it is considered trespassing. Anyone arriving simply to harass, with no excuse whatsoever for why they'd be there, is trespassing.
>
> The "left" didn't come up with these laws and how they work. You're a fool
How will the left act if this interpretation is accepted, and they say you can do this?
Who is it good for when people can show up, knowing they aren't welcome, and record the inside of your home?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,370
@previous (K)
Yes he assaulted her and stole her property
No, she doesn't need a good reason to be there. You know nothing about this
This interpretation has always been accepted. You personally have never bothered to learn any self defense law because you're a fool
This is also why you're not allowed to pepperspray investigative reporters
Yes he assaulted her and stole her property
No, she doesn't need a good reason to be there. You know nothing about this
This interpretation has always been accepted. You personally have never bothered to learn any self defense law because you're a fool
This is also why you're not allowed to pepperspray investigative reporters
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,371
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,373
@1,333,370 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> No, she doesn't need a good reason to be there. You know nothing about this
What do you think private property means? If KNOW you aren't welcome there, you can't go there. That's what that means.
She knew 100% she wasn't welcome, and went there anyway. That is trespassing.
> This interpretation has always been accepted. You personally have never bothered to learn any self defense law because you're a fool
Name one case that set this precedent, in any of the 50 states or DC:
1. Someone going onto private property
2. knowing they weren't allowed there
3. getting assaulted and winning.
It's a fact that you cannot find one case where that happened. Search engine could find it in seconds if it were real, but you'll make some excuse. The only cases where something like this happened, and the assaulter was punished, there was a reasonable excuse for why the person was visiting.
> This is also why you're not allowed to pepperspray investigative reporters
Some people are willing to talk to journalists, and so it's reasonable to go to the door to ask about question. 0% of people want to be harassed, and harassers know they are not welcome before they arrive.
It's not comparable to journalists because journalists could be welcomed, even if it's rare.
> No, she doesn't need a good reason to be there. You know nothing about this
What do you think private property means? If KNOW you aren't welcome there, you can't go there. That's what that means.
She knew 100% she wasn't welcome, and went there anyway. That is trespassing.
> This interpretation has always been accepted. You personally have never bothered to learn any self defense law because you're a fool
Name one case that set this precedent, in any of the 50 states or DC:
1. Someone going onto private property
2. knowing they weren't allowed there
3. getting assaulted and winning.
It's a fact that you cannot find one case where that happened. Search engine could find it in seconds if it were real, but you'll make some excuse. The only cases where something like this happened, and the assaulter was punished, there was a reasonable excuse for why the person was visiting.
> This is also why you're not allowed to pepperspray investigative reporters
Some people are willing to talk to journalists, and so it's reasonable to go to the door to ask about question. 0% of people want to be harassed, and harassers know they are not welcome before they arrive.
It's not comparable to journalists because journalists could be welcomed, even if it's rare.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,374
@1,333,371 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Stalking someone, recording them on private property, and sending hateful messages to them all add up to a harassment case.
It doesn't need to violent for it to be criminal if the interaction is disruptive and unwelcome, especially in private areas.
Stalking someone, recording them on private property, and sending hateful messages to them all add up to a harassment case.
It doesn't need to violent for it to be criminal if the interaction is disruptive and unwelcome, especially in private areas.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,375
Pepper sprays are a type of less-than-lethal weapon. They are not "non-lethal", there are no non-lethal self defense weapons. Using a pepper spray can be considered use of deadly force. Thanks.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,377
@1,333,373 (E)
That isn't what that means. You have to prove that she knew that he didn't want her there. You're a fool
Anybody can call themselves a journalist. He attacked before he asked her to leave. You're a fool
That isn't what that means. You have to prove that she knew that he didn't want her there. You're a fool
Anybody can call themselves a journalist. He attacked before he asked her to leave. You're a fool
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,378
@1,333,374 (E)
Are you able proof she did all of that?
She sent hateful messages?
She stalked him? Stalking is very hard to prove
Harrasment implies that they had prior interactions. He had proof of that?
Implying you can leave your secured domicile to assault someone over perceived harrasmsnt is comical
Are you able proof she did all of that?
She sent hateful messages?
She stalked him? Stalking is very hard to prove
Harrasment implies that they had prior interactions. He had proof of that?
