Posted on 06/03/2016 10:04:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Free speech? What free speech.
"You were asking for it." It's the ultimate 'blame the victim' line, and it's been used in an attempt to excuse everything from theft, to Rape, to Murder. If you didn't leave it out, it wouldn't have been taken. If you didn't insult that guy, he wouldn't have punched you. If you didn't dress 'all pretty' the rapist wouldn’t have pounced.
Now, Sam Liccardo - the Hillary-supporting mayor of 'sanctuary city' San Jose - is employing that argument in an effort to absolve violent rioters of wrongdoing.
From the AP:
"Our police officers have done an extremely courageous and professional job so far," San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told The Associated Press by phone. "We're all still holding our breath to see the outcome of this dangerous and explosive situation."
The mayor, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, criticized Trump for coming to cities and igniting problems that local police departments had to deal with.
"At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," Liccardo said.
For progressives, the "irresponsible behavior of his campaign" basically amounts to "speech we don't like." They despise Trump's opinions, his words upset them, and they're lashing out in an effort to silence the candidate and his supporters. The excuse is: If he didn't say the things he said, we wouldn't have to punch people, destroy cars, and burn stuff.
Remember, via CNN, this is what went down in Liccardo's city:
Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs, and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning them and snapping selfies with the charred remains.
Several people were caught on camera punching Trump supporters.
By blaming Trump for the despicable rage-based actions of the rioters, Liccardo is essentially arguing that the rioters - who spent the night carping about how California should still be part of Mexico - are simply too stupid or too out of control to fight speech with speech.
It's not a new argument. We've heard progressives make it before - when they were demanding free speech limits in the wake of shootings at a Mohammed cartoon exhibit.
“Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people.”
The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said.
“I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect what they were doing would incite a violent reaction,” he said.
So remember, folks: That guy at the top of the page covered in blood? He had had it coming.
If you're walking around San Jose, minding your own business, and some thug descends upon you; don't start whining. You were probably asking for it. If you hadn't enraged your attacker with your 'irresponsible behavior,' you would have been fine.
Have victim to sue City & police department
Maybe those cops are like the TSA, affirmative action employees who are not beholden to the constitution nor the American people.
They dont have a oath, check it out, post it please.
They will not put those people in jail. Just dont vote for DEM.. keep them out of your life.
In October 1970, President Nixon was attacked by a mob in San Jose at the same place. Rocks were thrown at his car. Must be something about San Jose.
Here’s a link to an old newspaper story:
Nixon’s San Jose Visit Disrupted By Violence - October 1970
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n-IiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RMsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4218%2C1553475
Trump supporters need to defend themselves.
The use of deadly force is justified if you are surrounded.
You better not run out of ammo.
Probably not, unless it can be proven that the police failed in their duty to know something like this would happen.
From Black’s, res ipsa loquitur is a: “Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in defendant’s exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere fact that accident happened provided character of accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under management and control of alleged wrongdoer. … When a thing which causes injury, without fault of injured person, is shown to be under exclusive control of defendant, and injury is such as in ordinary course of things does not occur if the one having such control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in absence of an explanation, that injury arose from defendant’s want of care.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th, 1305.
I got a feeling they may have gotten orders from the mayor to let the protestors have a free hand.
Good advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.