America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 weeks ago by fishinguitarman. 148 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
Shocking moment conservative activist is punched in the face on UC-Berkeley campus...
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 900
Quote:
Shocking moment conservative activist is punched in the face on UC-Berkeley campus over sign reading 'hate crime hoaxes hurt real victims'

Hayden Williams was attacked on Tuesday at the campus in Berkeley, California
He was running a sign-up table for conservative group Turning Points USA
Table had a sign referencing the Jussie Smollett case as an alleged hate hoax
Angry man called Williams a 'racist' and punched him in the face, video shows
Campus police are investigating and ask the public for information on the perp

An assault on a conservative activist on the University of California-Berkeley campus has been caught on camera.
Hayden Williams was running a campus recruitment table for the conservative group Turning Points USA on Tuesday when he was approached by a violent attacker, video of the incident shows.
According to Campus Reform, the sign on the group's table read 'hate crime hoaxes hurt real victims,' a reference to allegations that actor Jussie Smollett staged a racist and homophobic attack against himself in Chicago.
The man who attacked Williams shouted: 'Mother f**ker. You racist little inbred b***h. C**t!'

At one point, he also threatened to 'shoot' Williams.

Williams said that as the attack unfolded, a number of people simply stood by and watched.
'Some students nearby tabling were laughing, even one guy was smiling while I was being attacked and trying to hand me his flyer as a joke,' he told Campus Reform.
'The idea is free speech has consequences.... which include you getting assaulted if they find you promoting ideas others don't agree with.'
Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point, a campus group devoted to limited government and free markets, said that the incident highlighted a double standard.
'Imagine if the attacker was wearing MAGA hat, would be national news! This is the violent left!' Kirk wrote on Twitter.

The incident drew notice from several conservative figures with national profiles.
'When a liberal like Jussie cries wolf and fakes an attack he receives unmatched coverage, sympathy & support creating a tsunami of attention,' wrote Don Trump Jr on Twitter. 'When a conservative student literally gets punched in the face and it’s caught on video it barely makes a ripple.'
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, wrote: 'This is abhorrent behavior against free speech on campus. No form of violence is acceptable!'
Williams was helping Turning Point USA, but he is not actually a member of the group. Williams is campus representative for Leadership Institute, which runs Campus Reform, the website that first reported on the incident.
Guillermina Castro, a UC-Berkeley freshman, told Fox News that she was spearheading the drive to create a Turning Point chapter on campus, and that Williams was helping her by manning the table while she was in class.
She said she was shocked to return to find the flyers on the table ripped up and Williams nursing his injured eye.

Castro said that when she tweeted about the incident, she received a flood of messages applauding the attack, and accusing her of being a 'white supremacist.'
'I said 'Wait, I'm Latina!' she said.
UC-Berkeley campus police said in a statement that the attack took place at 3.29pm on Upper Sproul Plaza.
Police said that there were two men who approached the table and confronted the alleged victim.
'A physical confrontation ensued when one of the two men slapped the phone out of the victim’s hand,' the police statement said.
.The suspect then knocked over the table the victim was at and the two men struggled over the phone. During the incident, the suspect punched the victim several times causing injury to the victim’s eye and nose.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6731563/Shocking-moment-conservative-activist-punched-face-UC-Berkeley-campus.html

Speyside Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,384
Tired of this crap. Freedom of speech is being attacked. Freedom of thought is being attacked. This is America dam it! When the he'll did it become a crime to be conservative?
victor809 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
I'm not seeing a problem. Dude works for turning point, which apparently has some ties to white supremacist groups.... The group he is working for is offensive to some. So they hit him.

If someone did something offensive to you, and you hit them, I wouldn't really judge you. I mean... You still should get charged with battery (as should the dude who hit this guy)... But I don't judge anyone for hitting someone when the need arises.

The irony is this turning point group is the same one that did a whole campaign against "safe spaces" by wearing diapers and crap to call liberals babies.... I bet he wishes he had a safe space now... :)
xibbumbero Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2002
Posts: 12,392
I believe everyone has a right to his/her opinion no matter how stupid. X Shame on you
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 900
victor809 wrote:
I'm not seeing a problem. Dude works for turning point, which apparently has some ties to white supremacist groups.... The group he is working for is offensive to some. So they hit him.

