Whatever. It's getting silly because you are making up scenarios which aren't in any way provable by what's in the video. You've tried to claim the guy was by himself in an effort to paint the Nazi into being as innocent and victim-like as possible. If that's how you want to roll, go ahead.
I'm not sure that idea of what happened would convince many people given that it's something we see a lot at demonstrations where there are flags. Someone gets triggered by whatever flag is being carried, someone tries to take it from them. I don't see any reason to think anything else was going on in this instance so there's no realistic "self defense" claim. When you show up to an event like that with a weapon and use the weapon without a reason for it....I mean, it suggests that you brought it specifically to use it given that you were there to counter protest in the first place....you knew there were going to be people you disagreed with so your friend trying to steal something isn't a valid excuse to club someone over the head. As to the Trayvon Martin incident....well it's not a similar incident in any way. Him being armed in his neighborhood and being attacked by a stupid kid isn't the same as him showing up to a political rally and using it on someone for not letting someone steal his property. I mean, if anything, the people that beat the hell out of Harris have a better claim for "self defense" given that he just used a weapon to assault someone in order to aid a robbery....I mean at least there's a case for that sort of.....but not really since they beat him even after he attempted to flee and was no longer a threat which is why both groups belong in prison.
Well if you say it happened in other rallies, then that definitely proves there is no way for self-defense. Are you a lawyer? Great legal thinking!
I think the point is that you'd have to just really want to believe in order to buy the story that the guy was attacking them with the flag and it wasn't that they were trying to take the flag away from him. Perhaps you are willing to suspend your disbelief in order to come to the conclusion that it wasn't a pretty clear cut case of assault, but are the members of a jury willing to? I'm not so sure. It's obvious what happened and it was bad on all fronts.
It is clear-cut assault if you make up what happened before the camera started filming and the story that you made up has to do with him assaulting the other person. But then you just have a made up story. If you just look at the actual evidence of what is on the footage, then it isn't clear cut assault at all.
The only way it's not is if you buy into the notion that the guy was doing a bayonet run with his flag which requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Looking at what the evidence shows without the willing suspension of disbelief you just see a tug of war for a flag and then a guy assaulting one of those people with a flashlight used as a club. Again, I understand that the notion of "teams" is more important to some than an objective view of the evidence, so I'm not expecting unanimous agreement with what should be obvious.
Still arguing about this? No one will be convicted on the strength of an edited 5-second video clip. The first thing that will happen is a request from the opposing lawyers for the rest of the video.
What? The only way to use a pole/staff as a weapon is to do a running bayonet charge? Please just stop.