Implying you can leave your secured domicile to assault someone over perceived harrasmsnt is comical
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,379
@1,333,375 (O)
Ok, my terminology there was wrong, but you are allowed to get trespassers off your property using reasonable force.
If he took a shotgun out to chase off a stalker, or punched and broke bone then that would be criminally excessive. Using pepper spray is reasonable. Don't like it, stay off property where you are unwelcome.
Ok, my terminology there was wrong, but you are allowed to get trespassers off your property using reasonable force.
If he took a shotgun out to chase off a stalker, or punched and broke bone then that would be criminally excessive. Using pepper spray is reasonable. Don't like it, stay off property where you are unwelcome.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,381
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,383
@1,333,378 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Are you able proof she did all of that?
>
> She sent hateful messages?
>
> She stalked him? Stalking is very hard to prove
They interacted multiple times in the past, and he knew what she looked like. There's more details easily available.
You may not consider it full-blown stalking, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Going onto private property to yell at him and record inside areas is not ok.
> Harrasment implies that they had prior interactions. He had proof of that?
Yes, some is already out, but there could be more made public in an actual court case.
Clearly there's a reason this isn't happening with canvassers and delivery drivers. All the drivers here have their phone out to take a picture of the package and ring the doorbell to let me know my box arrived. I'm sure it's the same there.
So why didn't he pepper spray a few of them first? Think about it. You don't need to keep up with the drama to know they interacted before.
> Implying you can leave your secured domicile to assault someone over perceived harrasmsnt is comical
He didn't leave his domicile.
> Are you able proof she did all of that?
>
> She sent hateful messages?
>
> She stalked him? Stalking is very hard to prove
They interacted multiple times in the past, and he knew what she looked like. There's more details easily available.
You may not consider it full-blown stalking, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Going onto private property to yell at him and record inside areas is not ok.
> Harrasment implies that they had prior interactions. He had proof of that?
Yes, some is already out, but there could be more made public in an actual court case.
Clearly there's a reason this isn't happening with canvassers and delivery drivers. All the drivers here have their phone out to take a picture of the package and ring the doorbell to let me know my box arrived. I'm sure it's the same there.
So why didn't he pepper spray a few of them first? Think about it. You don't need to keep up with the drama to know they interacted before.
> Implying you can leave your secured domicile to assault someone over perceived harrasmsnt is comical
He didn't leave his domicile.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,386
@previous (E)
Show proof of your claims that's she harassed him and had previously visited the property
He left the domicile far enough to pepperspray her, knock her down, and take her phone
Your other points are moot
Show proof of your claims that's she harassed him and had previously visited the property
He left the domicile far enough to pepperspray her, knock her down, and take her phone
Your other points are moot
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,388
@1,333,381 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If she knows she isn't allowed there and doesn't leave, it's trespassing. She knew 100% she wasn't allowed there.
Anyone else, like a driver, canvasser, evangelist, or salesman could rightly point out that some people do welcome them and it's reasonable to approach the door on the chance the person is alright with it. They can stay until told to leave.
No court has said you can go where you know you are unwelcome, and harass a person, until told to leave. If there was any indication you weren't welcome then that is trespassing. That's why residents and companies put up signs clearly stating you aren't welcome if you are a solicitor, or if you are not employed by that company. It eliminates that excuse if the signs are posted clearly.
If you think you're allowed on private property when you know you are unwelcome, you don't understand private property.
If she knows she isn't allowed there and doesn't leave, it's trespassing. She knew 100% she wasn't allowed there.
Anyone else, like a driver, canvasser, evangelist, or salesman could rightly point out that some people do welcome them and it's reasonable to approach the door on the chance the person is alright with it. They can stay until told to leave.
No court has said you can go where you know you are unwelcome, and harass a person, until told to leave. If there was any indication you weren't welcome then that is trespassing. That's why residents and companies put up signs clearly stating you aren't welcome if you are a solicitor, or if you are not employed by that company. It eliminates that excuse if the signs are posted clearly.
If you think you're allowed on private property when you know you are unwelcome, you don't understand private property.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,390
@previous (E)
How did she know she wasn't allowed there? Did he tell her previously?
A. He had no sign that she no solicitors
B. He did step out of his domicle
Thanks
Ps. You know nothing
How did she know she wasn't allowed there? Did he tell her previously?