If someone did something offensive to you, and you hit them, I wouldn't really judge you. I mean... You still should get charged with battery (as should the dude who hit this guy)... But I don't judge anyone for hitting someone when the need arises.

The irony is this turning point group is the same one that did a whole campaign against "safe spaces" by wearing diapers and crap to call liberals babies.... I bet he wishes he had a safe space now... :)


Wow, just wow! From your post my take away is that you believe the victim of this henious attack deserved being attacked due to his political views. I guess you also agree with the women in Mass who recently attacked a Trump supporter for the demonic crime of daring to wear a MAGA hat in public. Again, all I can say is wow.

So, if we use your logic, if Smollet had actually been attacked by Trump supporters, their attack would have been justified if they had found his political views and lifestyle to be offensive.

David
Mr. Jones Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 10,600
All's I know DAVID...IS ONE LITTLE THING...

ONCE YOU SET UP A TABLE ...anywhere in public, a town,
a fair, a college ...whatever...

AND YOU START ASPOUSING YOUR OWN OPINIONS OUTLOUD AND HAND OUT FLYERS...

YOU ARE ASKING ...point blank ...

4
T.R.O.U.B.L.E.

W
I
T

A CAPITAL "T" and you'd better expect it coming sooner than later.....

I have watched it happen in person or on TV and actually warned said idiots of their impending doom ....then sat back near a tree and watched the predicted thing go down...

It always ends badly...there is no future in espousing your views in public...
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 48,614
And you know the assaulter knew these alleged ties Victor?

You try a little too hard to be provocative sometimes.
Speyside Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,384
So why isn't this being described as a hate crime? If he wasn't working on behalf of a particular group this would not have happened. In another post someone said a hate crime can happen to anyone. Time to throw the BS flag. While that technically is true, I do not remember anytime there has been a hate crime investigation when the victim was white and conservative. Probably there has been, but I imagine % wise it is extremely minimal.
victor809 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
Dave you know the answer to that. You're playing dumb...

Being black or gay is not a choice. Therefore they are not "being offensive" they are being who they are.

Working for turning point, for Huffington Post, for any political group is a choice. Just as being a white supremacist is a choice, or being pro abortion or anti abortion is a choice.

I don't see anything wrong with people punching anyone espousing those views publicly as long as they are willing to accept the punishment for it (note, I don't think it's appropriate for local govt to sidestep this by not punishing the battery in the same way it would for any bar fight).

This isn't confusing. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, the government isn't restricting speech. This is a simple cause and effect issue. You tell someone their wife is a whore, you get punched. You tell someone you think turning point is a great publication... You might get punched.

Again... Maybe turning point needs to rethink their mocking of "safe spaces".... Perhaps they should have kept those diapers for their own use.
TMCTLT Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,695
victor809 wrote:
Dave you know the answer to that. You're playing dumb...

Being black or gay is not a choice. Therefore they are not "being offensive" they are being who they are.

Working for turning point, for Huffington Post, for any political group is a choice. Just as being a white supremacist is a choice, or being pro abortion or anti abortion is a choice.

I don't see anything wrong with people punching anyone espousing those views publicly as long as they are willing to accept the punishment for it (note, I don't think it's appropriate for local govt to sidestep this by not punishing the battery in the same way it would for any bar fight).

This isn't confusing. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, the government isn't restricting speech. This is a simple cause and effect issue. You tell someone their wife is a whore, you get punched. You tell someone you think turning point is a great publication... You might get punched.

Again... Maybe turning point needs to rethink their mocking of "safe spaces".... Perhaps they should have kept those diapers for their own use.




Apparently someone forgot to tell the perverted Mikey Jackson that....Oh and you have ZERO proof then being a homosexual isn't a Gdamn choice. OH and if we ever meet...based on YOUR own logic, I'm gonna roundhouse you because your " viewpoint " is different than mine. :)
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,408
I'm shocked... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
victor809 wrote:
I'm not seeing a problem. Dude works for turning point, which apparently has some ties to white supremacist groups.... The group he is working for is offensive to some. So they hit him.

