We previously discussed the arrest of former Washington State University teaching assistant Patrick Mahoney and WSU research assistant Gerald Hoff for beating down engineering student Jay Sani for wearing a Trump hat. Notably, after the attack, Mahoney explained that, if you choose to wear a pro-Trump hat, “there’s gonna be a price to pay.” There is also a price for a beat down. He was just sentenced to one week in prison and a year’s probation.In the video, Sani was shown wearing a “Take America Back” hat and police say that Mahoney took him down and then “said ‘F**k you or f**k off’ to Sani before walking away.” Gerald Hoffin is also shown as participating in the attack.
Sani told the cops “Some people might find it offensive, but it’s 2025, man. It’s just a hat.”
When the officer interviewed Mahoney later, the instructor appeared unapologetic for an attack on the “ol’ boy”:
“I asked Mahoney what happened tonight. Mahoney said that he saw ‘ol’ boy’ walking around. Mahoney did not name Sani by name but said ‘I’ve seen this guy, f**king, on campus before. I know he’s like f**king Right Wing dude. He’s got a f**king, like, Make America Great Again
hat.”
The two men were charged with fourth-degree assault. Mahoney told police he had seen Sani on WSU’s campus and “knew he was a ‘right-wing dude.’” He added, “You wanna wear the hat, hey, there’s gonna be a price to pay.”
One would expect that any future teaching opportunities for Mahoney are quite limited, but many faculty members have espoused violent sentiments toward Republicans or conservatives. Some have been promoted or lionized for their positions.
Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.” It follows other violent rhetoric from Democratic leaders. It is not surprising that people like Mahoney, even in higher education, believe that violence is the “price” that conservatives must be prepared to pay if they openly express their political views.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I regret that our beloved resident expert, George, dismissed the good professor as a less-than renowned, questionable lawyer, who is “engaging in hyperbole and innuendo.”
“Please, this is the stuff tabloids do[,] not ‘esteemed’ lawyers like Turley,” says our resident expert.
George further dismissed that this was related to politics, and instead thought it was just a “scuffle” between individuals-for some reason other than Sani’s pro-Trump hat. He then dismissed another commenter with, “Its amazing that you don’t know how to read. Perhaps you should think before you post.”
Relying just on “reading comprehension and context,” perhaps George should consider that victim Sani –(the guy who Mahoney recognized as the “f**king Right Wing dude” he had seen “f**king, on campus before.”)–is coincidentally President of the WSU College Republicans.
–And our teaching assistant Patrick Mahoney — is studying to obtain his Ph.D. in WSU’s School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs and wants to teach in higher education!
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/aug/21/wsu-teaching-assistant-who-assaulted-student-for-w/
I’m not sure if any future faculty-hiring university missed the shark or missed the bullet here?
Great post Lin! I think there will be ample job openings for Mahoney with Antifa after his incarceration. As I recall this guy proudly displayed the hammer and sickle pin on his lapel for photo ops as a graduate TA. He will now be carrying a conviction for the rest of his Socialist life, great on a resume’. Maybe he can get Loser tattooed on his neck while he’s in the can.
Socialism has never worked, but it just won’t die.
Valued Opinions of Parasites:
– “Free stuff” and “free status” are great.
– One’s betters are one’s worsers.
Valued Opinions of Communist Parasites:
– “Free stuff” and “free status” are great.
– One’s betters are one’s worsers.
hi lin,
I was away vacationing, in part, in Dixie County where my in-laws live (as in near Steinhatchee – ring a bell?). Sorry I missed your question re: medical journals
having access to paid medical journal platforms like Clarivate Web of Science is the best way to search for topics as you mentioned. However, when that is not available, Google Scholar is decent and its free
cheers
Lin, the need to make things bigger than what they are for the purpose of manufacturing rage is exactly what Professor Turley is doing. This incident was about a stupid decision by Mahoney who expressed remorse for doing what he did. He got punished for it as he should. Sani for his part is just as guilty of making a similar stupid decision to escalate when he chose to throw his food at Mahoney. Professor Turley said Mahoney went to prison for a week and we both know that’s not true. The professor went ahead and used the incident to insinuate by engaging in hyperbole and innuendo which most readers here took to heart and proceeded to demand the harshest punishment necessary for the crime of being a lefty who punched a guy in the face after having food thrown at him. The over-the-top reactions and calls for similar punishment shows a gang-like mentality of vengeance and retribution.
