He deserved it.

Boomer got what he deserved

I have great faith in the San Francisco Police Department's capability to identify the violent thief and bring him to justice
Planned Parenthood has already hopped on it by refusing to turn over surveillance camera footage.
Perhaps if he actually gets caught, he could get the Clanton/Smollett Special



I'm gonna start holding my breath now

what's happening here, was the hooded fella trying to steal the old man's pro life banner or something?

Old guy was part of a prayer group that was holding a silent protest outside of Planned Parenthood all week
The younger guy had attacked the protesters three times that week, destroying their signs and throwing their stuff into the street and knocking down the protesters, including this same old guy.
This was the third assault, where he stole the guy's black protest banner and tried to escape with it on his bicycle. Old guy tried to stop him from leaving, and that's where the video starts

Shameful indeed, and not the first time pro-choice ideologues have been caught assaulting vulnerable members of society.

This agressor coud get an head shot with "Stand your ground" legislation, which is valid in Ohio btw btw bang bang

eh, would be kind of grey area. In general, the only difference that 'stand your ground' makes is that you don't have a duty to retreat from a situation that you reasonably know could turn deadly. Once you're already being attacked and on the ground like that, you can open fire in any state, stand your ground or not, and it would be self-defense. So all the 'stand your ground' difference is that without it, there's an extra hurdle that you could be arrested even if it was self-defense at the moment you shot, if you previously had an opportunity to flee when the situation looked dangerous- only if the danger was foreseeable and not if you were protecting others.
in this case, the guy trying to hold onto his protest sign and stop the bicycle would not necessarily create a duty to retreat because the encounter wasn't violent at that point. The suddenly the other guy turns around and goes apeshit, which wasn't foreseeable. And at that point its too late, there's a self defense claim. However, whether that would merit lethal self-defense is still grey area in any state, duty to retreat irregardless.


Personally I think the framing of "stand your ground laws" is itself disingenous and misrepresents the issue. It should really be "duty to retreat" vs "non-duty to retreat" states. Because duty to retreat laws create an additional hurdle before a self defense claim that doesn't originate in basic common law. "stand your ground" just removes that hurdle.

There's also the beat the crap out of the aggressor, just don't kill him response.