If someone did something offensive to you, and you hit them, I wouldn't really judge you. I mean... You still should get charged with battery (as should the dude who hit this guy)... But I don't judge anyone for hitting someone when the need arises.

The irony is this turning point group is the same one that did a whole campaign against "safe spaces" by wearing diapers and crap to call liberals babies.... I bet he wishes he had a safe space now... :)


So the guy who hit him knew that Turning Point had some ties to white supremacist groups?
Do you have a source for this prior knowledge?

tailgater Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
victor809 wrote:
Dave you know the answer to that. You're playing dumb...

Being black or gay is not a choice. Therefore they are not "being offensive" they are being who they are.

Working for turning point, for Huffington Post, for any political group is a choice. Just as being a white supremacist is a choice, or being pro abortion or anti abortion is a choice.

I don't see anything wrong with people punching anyone espousing those views publicly as long as they are willing to accept the punishment for it (note, I don't think it's appropriate for local govt to sidestep this by not punishing the battery in the same way it would for any bar fight).

This isn't confusing. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, the government isn't restricting speech. This is a simple cause and effect issue. You tell someone their wife is a whore, you get punched. You tell someone you think turning point is a great publication... You might get punched.

Again... Maybe turning point needs to rethink their mocking of "safe spaces".... Perhaps they should have kept those diapers for their own use.


Again with the diapers.
You need a new screen saver.


victor809 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
TCBY... If you want to hit me when we meet that's fine. I'm honestly not bothered by that at all.
You believing that my viewpoints are "offensive" to you says a lot tho. Given that my viewpoints usually are those which offer the most freedom to the most people.

And yes, there is evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. I'm not getting into it with you here. I always wonder though, whether those who think it is are actively "choosing" to be straight every morning when they wake up. That seems sad.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
Tail....
Doesn't really matter if that's the aspect that was "offensive"... That's what I find offensive. Maybe he found turning points opposition to safe spaces offensive... Maybe he found their support of trumpenfeurher offensive. Bottom line .. you do something people find offensive, your chances of being punched go up.

I would think a group that supports a president who tells his audience to punch protesters would understand that... Or a group that wears "f-k your feelings" t-shirts. Jeez... It's like they're delicate little snowflakes.

And how would you know what's already on my screen saver?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 8,684
I'm torn on that issue... Cuz part of me is like "you don't have to order peppermint mocha fraps at Starbucks".... But then the other part of me is like "but they're tho tathty"...
Speyside Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,384
So you are advocating that anarchy is acceptable. I beg to disagree with you. In a country of law anarchy is not acceptable. There is a large difference between anarchy and civil disobedience. Fidel Castro was an anachist, Mahatma Gandi and Nelson Mandella followed civil disobedience. All three broke the law, but violence is for thugs. Anarchy is a form of oppression. I am very suprised this is acceptable to you. In this specific instance the oppression is obvious. Physical violence is used to attempt to stop freedom of speech and make people fearful of expressing their point of view.
delta1 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,093
persons protected by hate crimes: "Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability"

being a conservative does not meet the criteria... however, if the circumstances of the attack included any facts indicating the motivation of the assault was because the victim was white, it could be charged as a hate crime...for example, if the person assaulting the victim here was non-white, and yelled at the victim for being a white cracker s.o.b....


In CA, 2017, more than half of the hate crimes reported in the state were classified as "Anti-white"
https://oag.ca.gov/hatecrimes


the incident in OP is not a hate crime, which would increase the penalty of the base crime, but it is a battery...
gummy jones Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 6,585
Berkeley? Shocking?

delta1 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,093
just like attacks against gay people are not shocking in Montana, Alabama, or libs at Trump rallies anywhere ...
DrafterX Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,408
Not too shocked on that one... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
Spey... I am not advocating anarchy. Note I specifically stated that they should be punished by the law. The presence and enforcement of laws is the antithesis of anarchy.