The professor earned that criticism.
“This incident was about a stupid decision by Mahoney who expressed remorse for doing what he did. He got punished for it as he should. Sani for his part is just as guilty of making a similar stupid decision to escalate when he chose to throw his food at Mahoney. ”
It’s amazing (not really) how you keep trying to minimize the initial unprovoked assault on Sani by your fellow unhinged leftist.
Nobody is minimizing anything. You’re the only one assuming that. Sani retaliated after the hat was removed by swinging his bag of food at Mahoney and then bothfell to the ground after getting onto a scuffle and Mahoney throwing one punch before walking away. Its a misdemeanor in the fourth degree. It could have been just a fine, but he got a week in jail and had to pay restitution. That’s it.
Everyone else wants to make it more than it is and demanding the harshest punishment imaginable. Its as stupid as it gets. The professor spinned this story onto something that people like you can get into a rage about.
“spinned” this story?
Mahoney said “there, go get it, b*tch.”
Sani did NOT “throw his food” at Mahoney. You can see him clinging to his bag during the entire assault.
And you call Turley a liar?
George: I cannot help but smile.
(1) Can you contemplate that the “need to make things bigger than what they are for the purpose of manufacturing rage is exactly what YOU [are] doing,” George? On a daily basis, you appear, starting with scanning Turley’s post to find something to criticize it for. (Today it was the use of the word prison as starters, then moving on to “hyperbole and insinuation.”)
You then move on to the comments section and start to pick them apart. In the 2-3 years I have followed this blog, I cannot recall a single time that you agreed with or were complimentary about the professor’s post. I and others have asked you several times why you continue to make an appearance? Being as smart as you are, I am sure that you are aware that it is mildly pathological to do so? Inquiring minds continue to ask? Several here think you are a paid troll. Methinks something else motivates you..
(2) If you were a litigator, you would not have “made bigger than what it is” the statement of Mahoney to Judge Hart, i.e.,
his “remorse.” Not too often, George, in front of a sentencing judge, does a defendant state, “Yeah, I’m glad I did it and I’d do it again if he crosses my path.” Think, George, think.
(3) I agree with the anonymous commenter ^ who again mentions how you casually gloss over the instigating conduct of Mahoney in grabbing Sani’s hat, tossing it, then commanding, “there, go get it.”
(4) DId you notice, George, that Judge Hart did not find Sani “is just as guilty.” Why don’t you write a letter to Judge Hart and criticize him for that, as you do Professor Turley. Let’s see how far that gets you.
(5) Selective fact distortion never wins in the end, George.
yours truly, lin.
Lin, who is George?
I’m pointing out how the Professor is indeed making this out to be more than it is. All it took was reading the links and viewing the video of the incident. It becomes obvious the Professor is inflating the events to incite outrage.
You’re a lawyer. Is the word “prison” correct or not? Clearly Mahoney didn’t go to prison and you should know there is an important distinction between a jail and a prison. A lawyer of Professor Turley’s stature shouldn’t be making a mistake like that because it opens him to criticism.
“You then move on to the comments section and start to pick them apart.”
Why would that be an issue? Professor Turley’s articles or anyone else’s arguments are open to criticism.
“I and others have asked you several times why you continue to make an appearance? Being as smart as you are, I am sure that you are aware that it is mildly pathological to do so?” I don’t know when I have been asked this but being here is no different than what it seems are regulars who do the same. How is my posting relevant?
“I agree with the anonymous commenter ^ who again mentions how you casually gloss over the instigating conduct of Mahoney in grabbing Sani’s hat, tossing it, then commanding, “there, go get it.”
