New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Angry student steals MAGA hat, demands anchor baby victim be punished
Source:
Campus Reform
URL Source: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9868
Published: Sep 28, 2017
Author: Anthony Gockowski
Post Date: 2017-09-28 22:43:41 by Hondo68
Keywords: Filipino president, Nicaraguan anchor baby, MAGA?
Views: 15272
Comments: 106
Images of a student who stole a peer's MAGA hat at the University of California, Riverside. A Trump-supporting student at the University of California, Riverside had his MAGA hat stolen by a peer who demanded that administrators refuse to allow him to continue to wear it. A video of the incident obtained by Campus Reform shows an enraged female student taking the hat to the school’s Student Life Department as Matthew Vitale fruitlessly attempts to explain to the young woman that the hat is his property. "Your f***ing freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy." “So this guy thought it would be a good idea to go into a conference wearing this f***ing hat,” the student who stole the hat states. “Look at the kind of sh*t he’s wearing, You know what this represents? This represents genocide—genocide of a bunch of people.” Vitale then tries to explain that “you do not get to take other people’s property that is legally theirs in this country,” to which the unidentified thief replies, “man, f*** your laws.” “Do you have any f***ing conscience?” she goes on to ask, questioning why Vitale would dare to wear a MAGA hat on campus and telling him that his “f***ing freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy.” “I swear to God I could burn this sh*t. I swear to God I could burn this sh*t,” she continues as several staffers look on. “Are you people not going to do anything? She is stealing my property,” Vitale pleads, though the altercation went on for several more minutes. “We will need to return his property to him, but we can talk about…” one university employee begins to explain before being abruptly cut off by the student thief. “How about we talk about not letting him wear this sh*t on campus?” the thief retorts, while Vitale later tells a growing presence of administrators that “the fact that you people haven’t gotten this back for me is sad and wrong.” [RELATED: Female student attacked for wearing Trump hat on campus] “That’s full of sh*t, because you all are just going to, like, mediate this and make it so like we’re all ok here, freedom of speech, whatever. How about we think about what’s actually going on in this country?” the thief subsequently responds to requests from administrators to “calm down.” The altercation continued for several minutes until the hat was relinquished to an administrator who then returned it to Vitale, though not before his fellow student got in the last word. “F*** your f***ing freedom of speech, boy. F***it. F*** it because your freedom of speech is literally killing a lot of people out there. That’s what it is, because you’re out there wearing hats like these that promote laws and legislations that literally kill and murder in the masses people of color,” she stated, before the two eventually walked off with separate mediators. Campus Reform reached out to the university and Vitale for comment on the matter, and is currently awaiting responses. Poster Comment: He has a Filipino president, and is half Nicaraguan? Strange globalist Trumpkin. The SJW sow was wrong to steal the anchor babies hat. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
I really liked his persistence and how he stayed on message. She was well drilled and had obviously rehearsed her SJW lines. The office people were totally useless. "We're neutral." Dumb bitch. You're neutral when people steal property? This is why they need more real cops on campuses, to deal with this kind of lawless behavior.
She took the hat. He should have popped her one in the face and took his hat back. Give the cunt a black eye or two.
Then he goes to jail, gets booted from college, and she wins. This way he wins and exposes her idiocy and how to deal with that situation.
If someone takes your hat you have a right to get it back. I would have certainly got my hat back. If the cunt resisted she would have been popped one and I would have taken my hat back. That isn't a suspend able offense it is self defense. I'm not for going around hitting women or girls. But if they did that it would be an exception because you would surely be popping a liberal.
