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: 19067
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.

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.

Buck: ("It wouldn't matter. Violence needs to be quelled so that solutions can be found.")

So, your solution to violence is to leap in (regardless of who may be right), and escalating MORE violence to end the violence. Aren't you then risking a melee??

Stone's hypothetical violence in a situation is pure reaction as though adrenaline is pumping in his body all the tyme. That is purely reactive and solves nothing in a situation like this.

Being in a publick venue is important to note that heightened awareness is required by all participants. Being ready for a physical fight is silly and denies the purpose of being out and about in publick, wouldn't you say?

I suppose now you'll tell me that it can also involve strap-on objects and intimate electrical devices. If so, I probably prefer to remain ignorant.

Being ready for a physical fight is silly and denies the purpose of being out and about in publick, wouldn't you say?

I would say, readiness in anticipation of a possible physical confrontation or violence -- in a public venue in which the usual suspects emit their hate-vibe -- is merely preemptive wisdom and an instinctive necessity. You more than most ought to understand that.

There is little purpose being in a publick venue prepared for a fist fight as Stone suggests. We should be pursuing more purposeful actions and in a college setting, such as in this case @UCR, it would be educational goals.

Stone doesn't get "it." He is totally out of the mainstream. He is out on the cusp of the moon.

Go back to your mommy's basement where you are allowed free boarding capability. Hug your primers, pal.

G.I. is right. Everything is all about equality until you actually treat a Womyn like a man. Then suddenly it's all unfair because "I'm just a girl". A complete double-standard.

Don't deny his valid point just because you don't happen to like him or cops in general.

I am afraid that I will not validate anything this retired school crossing guard suggests. "It" is just too weird. Remember ... "it" had his nose up yukon's ass.

I ensured that bum always had a new visitor on LP. I countered everything he said as I had an opportunity. This is true even when I was banned tyme after tyme; I probably had over 50 monickers on LP and only one was used at anytyme.

The phucker needed continuous annoying as it was a disgrace to human dignity and personal responsibilities in any publick setting.

Do you see me make or create posts much anymore? Not that much on LF, although I have to mention the management (herein) sucks.

Objective posts based on news articles is why I "pop on by" any chit-chat forum. My purpose for viewing or comments is not about trolls such as yukon or GrandIsland. I think you have your thinking cap screwed on backwards.

Nope, you do miss him. You hate him and you also love to hate him. It's not hate, it's love-hate.

People can get just as drawn in by hate as by love. Both are very powerful influences.

IOW, you acted like ANTIFA and Black LIES Matters, once Trump was elected. Typical liberal behavior... acted like an asshole because your AGENDA was in danger.

I was always a little disappointed at Goldi for not being smart enough to see through your bullshit. I'm equally as disappointed at Stone for allowing a filthy LIBERAL like you the venue for your intolerant trouble causing AGENDA... just because you have a few good Libertarian qualities.

First and foremost, I am not a liberal in any way. As a libertarian, I oppose bullshitters like you, working a government job in some silly minor role and DOING NOTHING for 20 years to collect a free stipend off the taxpayer's backs lasting FOREVER.

Go fuck yourself, loser. You are sucker off the teat of society and you know it.

Though I'm receiving my full NYS PENSION NOW, In 3 more years, I'll be fully vested (second pension, another state)... and 8 more years I'll start collecting my SECOND PENSION.

You are the reason for what is wrong in America. We don't need BULLSHITTERS like you looking for an easy job sucking the teat off taxpayers. We need constructive, positive Americans willing actually do SOMETHING not just for themselves and family but CONTRIBUTING to the entire economy via the supply chain.

My pension(s) are fully funded by employee contributions. It's only when the state STEALS from the pension fund to balance liberal budgets, is when tax funds are used to keep the retirees monthly payments solvent.

NYS retirement system has never been stolen from (even though Cuck Fuomo has tried several times to pay for his socialist AGENDA)... so NYS is able to payout retirees SOLEY on employee contributions and investments in Mutual funds.

Now, the state I live in now has stolen from the states retirement fund and it's currently IN THE RED paying out its retirees... but I'm not in the states retirement, I'm in a COUNTY retirement... and that has never been stolen from and as healthy as NYS (but smaller).

So shut your lips about the "government teet". I did not work in that shithole libtarded cesspool called KOOKIFONIA. My pension didn't need tax dollars to assure member payout.

You could, but that would be dumb. That was armed robbery of property that did not belong to Simpson, and multiple other felonies. A more appropriate famous case would the that of Bernhard Goetz, the so-called subway vigilante. "The case was defended by Barry Slotnick and Mark M. Baker. Slotnick argued that Goetz's actions fell within the New York State's self-defense statute. Under Section 35.15, 'A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person ... unless ... He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit [one of certain enumerated predicate offenses, including robbery].'"

You seem to forget that, in the O.J. armed robbery case, collectibles dealer Thomas Riccio secretly audio recorded the pre-robbery (conspiracy) meeting, and the robbery itself. O.J.'s crew did not just take O.J. 's alleged property, but they scooped up everything, including numerous baseballs signed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, about 50 lithographs of Joe Montana, and even Bruce Fromong's cell phone. It was armed robbery on audio tape, and the tape was admitted as evidence at trial. O.J. and crew were on hotel surveillance tape carrying the stuff down the hall.

