LF: Angry student steals MAGA hat, demands anchor baby victim be punished

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: 18829
Comments: 106

An enraged University of California, Riverside stole a classmate's "Make America Great Again" hat, proclaiming that it "represents genocide."

The thief even prevailed upon administrators to prohibit the victim from wearing the hat on campus, becoming even more apoplectic when the property was returned.

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.”

“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.

He has a Filipino president, and is half Nicaraguan? Strange globalist Trumpkin.

Hey, nolu, I already know assault and battery are illegal in Cali. What I don't know is if it is legal to use violence for a property owner to recover his property. I don't think so. And probably not in any other state either.

And some marital ball-punching of a dogkicker spouse is a very tenuous precedent to cite in a case of recovering a $5 cap from someone who grabbed it and wouldn't give it back.

Some jurisdictions do have the so-called Good Samaritan laws. Generally I understand them to require passersby to report violent crimes or a person in danger to the police. I don't know of any that require passersby to intervene physically and risk their own safety.

Sure I could. Well, if I could whistle. And if I didn't hate "Dixie" as a really crappy 19th century ditty.

Do you have a spare leotard and cape to loan me? I promise to try harder. I'm sure you can UPS or FedEx them to me internationally.

Irrespective of what you "understand" you would allow a man to beat a woman in publick. Don't you find yourself as a immoral hypocrite?

They're a bunch of vigilante types not authorized to enforce the law. Some, like Batman, are outlaw vigilantes wanted by the poice themselves for their vigilante actions.

I find it strange that you laff at your own retort. You are not quite right on this discussion. Have you ever sought professional psychiatric consulting as boris pursues?

Even the police or military may not enforce law. It takes the citizenry to perform that feat. That takes courage and capability to work through common sense not some official mumbo-jumbo.

How would you intervene? The assailant would have been hit in a second or less. I'd pick up my hat in about 2 seconds. Then I'd be on my way. Would you try to take my hat or beat me up or what?

Beat a woman in public? Id just pop the person as a reflex to being attacked in a split second. It would be so quick that I may not know the assailants sex until they hit the ground. Besides how am I supposed to know what gender the bull dyke identifies as. This is California isn't it.

Oh my I just typed f a g I f o r n I a without the spaces and it android auto corrected to California.

You are a reactive son-of-a bitch unwilling to survey the situation and negotiate an outcome.

On my computer, the autocorrect in Firefox offers 'California', the same exact thing!

You can walk past a murder in progress and there is no legal duty to intervene.

It is irrelevant. All you are doing with your silly post is ensure there is no moral responsibility or individual consideration to participate in a act of compassion.

There are Good Samaritan laws. You misunderstand what they do. They protect the Good Samaritan if he tries to give aid to someone. It protects him from liability for damages where his good faith effort to do help results in harm. There is no requirement to be a Good Samaritan, or report anything.

The subject is using reasonable force after someone removes a hat from someone's head while they are wearing it. It was in this context that you noted at #11 that they would not have to touch the wearer "if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap." In this same context, you added at your #12, "Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap."

If you grab my hat by the bill and do not touch me, I can still use whatever force is reasonable to take it from you. If you resist, I can use force to overcome your resistance.

The law in California and Ohio provide that I may commit what would otherwise be assault and battery upon the the transgressor, and as long as I use reasonable force, it is protected by the right to defend property. I do not have to just watch someone walk away with my property. Any property, whether it is my hat or anything else.

I cited the law and provided a case. The right to defend property is the law in California and Ohio. I challenged you to identify any state that is an exception. *** C R I C K E T S ***.

As long as you cannot cite a single jurisdiction in the United States where the right to defense of property does not apply and protect the use of reasonable force to stop your property from being absconded with, I will conclude that you are giving a very lousy legal opinion. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

As for citing some marital ball punching of a dog kicker being a tenous precedent to cite, it seems that an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-defense chose it for the Continuing Legal Education seminar he taught in May 2017 in Ohio. Lawyers have to keep up with their CLE.