A. He had no sign that she no solicitors
B. He did step out of his domicle
Thanks
Ps. You know nothing
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,391
@1,333,386 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Common sense would tell you there's a reason this wasn't anyone else, it's not a coincidence she was there to complain about what he said online.
You can find the prior interactions online if you care, you don't need me for that, and it's beside the point I'm making.
The court will look into their history, and get all the details they can.
My point is only this: if you go to private property, and you know you aren't welcome, you have trespassed.
She knew it was private property, and she knew she wasn't welcome. Anything else is moot, because it fits the criteria for trespass even if they didn't have a history. If he jumped to spray and take the phone of a delivery driver, or door-to-door salesman then he would clearly be guilt of assault, but there's a reason that didn't happen.
Common sense would tell you there's a reason this wasn't anyone else, it's not a coincidence she was there to complain about what he said online.
You can find the prior interactions online if you care, you don't need me for that, and it's beside the point I'm making.
The court will look into their history, and get all the details they can.
My point is only this: if you go to private property, and you know you aren't welcome, you have trespassed.
She knew it was private property, and she knew she wasn't welcome. Anything else is moot, because it fits the criteria for trespass even if they didn't have a history. If he jumped to spray and take the phone of a delivery driver, or door-to-door salesman then he would clearly be guilt of assault, but there's a reason that didn't happen.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,393
@1,333,390 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> How did she know she wasn't allowed there?
No reasonable person thinks they are welcome to stay on private property to record them and complain to them.
Even cultists and snake oil salesman can honestly say that some people do talk to them, or even invite them in. No one allows people to stay and yell at them while filming, so she knew she wasn't supposed to be there.
If she wanted to do it right, she should have waited until he was in public.
> A. He had no sign that she no solicitors
She wasn't a solicitor, she was there's harass him. If she worked door-to-door, and didn't appear to target his house personally for harassment, then she would have a solid case. None of that is true though.
> B. He did step out of his domicle
He stepped from one part of private property to another part of the same private property. You're right to get trespassers off your private property is not contingent on a roof overhead.
> How did she know she wasn't allowed there?
No reasonable person thinks they are welcome to stay on private property to record them and complain to them.
Even cultists and snake oil salesman can honestly say that some people do talk to them, or even invite them in. No one allows people to stay and yell at them while filming, so she knew she wasn't supposed to be there.
If she wanted to do it right, she should have waited until he was in public.
> A. He had no sign that she no solicitors
She wasn't a solicitor, she was there's harass him. If she worked door-to-door, and didn't appear to target his house personally for harassment, then she would have a solid case. None of that is true though.
> B. He did step out of his domicle
He stepped from one part of private property to another part of the same private property. You're right to get trespassers off your private property is not contingent on a roof overhead.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,394
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,395
@1,333,393 (E)
You don't understand what the word domicile means lol
You cannot leave your locked home and assault a trespasser and claim self defense
You don't understand what the word domicile means lol
You cannot leave your locked home and assault a trespasser and claim self defense
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,396
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If his followers started showing up to the front doors of these women, with a video recording as they opened, to yell vitriolic things at them should they have to tolerate it and politely ask them to leave?
What if it's not once, but a regular interruption?
If his followers started showing up to the front doors of these women, with a video recording as they opened, to yell vitriolic things at them should they have to tolerate it and politely ask them to leave?
What if it's not once, but a regular interruption?
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,398
@previous (E)
Your life isn't automatically in danger when somebody commits a simple civil tort or criminal action against your property rights. The victim's right to not be pepper sprayed takes precedence over property rights.
Your life isn't automatically in danger when somebody commits a simple civil tort or criminal action against your property rights. The victim's right to not be pepper sprayed takes precedence over property rights.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,399
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,400
@1,333,398 (O)
> Your life isn't automatically in danger when somebody commits a simple civil tort or criminal action against your property rights.
Unless you can quote me saying his life was in danger, I'll just ignore this.
> The victim's right to not be pepper sprayed takes precedence over property rights.
That's wrong. Try trespassing on private property and telling security or the owner they aren't allowed to touch you.
> Your life isn't automatically in danger when somebody commits a simple civil tort or criminal action against your property rights.
Unless you can quote me saying his life was in danger, I'll just ignore this.
> The victim's right to not be pepper sprayed takes precedence over property rights.
That's wrong. Try trespassing on private property and telling security or the owner they aren't allowed to touch you.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 year ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,401
@1,333,399 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
"Afraid" just like "life in danger" is a strawman.