How did I gloss over it? I pointed out the removal of the hat was a bad decision and Sani retaliated by swinging his bag of food at Mahoney. That resulted in a scuffle where Mahoney ended up throwing a single punch and walked away. The Professor made the whole incident a lot more than it was to point out and instill the idea that leftists are violent and inciting rage among the readers here. It was a simple assault turned into a raging ideological battle to argue over pointlessly.
“ DId you notice, George, that Judge Hart did not find Sani “is just as guilty.” Why don’t you write a letter to Judge Hart and criticize him for that, as you do Professor Turley. Let’s see how far that gets you.“
I made that statement as personal observation. I do not care why the judge would have found. Are you sure you’re a lawyer? You couldn’t figure out what I was saying? I was pointing out what led to the escalation of the incident and why the punch was thrown. Sani retaliated by swinging his bag of food and Mahoney got triggered further into the altercation which ended with a punch to the face for Sani. That’s what happened and that’s not minimizing anything. Its just presenting the facts.
“Selective fact distortion never wins in the end, George.
yours truly, lin.”
I don’t know what to say about this one. What is the distortion? You haven’t provided anything to rebut or dispute my account of the event and sorry but this is not “George”
“Snoopie Doggie Doggie” says he’s a veteran with PTSD.
look at the video, clown georgie. How many times does Mahoney punch at Sani when Sani is down?
Sani says four or five. Sani did not “throw his food” at Mahoney. Plus, your “single punch” take on what happened means you deserve the criticism that YOU get. go join gigi. just go away and stop polluting this site.
Lin,
Great take down of the slow and dumb one!!
“This incident was about a . . .”
Behold George, the blog’s context-dropper (when that satisfies a desire).
He stares straight up, with faux conviction, to declare: Look. There’s only one swallow.
The he ignores, and hopes you do, too, the flock of swallows on the horizon.
After reading the comments from our fine leftists friends I am beginning to think maybe we MAGAs should go the “Chicago way,”
“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *MAGA* way!”
@Upstate
You read my mind. I was thinking, ‘They are bringing a knife to a gunfight.’. Ye Gods, these people are stupid. Barring levels of violence, the ignorance of our laws is just astounding. And the hole they continue to dig just doesn’t seem deep enough to them, nope; get more shovels.
Beyond a point, one can’t stop others from destroying themselves. Better lies will no longer work. that they cannot see the fundamental truth that being lied to and people not appreciating that, and that human beings are basically on a level playing field, self-ascribed notions of inherent superiority is pretty much just stupid, is lost on them – the modern left has no hope, and that is as it should be. Good riddance. I hope something better takes their place, I really do, and i hope this last stand against socialism/communism for the joke that it is and has always been will be the last time. At least today it is largely funny, because they are ridiculous, and not the Cold War.
James,
The good news is the NYT recently ran a article describing, with data, how much the far-leftist Democrat party is losing voters while the Republican party is gaining and by no small amount. The far-left Democrat party lost some 2.1 million voters and the Republicans gained 2.4 million voters. I read yesterday that even CNN is saying the far-left Democrat party is losing. The mid-terms and 2028 are NOT looking good for the far-left Democrat party at all.
An interesting article, The Collapse Of The Democratic Party And Their Deep State Forces
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/08/24/the_collapse_of_the_democratic_party_and_their_deep_state_forces_153213.html
IF there are ANY sane and normal Democrats, reading this comment, you need to get the far-leftists OUT of your party if you want to remain a viable party! Just read all the annony moronic comments here on the good professor’s blog. THOSE are the people you need OUT of your party!! And, nominate some sane and normal people for candidates for office.
This is how free markets work.
Democrats are chosing to be a far left fringe party.
That is OK – they can do that. But it does have consequences. It reduces their ability to win a majority in most elections.
They can decide if they wish to be a party for 20% of people or 80% of people.
As my mom RIP used to tell us “2 wrongs don’t make right”
If your mom, RIP, was getting beaten by a unhinged far-leftists for wearing a hat, would you stand by and let it happen?
Are you sure it wasn’t “2 Wongs don’t make a white” or maybe “No tickie, no washie?”