If you want to punch someone so badly that you're willing to be punished for it... Who am I to say it's wrong? Not like I haven't been there. It would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise.
delta1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,093
I'm glad Drafter wasn't worth it to you...
victor809 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
He was very polite... Prolly because he knew I'd hit him if'n he was offensive.... :)

Honestly, this whining is hilarious to me coming from a group that literally uses the saying "a well armed society is a polite society"... That saying literally implies that you can shoot someone for being impolite.

Turning point is not a group known for politeness... They pull off stunts to try to "stick it to the libs"...
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 120,227
I would pay money to see TMTLGBT take a swing at Victor. That would be amusing. Short lived bravado, but amusing none the less.
tailgater Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
victor809 wrote:
Tail....
Doesn't really matter if that's the aspect that was "offensive"... That's what I find offensive. Maybe he found turning points opposition to safe spaces offensive... Maybe he found their support of trumpenfeurher offensive. Bottom line .. you do something people find offensive, your chances of being punched go up.

I would think a group that supports a president who tells his audience to punch protesters would understand that... Or a group that wears "f-k your feelings" t-shirts. Jeez... It's like they're delicate little snowflakes.

And how would you know what's already on my screen saver?


Your premise was that it was OK to punch the dude largely because he's with a group that supports white supremacists.
I asked if your premise was based on facts.
Apparently it isn't, and you've changed your parameters.
Which is fine. I just want us all to be clear.


As for your screensaver, I'd say it was a lucky guess, but when the odds favor the outcome then luck has little to do with it.


tailgater Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
delta1 wrote:
persons protected by hate crimes: "Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability"

being a conservative does not meet the criteria... however, if the circumstances of the attack included any facts indicating the motivation of the assault was because the victim was white, it could be charged as a hate crime...for example, if the person assaulting the victim here was non-white, and yelled at the victim for being a white cracker s.o.b....


In CA, 2017, more than half of the hate crimes reported in the state were classified as "Anti-white"
https://oag.ca.gov/hatecrimes


the incident in OP is not a hate crime, which would increase the penalty of the base crime, but it is a battery...


There's reason to believe that hate crimes in CA are made up fiction.

RobertHively Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 01-14-2015
Posts: 415
TMCTLT/Victor, Make sure to record, and post a Youtube video, when you go toe to toe.

DP, but it was a loving and tolerant sucker punch. So it's all good.
delta1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,093
tailgater wrote:
There's reason to believe that hate crimes in CA are made up fiction.




nuh uhh...Harris wasn't the AG in 2017...


wouldja believe that more than 17% of hate crimes reported in Mississippi in 2017 were against white victims?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/victims


why do so many whites think that they can't be victims of hate crimes and have equal protection under the law?
tailgater Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
[quote=delta1]nuh uhh...Harris wasn't the AG in 2017...


wouldja believe that more than 17% of hate crimes reported in Mississippi in 2017 were against white victims?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/victims


Meh.

Hate crime = Fake crime.

victor809 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
Tail... I probably should have been more clear. I don't see it as surprising or particularly bothersome. The reasons I stated were just supposition as to why he hit the guy. The dudes reasons are going to be his own. Could have been any number of things relating to the group the guy supports... Hell... It also could theoretically (I don't believe so) have nothing to do with the guys views and maybe the two had sex the night before and he didn't call him back.

It's Dave who is claiming the guy was hit because he's a conservative. I'm just stating that if that's the reason, there are plenty of perfectly good reasons for him to have done it... So I'm not really bothered as long as the guy is willing to do his time.
Speyside Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,384
^ So typically neoliberalist. Don't you know we are moving toward paleoliberalism? :)
opelmanta1900 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 8,684
I tried a paleoliberal diet once... Basically just a lot of self righteous meat eating...
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,408
delta1 wrote:
I'm glad Drafter wasn't worth it to you...



I brought back-up... Rusty knows Kung-fu and stuff... Good thing I didn't need him on da boat tho... Poor Rusty... Sad
tailgater Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
victor809 wrote:
Tail... I probably should have been more clear. I don't see it as surprising or particularly bothersome. The reasons I stated were just supposition as to why he hit the guy. The dudes reasons are going to be his own. Could have been any number of things relating to the group the guy supports... Hell... It also could theoretically (I don't believe so) have nothing to do with the guys views and maybe the two had sex the night before and he didn't call him back.