Andrew F. Branca is in his 3rd decade of practicing law (MA BBO#: 557995). He has written several published books on the law of self-defense, including the currently available “The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition,” (ISBN: 978-1-943809-14-1). He is an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-defense, and has been quoted in this context by the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, and many other mainstream media, including nationally syndicated broadcast media and foreign press.

In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person. These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.

I don't believe you proved any such thing. Nor have you cited any clear cases where prosecutors brought a case against someone committing violence to recover stolen property and the courts struck down such convictions or summarily dismissed any charges against the person committing violence to recover property.

I maintain my position and will not be distracted by your attempts to pretend that property recovery is some variety of legalized assault. Cite these cases where you are entitled to vigilante action including violence to recover your stolen property. Cite the statutes that declare this. Cite the court cases where the vigilante property owner prevailed.

My statements and your comments were made in the context of a hat taken directly from someone's head.

This discussion is about someone taking a hat a head. You said it could be taken without touching the other person if grabbed by the bill.

The law is crystal clear that you cannot take my personal property off my head and leave without my having the right to use any reasonable force to stop you and take back my property.

The discussion was about a hat taken right off the head. It was not about a case of recovery at a later date.

You can cite neither a case nor a law that approaches what you claim, that I must let the culprit walk away with my hat. I may use whatever force is reasonable to regain possession of my hat.

The case citation you criticized is being taught in CLE, 2017, on the topic of, "Ohio Appellate Case Law on Use-of-Force Justification."

Saying you don't believe your lying eyes is not a persuasive argument. Use of force justification, you mess with my property, I mess with you, it's justified. It does not matter whether you kick my dog or steal my hat.

Ah. Well, having mistaken me for someone who actually cares about this issue deeply, I'll continue.

Or we could agree to disagree since I could care less to begin with and probably won't believe anything you say if you can't find specific cases where someone was charged for retrieving stolen property and acquitted after using violent force by 1) punching, 2) stabbing, 3) shooting.

But you can't find such a case. Because there aren't any, I think. But I can't prove that either, any more than you can prove exoneration of a defendant in such a case.

Of course, I could always point to one rather well-known case of recovering stolen property.

I don't think it helps your argument. It also doesn't clinch my argument in this case of a $5 MAGA cap.

Life is filled with risks. That is where you are wrong, in this case with the below remark:

What makes you think that the person receiving the punch doesn't pull out a gun on you?

If they pulled out a gun on me after attacking me by taking my hat. Then they were up to no good to begin with and my action would be proven right as it gave me a fighting chance to escape the assassination attempt by the democrat psychopath.

We got all that, Stone. But, your hypothetical aggression doesn't defuse the situation; in fact, you exacerbate the problem.

I thought you were the white knights, vowing to defend any woman being assaulted. Well, unless she takes your cap and then you intend to punch her yourself. Over a cap.

Is it just me, but are bull dykes THE most unhappy, vile, violent pseudo-human beings on earth? And yes -- they are only too happy to challenge men physical controntations, knowing full well that they are shielded by the time-honored "no-hitting-girls" rule. If they attack, they deserve to have their teef knocked out like any other aggressor.

My discussion on this thread was more preemptive of further violence. I do not advocate violence as Stone does. Unlike Tooconservative, I wouldn't just stroll on by watching Stone pelt a young girl. I would intervene.

So now you've turned your cap-grabber into a vicious bull dyke so you can justify assaulting a woman?

How about if Stone was assaulting a rabid bull dyke? Well, assuming she wasn't kicking his ass...

And your whiteknighting, is it just for a "young girl"? How about an average woman? An old lady? Caitlyn Jenner or some other tranny?

It wouldn't matter. Violence needs to be quelled so that solutions can be found.

You'd intervene in a beef regardless of what had transpired in the FIRST place? Just because some chick is involved? But...but...what about those crazy nuts you'd alluded to who might have a gun??

~~It wouldn't matter. Violence needs to be quelled so that solutions can be found.~~ Well, of course, I could drop to my knees a pray to GOD for an answer. But that sort of action plan seems rather clownish to me.

An enraged University of California, Riverside stole a classmate's "Make America Great Again" hat, proclaiming that it "represents genocide."

The thief even prevailed upon administrators to prohibit the victim from wearing the hat on campus, becoming even more apoplectic when the property was returned.