Nobody involved removed Simpson's property from his person, or anywhere else. They were collectibles dealers who had purchased the stuff.

The Simpson armed robbery in no way resembles a case of defense of property. Your legal theory would lead to absurd results, something that is a usual indicator of an absurdly wrong legal theory.

Indistinguishable cases which would accord with your idea that if one removes something from your person without touching you, you cannot use force to regain your property.

ONE: A pickpocket removes your wallet from your pocket. He never touches your person but you detect the theft and.... you must watch him walk away.

TWO: Granny is walking down the street with her purse. A yute does not touch her person but grabs the purse strap and removes it from granny's possession, and proceeds to run away. Granny must just say goodbye to her purse?

Granny is too old to engage the yute in combat, but it just so happens that she has three grandson's right nearby. Two play linebacker and the other is a cornerback. They see what transpires and take off in pursuit of the yute. The cornerback looks like Darrell Green tracking down Tony Dorsett. He tackles the yute and brings him down face first onto the pavement. The two linebackers catch up. The yute resists and tries to escape. The cornerback stopped him. Now the linebacker bops him and drops him. It is all caught on videotape. They hold the yute and call the cops. Who do the cops arrest?

If you take property off Granny's person, even without touching Granny, if reasonable, Granny or others assisting Granny have the right to stop you, bop you, or drop you, depending upon what force you make necessary.

If in resisting the man's effort to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap, robbed from his person, the woman resists with force, all reasonable force may be used. If she pulls a knife, a threat of deadly force, it would be reasonable to use deadly force in reply.

What one may do in response to robbery is not related to the value of the stolen property. It could be a $5 cap or a $5M cap.

The only such cases where you will find a conviction is where the thieving yute is the defendant. If not the defendant, he is the decedent. They do not charge the good citizen for resisting robbery, mugging or carjacking. Even the good citizen who assists somebody else subjected to unarmed carjacking, and intervenes by confronting the carjacker at gunpoint, and shooting and killing the carjacker when he charges at him, is found justified and not charged criminally.

Robber goes into store to commit robbery armed with BB gun. Owner shoots him four times inside store with a .38 and thief runs out of store, unarmed. Owner grabbed a second loaded gun, went outside, and shot thief in the back. County attorney: "Shortly after this incident I had the opportunity to review the video tape of the armed robbery, witness statements, and officer’s reports. Nothing in that evidence would support charges of any kind against Mr. Preble."

Robber enters store with paintball gun and announces robbery. Customer with concealed carry license blows his shit away. Stopped him and dropped him.

You're comparing attempted armed robberies to a girl taking some nerd's cheap hat and refusing to return it.

Apparently you think that you're in the clear if you pull a gun and shoot some little kid who is trying to take even a Tic-Tac from you.

No, you compared an armed robbery, the O.J. case in Las Vegas, to an unarmed robbery, a hat snatching.

I cited hypothetical examples of unarmed perps who did not touch their victim. A purse snatcher is grab and go. He grabs the strap and wrenches it away from a resisting Granny. A purse snatcher is indistinguishable from a hat snatcher.

And robbery is robbery, whether you rob one dollar or a million. The value of the hat is immaterial to having committed the crime and opening up the perp to the use of reasonable force to reclaim the property, including deadly force.

One cited real carjacker pulled a shopper from her car. He was confronted by an armed good citizen. He was not armed and lunged to take his gun. He was shot dead.

Another cited carjacker entered an unoccupied running car. The owner, a Chicago Fire Department Lieutenant shot his ass dead. He threatened to use the car as a weapon, if you consider that armed.

In a store robbery case, the perp pointed what looked like a handgun at the owner. The owner pulled a real gun. They tussled in the store and the perp was shot multiple times. The unarmed perp ran out the door to escape. The owner grabbed another gun, went outside, and shot the fleeing perp in the back, ending his escape.

In the second store shooting, the perp was armed with a paint gun, and made believe it was a deadly weapon, threatenikng a worker. A customer pulled out a real gun and blew his shit away.

In the Bernhard Goetz case, nobody touched Goetz or actually took any of his property. Goetz was the only one armed. He shot the four yutes in what was found to be justifiable self defense.

George P. Fletcher, A Crime of Self Defense, Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial, University of Chicago Press, 1988, pp. 1-2.

Goetz was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon, and not guilty on other charges such as attempted murder.

When four yutes had neither touched Bernhard Goetz, nor had they taken anything, but he felt intimidated, he shot all four of them in justifiable self defense. In the Goetz case, the yutes had not taken anything of the value of a MAGA hat or a Tic Tac.

When the wrongdoer assaults someone and takes their hat, taunts them with it, and will not return it, and goes to leave with it, the owner can use such reasonable force necessary to retrieve his hat.

Victims of hat snatching, purse snatching, mugging or carjacking can use whatever reasonable force is necessary to overcome the perp.

Good luck with your pressing charges against any user of reasonable force to thwart your attempted purse snatching from Granny who is protected by her three grandsons, one wide receiver and two linebackers.

They can stop you, bop you, or drop you, depending upon what force you choose to make reasonable.

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.