I would have certainly got my hat back. If the cunt resisted she would have been popped one and I would have taken my hat back. That isn't a suspend able offense it is self defense. It's defense of property. Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, Wayne R. LaFave, Hornbook Series, Student Edition, est Publishing, 1986, 563-65, § 10.7(c), Crime Prevention and Termination, footnotes omitted The privilege to use force to prevent the commission of a crime about to be committed, or to prevent the consummation of a crime already underway, overlaps somewhat with two other privileges already discussed: (1) the privilege of the defense of property (in the case of a crime against property, like burglary and larceny), and (2) the privilege of self-defense or defense of another (in the case of a crime against the person, like murder, mayhem, assault and battery). On the other hand, there are crimes which do not involve a threat of harm to property or to bodily security (e.g., treason, perjury, statutory rape), so that the justification, if any, for the use of force must come solely under the defense of crime prevention, which is not limited to police officers or those aiding them. One who reasonably believes that a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, is being committed, or is about to be committed, in his presence may use reasonable force to terminate or prevent it. Thus moderate force may justifiably be used in such cases. But, as with self-defense, the law has jelled somewhat on the reasonableness of using deadly force in crime prevention. Originally, the law was that deadly force was justifiable to prevent or terminate a felony, but was not justifiable to prevent or terminate a misdemeanor. This rule made some sense in the days when the relatively few felonies were all punishable by death anyway; but with the expansion of the felony concept to many new types of conduct, and the lowering of the penalties for many felonies, it will not do today. It is a felony to file a false income tax return; but one is not justified in shooting the filer on his way to the mailbox, even though the filing cannot otherwise be prevented. The modern rule limits the right to use deadly force to "dangerous" felonies (those felonies of the type which involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm) or, as it is sometimes said, to "atrocious" felonies involving "violence or surprise." Thus it is not justifiable to kill to prevent grand larceny or adultery, though these crimes cannot otherwise be prevented. It ought not to be justifiable to shoot to kill to prevent some modern statutory forms of burglary not involving the house, such as "burglary" of a hen house or telephone booth. As to the dangerous (atrocious) felonies (e.g., murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, kidnaping, arson, burglary of a dwelling, robbery, forcible sodomy, forcible rape), one is, of course, not justified in killing except when it reasonably appears necessary to kill to prevent the commission, or bring about the termination of the felony. When neither self-defense or defense of property would justify resort to deadly force, there is good reason to limit the termination-of felony aspect of this rule to instances in which the force was "being used to repel foree." And the commission of the felony must appear to be imminent, rather than in the more distant future, to justify the use of such force. There is a question, as to the dangerous felonies, whether the justification for killing should depend upon the type of felony involved, or whether it should depend on the risk encountered in the particular felony involved. Thus arson is a type of felony which generally involves a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm; but in a particular case of arson there may be no such risk because of the arsonist's careful planning. If one kills to prevent this particular arson, is he justified because it is justifiable to kill to prevent arson, or is he not justified because this particular arson did not involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm? Doubtless, the matter is generally treated in the former fashion, but it would seem that the latter method is more just. In order to have the benefit of the defense of crime prevention, it is necessary that the actor act with the purpose (motive) of crime prevention. Thus he is not justified in shooting to death his enemy, though he later discovers, to his agreeable surprise, that the enemy was on the point of committing, or was in the process of committing, a dangerous felony.
This and other books in the Hornbook series are classics in law school and they do get cited in court opinions, including Supreme Court cases. However, state laws can entirely alter criminal law as applied in that state. So quoting this Hornbook is not the final word on anything, especially state criminal law on assaults.
A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault. Or maybe it was a lawyer. It may be the latter.
And, even if that is still true in Ohio, that doesn't mean that it is the law in California where this incident occurred. In addition, the campus itself will have their own policies and may be unaccountable in any court due to the ridiculous deference that courts and legislatures give them to make up their own rules and run their own kangaroo courts. But if you want to beat up someone who touches you or takes your cap, have at it. I don't care that much.
Are you saying that if you happened to walk by A K A Stone beating up a woman, you would nonchalantly continue to walk by? You wouldn't intervene in anyway?
Hard to say in a hypothetical. Generically, I would say I would try to yell something or to distract a man hitting a woman or try to get between them or something. But then, I don't see myself as some roving white knight. I'd likely be more aggressive if a helpless elderly person or child was violently assaulted in front of me. Instead of chickenshit haranguing me on a hypothetical, why don't you just tell us what you would do if a man started hitting a woman down in Belize.
I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.
Well, good for you, Dudley DoRight. You should qualify for the Belize Medal of Honor.
I think you entirely miss the point. Violence is not something that you can casually stroll by while whistling "Dixie" ignoring a situation that is occurring right in front of you. Lack of personal intervention is a chronic problem in America. Obviously you side with the couch potatoes.
There may be a moral duty to intervene, but there is no legal duty.
You have a serious problem.
#51. To: buckeroo (#35)
You can walk past a murder in progress and there is no legal duty to intervene. That is a fact.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
She took the hat. He should have popped her one in the face and took his hat back. Give the cunt a black eye or two.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#17. To: A K A Stone, Tooconservative (#4)
If someone takes your hat you have a right to get it back.
(c) Crime Prevention and Termination.
#18. To: nolu chan (#17)
Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, Wayne R. LaFave, Hornbook Series
#20. To: Tooconservative (#18)
#21. To: A K A Stone (#20)
A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault. Or maybe it was a lawyer. It may be the latter.
#22. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#21)
But if you want to beat up someone who touches you or takes your cap, have at it. I don't care that much.
#25. To: buckeroo (#22)
Are you saying that if you happened to walk by A K A Stone beating up a woman, you would nonchalantly continue to walk by? You wouldn't intervene in anyway?
#28. To: Tooconservative (#25)
... why don't you just tell us what you would do if a man started hitting a woman down in Belize.
#30. To: buckeroo (#28)
I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)
#34. To: buckeroo, Tooconservative (#32)
Violence is not something that you can casually stroll by while whistling "Dixie" ignoring a situation that is occurring right in front of you.
#35. To: nolu chan (#34)
Replies to Comment # 35. You have a serious problem.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]