She trespassed, and he assaulted her in response. If that doesn't make for a good day, she should stop trespassing.
"Afraid" just like "life in danger" is a strawman.
She trespassed, and he assaulted her in response. If that doesn't make for a good day, she should stop trespassing.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,402
@1,333,400 (E)
Imagine if the next time you walk into an office building lobby the security guards immediately knock your phone out of your hand and pepper spray you.
Imagine if the next time you walk into an office building lobby the security guards immediately knock your phone out of your hand and pepper spray you.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,403
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,404
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,405
@1,333,403 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
We should check back in later to follow up, who knows how US courts will rule on private property rights?
We should check back in later to follow up, who knows how US courts will rule on private property rights?
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,406
@previous (E)
He has a right to have a locked gate installed to limit access to his private property, if he didn't have a locked gate, that's on him. That will be the ruling.
He has a right to have a locked gate installed to limit access to his private property, if he didn't have a locked gate, that's on him. That will be the ruling.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,407
@previous (O)
Name one court ruling setting, or referencing, that precedent.
There's no obligation in states to gate off private property to have those rights. That's something you just made up.
Name one court ruling setting, or referencing, that precedent.
There's no obligation in states to gate off private property to have those rights. That's something you just made up.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,408
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,409
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,410
@previous (E)
It does, you just have to google it and stop simping for Nick Fuentes. He isn't going to let you suck his dick.
It does, you just have to google it and stop simping for Nick Fuentes. He isn't going to let you suck his dick.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,412
Christ this thread got big
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,432
@1,333,368 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If you're on private property, there is no right to film. This means if you're asked to stop filming, you must do so.
You're entitled to stand on public ground and film for example a house from the highway, though.
If you're on private property, there is no right to film. This means if you're asked to stop filming, you must do so.
You're entitled to stand on public ground and film for example a house from the highway, though.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,434
@1,333,410 (O)
This affects everyone, not just him. Do you think it's ok to harass people on their own property and start filming them?
This affects everyone, not just him. Do you think it's ok to harass people on their own property and start filming them?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,437
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,448
His asshole, Bubba's choice.
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,459
@1,333,437 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I don't care about this person, I'm just saying that just because there isn't a right to film on private property doesn't mean it's forbidden, only that if the property owner asks you not to film you must comply.
I don't care about this person, I'm just saying that just because there isn't a right to film on private property doesn't mean it's forbidden, only that if the property owner asks you not to film you must comply.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,490
@previous (L)
He didn't ask. This is a thread discussing a particular event that occurred, not a thread about a general principle with no context. In this particular event, a man answers his doorbell by immediately pepper spraying somebody within 1 second of opening the door and then steals a phone. Clearly this is a man who does not respect property rights.
He didn't ask. This is a thread discussing a particular event that occurred, not a thread about a general principle with no context. In this particular event, a man answers his doorbell by immediately pepper spraying somebody within 1 second of opening the door and then steals a phone. Clearly this is a man who does not respect property rights.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,495
@previous (O)
Not really something that interests me. I don't know who this man is, nor do I care.
I'm specifically addressing the claim made by Anonymous E that the woman in question doesn't "have the right to film private areas" and is implying that this means it is therefore prohibited to film on private property.
However, the absence of a right to film on private property does not automatically impose a prohibition or a negative obligation not to film. Instead, the situation operates under a principle of passive permission, where filming may occur contingent upon the consent of the property owner or the absence of enforcement of their exclusive control.
Not really something that interests me. I don't know who this man is, nor do I care.
I'm specifically addressing the claim made by Anonymous E that the woman in question doesn't "have the right to film private areas" and is implying that this means it is therefore prohibited to film on private property.
However, the absence of a right to film on private property does not automatically impose a prohibition or a negative obligation not to film. Instead, the situation operates under a principle of passive permission, where filming may occur contingent upon the consent of the property owner or the absence of enforcement of their exclusive control.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,519
The Autism is strong in this thread.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,559
@previous (A)
Language stops working when everyone personally redfines words to cover up the fact they don't know what the real definition is.