You sound like me.🤣
The perpetrators of physical violence got off with a slap on the wrist. That is wrong.
A really cool vigilante action would be to have one person act as bait and wear the dreaded Red Hat. Another dozen partners could meander around, in pairs or singly, dressed in nondescript outfits. Then, if Leftards take the bait and attack, the team converges and in seconds they break a mess of bones and disperse, shed outer garments into backpacks, and disappear.
Yeah, it would be illegal, but it is what the Left deserves for trying to deprive their fellow citizens of their civil rights. It may become necessary if the justice system remsins so obviously skewed.
OldFish,
I respectfully disagree.
What should of happened, those around who witnessed the violent attack and assault on Sani’s 1stA rights is they should of charged to Sani’s defense and rescue. If that means the had to lower themselves to violence like those low life leftists, if that is what is required to defend someones civil and Constitutional rights, than so be it.
Of course if and when that happens, we all know how much the left will cry.
Upstate,
The pool from which rescuers would emerge is of a mind with the perpetrators.
If the justice system won’t provide the correct incentives then alternative sources of deterrent fear will be needed. Well publicized bone breaking will work. New symbols are need to let the Left’s footsoldiers know that they are not going to operate with impunity.
USF, so some activist leftwing kook lawyer sues you for stepping in to help? If Sani wants to wear his MAGA hat out in public in support of his party I applaud him, he knows today’s atmosphere. Knowing this Sani should have a little something something’s in his pocket to defend himself should he be assaulted by these leftwing kooks. It was well within his rights however it could be argued that it was akin to wearing a stars and bars hat to a Diddy freak off, you gonna get fkd. There’s the way things should be and then there’s the way thing are. If you’re going to be stupid you better be strong and know how to kickass or take the lumps. Justice worked and Sani probably can sue this guy in civil court for trauma and a chipped tooth or neck injury, even better.
According to local coverage, Mahoney told Judge Hart his actions were “an impulsive decision I made in a two-second window that I shouldn’t have made.”
Mahoney sounds like a great candidate for some mandatory anger management training.
A prison crib pappy would be far more educational. One week isn’t long enough to wear down his soap on a rope…
It’s positively frightening to see leftists here defending this unprovoked assault. But it’s like they say, for leftists their violence is speech, but your speech is violence.
How hard are you clutching your pearls?
The federal government could take stakes in other U.S. semiconductor companies or even move to other industries, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told CNBC in an interview on Monday following its stake in Intel.
Hassett, asked if the Intel deal was the start of a larger effort by the U.S. government to take equity stakes in other industries, or other companies in the AI and chip space such as Advanced Micro Devices Inc or Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, said there could be other similar transactions.
The Intel investment marks the latest unusual deal with U.S. companies that has worried critics, who say Trump’s actions create new categories of corporate risk.
Under Trump, the U.S. government has allowed AI chip giant Nvidia to sell its H20 chips to China, allowed the Pentagon to become the largest shareholder in mining company MP Materials and acquired a “golden share” with certain veto rights as part of Japan’s Nippon Steel purchase of U.S. Steel.
So, to summarize:
The federal government is now the largest institutional holder of Intel shares.
The federal government is now the largest shareholder in MP Materials.
The federal government holds a “golden share” with veto power over how Nippon Steel runs recently purchased US Steel.
The federal government plans to take further stakes in US companies.
I believe someone by the name of Karl Marx had a thing or two to say about the importance of the government owning the means of production.
Now let me hear the explanations from the MAGA morons about how this is not Marxism.
I know you can rationalize this insanity as a good thing for this country.
Have at it.
I know you can do it.
“Now let me hear the explanations from the MAGA morons about how this is not Marxism.
I know you can rationalize this insanity as a good thing for this country.
Have at it.
I know you can do it.”
Gigi, we all already know that you’re too stupid to even define Marxism, that’s why you’re here asking for our help.
Define Marxism… Why don’t you do it then? Without cut-n-pasting wiki text.
Sounds like you might have figured it out already. Good job. I suppose that you expect a cookie now?