It's Dave who is claiming the guy was hit because he's a conservative. I'm just stating that if that's the reason, there are plenty of perfectly good reasons for him to have done it... So I'm not really bothered as long as the guy is willing to do his time.


Are you the same Victor666 who once upon a time lamented over hate crime attacks?

Essentially saying that one guy doesn't have the right to punch another guy for being gay (for instance).

Sounds like selective outrage.
Especially considering that you weren't content to let the attackers off with merely assault. You wanted it to be worse. Because it was a hate crime.

I agree with you that there are times when physical actions can be the right thing to do, especially if you're willing to accept the consequences. But as an outside third party, I find it odd to label one assault as OK and the other not OK, when neither instance involved sufficient provocation.

frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 25,977
I think he has been painstakingly trying to state a difference between hating/attacking people born with characteristics they did not choose like skin color/race
vs
hating people who freely choose to be racists etc.

now whether it is OK to physically attack either...
Speyside Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,384
Can't believe you said that Frank. As long as someone is not preaching violence they have an absolute right to their viewpoints, racist or not. Remember, this is America. Also since he was representing a group and attacked due to that drops ideology this should be a hate crime. This is the hypocrisy of hate crimes. There is a double standard in place.
dstieger Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,564
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syV2LkGpQB0
tailgater Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
frankj1 wrote:
I think he has been painstakingly trying to state a difference between hating/attacking people born with characteristics they did not choose like skin color/race
vs
hating people who freely choose to be racists etc.

now whether it is OK to physically attack either...


So the kid being punched was a racist?
Because I must have missed that part.
tailgater Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
Speyside wrote:
Can't believe you said that Frank. As long as someone is not preaching violence they have an absolute right to their viewpoints, racist or not. Remember, this is America. Also since he was representing a group and attacked due to that drops ideology this should be a hate crime. This is the hypocrisy of hate crimes. There is a double standard in place.


Can we all just accept the fact that using the term "Hate crime" is ridiculously redundant?

victor809 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
Tail, just because you don't like hate crime legislation doesn't mean it's redundant.
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
I heard the holocaust was just a bunch of state sanctioned killings...

dstieger Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,564
What if he doesn't just dislike it? What if he hates it?
tailgater Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
victor809 wrote:
Tail, just because you don't like hate crime legislation doesn't mean it's redundant.


You're right.
It's not redundant.
We'll use the term to separate those crimes from all the love-crimes people commit on total strangers.
Thank you for enlightening us.

tailgater Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 22,905
dstieger wrote:
What if he doesn't just dislike it? What if he hates it?


I like the term Loathe.

Plausible deniability later on.


victor809 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 17,664
Jesus f-king Christ tail... That's the dumbest argument ever.... And I've been reading your arguments for years.

You care that it's called a "hate" crime? Who cares what it's called? It's an act of violence specifically targeting an individual for some aspect of their being that they did not choose...

Do you think discrimination is no different than just "not liking someone" too?

Get better arguments.
dstieger Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,564
victor809 wrote:


You care that it's called a "hate" crime? Who cares what it's called? It's an act of violence specifically targeting an individual


We already gots laws for that.....Hate crime laws are redundant.....or, at least ridiculous, because they apply to actions that are already determined to be crimes....but then, on top of that, you have to ASSUME...not even prove....ASSUME what's in the perpetrator's heart and mind. Sure, there's some possible indicating signs/words/symbols....but it still just makes what was already a crime.....a crime.

To what purpose? Is it a deterrent? LOL....prove that one

The only thing it does is make the legislators feel good about themselves....and allows media to sensationalize the **** out of the so-called hate crimes
Speyside Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,384
To me hate crimes are double jeopardy. I think anything that is a hate crime would be a crime on its own. If conviction doesn't happen for the crime there should not be an additional trial due to hate crime laws.
DrafterX Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,408
So, if I hate somebody and don't hit them it's still a crime..?? Huh
dstieger Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,564
That's a great question.....if hate makes a crime more of a crime today??.....tomorrow, maybe it won't require the other crime part...and we can legislate hate into extinction....
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>