Language stops working when everyone personally redfines words to cover up the fact they don't know what the real definition is.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,561
@previous (K)
yeah one really noticeable one the last few years is "entitled". People using "entitled" to mean self-entitled, selfish, cunty, or spoiled need their shit slapped
yeah one really noticeable one the last few years is "entitled". People using "entitled" to mean self-entitled, selfish, cunty, or spoiled need their shit slapped
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,564
@previous (boof)
Agree. Now you can't say someone is entitled to something, because most people will interpret that as an insult when it literally means they deserve it.
Agree. Now you can't say someone is entitled to something, because most people will interpret that as an insult when it literally means they deserve it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,565
@1,333,559 (K)
No, you are wrong. Words have ranges of meaning, not just one definition. It was decoy in the sense that it was intended to make the police think it was the real backpack.
No, you are wrong. Words have ranges of meaning, not just one definition. It was decoy in the sense that it was intended to make the police think it was the real backpack.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,613
@previous (A)
And now we know that it can't have been the real backpack, because that one was in Pennsylvania. I think it was a decoy
And now we know that it can't have been the real backpack, because that one was in Pennsylvania. I think it was a decoy
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,628
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,639
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,703
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,749
Anonymous L replied with this 1 year ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,333,806
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,366
This is exactly what I'm talking about: https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1hi3rx8/a_person_attempts_to_kill_nick_fuentes/
The first person wanted to stalk and scream at him, and people attack him for defending himself on his own property. This other person is what he is dealing with, crazed psychos going to his home and trying to murder him.
What do you think kook, should he just get to know them first, or is there a line that's crossed when someone unwelcome comes to your house to harass you? If he were to do what you said, he's be dead.
The first person wanted to stalk and scream at him, and people attack him for defending himself on his own property. This other person is what he is dealing with, crazed psychos going to his home and trying to murder him.
What do you think kook, should he just get to know them first, or is there a line that's crossed when someone unwelcome comes to your house to harass you? If he were to do what you said, he's be dead.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,414
@previous (E)
Surely you agree, there's a difference between when a person attempts to break and enter while brandishing firearms... and when a person knocks on your door; unarmed; intending to have a heated discussion
Surely you agree, there's a difference between when a person attempts to break and enter while brandishing firearms... and when a person knocks on your door; unarmed; intending to have a heated discussion
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,415
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,522
@1,335,414 (O)
Of course! The problem is he doesn't know which one is going to pull out a gun, and which one is just there to harass him. He knew she was stalking him, and had no idea what weapons she had ready to pull out. He only knew this guy was trying to kill him because he brandished the gun before the door opened.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
All I've said is people have a right to defend themselves when homicidal stalkers are after them. If this were a woman being targeted for getting an abortion would you say she needs to risk her life trying to figure out the stalker's true intentions? Obviously you would not.
You can't have a functioning society with double standards like that.
Of course! The problem is he doesn't know which one is going to pull out a gun, and which one is just there to harass him. He knew she was stalking him, and had no idea what weapons she had ready to pull out. He only knew this guy was trying to kill him because he brandished the gun before the door opened.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
All I've said is people have a right to defend themselves when homicidal stalkers are after them. If this were a woman being targeted for getting an abortion would you say she needs to risk her life trying to figure out the stalker's true intentions? Obviously you would not.
You can't have a functioning society with double standards like that.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,523
@previous (E)
I would say, why did she leave her secured home to use a weapon against a stranger? Is she retarded?
I would say, why did she leave her secured home to use a weapon against a stranger? Is she retarded?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,524
@1,335,522 (E)
Also, he just happened to pick older, unarmed woman to attack and not a violent, murderous male
What good luck on his part
Also, he just happened to pick older, unarmed woman to attack and not a violent, murderous male
What good luck on his part
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,534
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,535
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,700
I can't be certain that nobody is coming to kill me, so I should bury landmines all over my property and booby-trap the doors and windows, just in case.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,706
Anonymous O replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,717
@previous (R)
Self defense is a right you gain only once somebody has created an imminent physical threat against your person and it may only be exercised in a manner that is proportional to the threat presented and only to the extent required to end the threat. It's not "legal from the start". And somebody recording your front door is not an imminent physical threat against your person.
Self defense is a right you gain only once somebody has created an imminent physical threat against your person and it may only be exercised in a manner that is proportional to the threat presented and only to the extent required to end the threat. It's not "legal from the start". And somebody recording your front door is not an imminent physical threat against your person.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 2 days later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,336,028
FUCK YOU