In the good faith of Marxisn, not just A cookie, YOUR cookie!🤣
In the name of Marxists everywhere, Not just A cookie …YOUR cookie.
Government entanglement with business is bad economics.
That said this occurs all the time.
This is not insanity,
It is not immoral.
But it is bad economics.
John Say
So you agree that this is Marxism.
This is exactly what Marx and Engel advocated in terms of government control of the means of production.
Hassett has said the government plans to take stakes in other companies, so this is just the thin end of the wedge.
So much for the Republican mantra of small government, capitalism and free enterprise.
“So you agree that this is Marxism.
This is exactly what Marx and Engel advocated in terms of government control of the means of production.”
Thus proving that you have no idea what Marxism even is. You hear a lot of disjointed phrases, and you mix them up in your supposed brain, all just to throw out some unsubstantiated attack. You life must be truly awful.
ATS – no this is not marxism – though that is not relevant. I do not particularly care about labels like oligarchy corporatism, marxism, socialism, ….
ALL broad govenrment involvement in the economy is a mistake and generally causes the same problems.
ALL government leverage of “the means of production” – all government leverage over our speech, or thought, our ideas, our economics is a Bad idea.
Trump should not be buying shares of Intel.
He should not be leveraging Government funding to end DEI programs in colleges.
He shoudl just get Government out of funding things that are outside its domain.
I think DEI is an absolutely stupid disasterous idea that can not possibly survive without govenrment to prop it up. But if I am wrong – it will do fine in schools and colleges and businesses – WITHOUT government leveraging its funding to support or attack DEI
The core issue is POWER – do we want the power to make choices to rest with the govenrment or with a free people ?
Is this “marxism” – not literally. Is it a bad idea ? Absolutely. It is the same bad idea of ALL govenrment involvement in the free market.
Thge part that is WRONG about Trump investing govenrment money is the same part that is wrong with EVERYTHING the left wants govenrment to do.
When govenrment funds something, that thing is no longer answerable to the people acting through the free market. Even where govenrnent funding is benign – government does not leverage money to impose its will, the funding Still insulates decision makers from the consequences of their decisions.
“John Say
So you agree that this is Marxism.”
No I said it was bad economics. I also said that it is alsways bad for govenrment to have leverage over the free marketplace. Which ultimately this is.
“This is exactly what Marx and Engel advocated in terms of government control of the means of production.
Hassett has said the government plans to take stakes in other companies, so this is just the thin end of the wedge.”
No this is not exactly what Marx and Engel advocated.
“So much for the Republican mantra of small government, capitalism and free enterprise.”
I am not a republican. I am not a Trump supporter. I am not MAGA.
I am libertarian.
Government investing in private companies is a mistake.
As the mistakes that government makes this one is relatively small.
As I have noted with other issues – I DO NOT support Trump leveraging government power to coerce government funded private actors – like colleges and universities to effect the policies that Trump wants.
Though I find it hard to get worked up because Trump is improperly using government power to end something it never should have done.
I do not want Trump to force colleges to end there discriminatory DEI policies and programs.
I want Trump to end funding colleges, and let those colleges decide their policies on their own.
I do not want government to fund things – even when it does NOT leverage that funding to advance ideological goals. Merely providing money to remove the dependence on market and private funding alters decision making in Bad ways.
“I think DEI is an absolutely stupid disasterous idea that can not possibly survive without govenrment to prop it up. But if I am wrong – it will do fine….WITHOUT government leveraging its funding…”
Same for wind and solar
Absolutely.
Government should not fund things I support. It should stay out of the free market entirely.
It’s called a National Security measure taken over select commodities and critical path sectors of industry and manufacturing. Can’t build missiles, tanks, jets and their computers without materials, especially if your opponent controls them.
Again a low IQ poster can’t stay on subject.
Trump didn’t ‘sieze the means of production. Intel is still on charge of their business. There will be no central planning.
You don’t know anything about Marxism. All you do is spout nonsense because you hate Trump. Tja is laughable.
I would note that in the scale of things that government does that are wrong – this is tiny.
This is no different from Government giving money to NGO’s via USAID
It is no different from the entire Govenrment grant system.
The core issue is not moral. it is that he more government is entangled outside its domain the more leverage it has to compel free market actors to make choices they would not otherwise make.
This is no different from Govenrment subsidizing student loans, or government subsidizing research.
ALL government entanglements in the free market result in free market actors being influenced by government in the decisions they make.
You compare this to marxism – and it is compareable – just as government grants, student loans and money’s paid to NGO;s are.
In the domain of education we hare having a holy war because Trump is trying to leverage Federal funding to colleges to get them to eliminate DEI policies.
That is WRONG. It is no different from investing in Intel.
But the answer is NOT for government to subsidize colleges and then NOT influence college choices – providing them funding so that they are NOT answerable to free market funding influences their decisions.
The answer is for government to stop funding things.
NOT to have political wars between right and left over how that funding can be used to leverage policy choices in those being funded.
If colleges want DEI programs – if they wish to be racist, sexist, …. so long as they are answerable to the parents and others who provide them funding – that is fine.
Programs like DEI should sink or swim based on whether free people choose to pay for colleges that engage in DEI.
The ideas that succeed or fail – whether those are political, or product ideas should be determined by private actors answerable to the us through the marketplace.
Trump should not block funding for colleges that engage in DEI.
He should just end government funding of colleges.
Wit respect to the government funding you are attacking – why are you complaining ?
Today these businesses are answerable to Trump and MAGA. If the next president is a democrat – they will be answerable to you. That is how we got idiocy like DEI in the first place.
What Trump is doing here is a bad idea. But it is just Trump engaging in the same bad idea that the left does all the time.
John Say
I knew you MAGA morons could find a way to rationalize this.
Apparently you are saying that the Marxist, leftist Democrats do this all the time, therefore it is perfectly fine for the Republicans and Trump to indulge in the same Marxist policies, while simultaneously espousing their policies of small government, free enterprise and capitalism.
The word hypocrisy comes to mind.
This would also be peak whataboutism.
Cry harder. Nobody cares.
“John Say
I knew you MAGA morons could find a way to rationalize this.”
ATS – I have not rationalized this at all.
It is a mistake. Just as ALL govenrment funding of the free market is a mistake.
I am not the slightest hypocritical here.
But YOU – as always are drowning in hypocracy.
And again – you are incapable of critical thought.
How is the government buying a stake in private companies different from Government subsidizing solar, wind, research ? Education ?
Why are Marx and Engles wrong ? Why shouldn’t govenrment own the means of production ?
Why is that a bad idea ?
Because it does not work. Because the clerisy – the expert class NEVER makes good decisions.
Why ? Because they do not have “skin in the game”.
If you want people to make good decisions – the costs and benefits of those decisions MUST fall on those making the decisions.
Those in government are among the most protected from the consequences of bad decisions.
“Apparently you are saying that the Marxist, leftist Democrats do this all the time, ”
No I am saying that nearly all of us – in some form do this all the time.
There are very very few people who do not see government power as a means to leverage what they beleive are good ideas, or what they see as good for them.
The problem is more common on the left than the right – because the left is chock full of “good ideas” about how other people should live their lives. But the right is certainly not immune.
“therefore it is perfectly fine”
Where did I say this was perfectly fine ?
What I have said is that in the scale of bad things govenrmnent does today this is pretty small.
But I FULLY expect the next left wing president to try to leverage govenrment stock to impose ideological values on companies where government has leverage.
“for the Republicans and Trump to indulge in the same Marxist policies”
Bad idea – yes, actual marxism – no. Marxism is not just about government ownership it is about government control.
And the core problem is that those who have power but do NOT have “skin in the game” near universally make bad choices.
I have a particular disdain or socialism – communism – not because of who owns what – but because CONTROL
by “experts” in government pretty much always turns BLOODY.
This article is about one group using violence against people with different ideas.
That SOMETIMES happens on the right. That is near inevitable for those on the left.
AND it is incredibly common with ACTUAL socialism and communism – because when “government experts” with power fail – as they inevitably do, they pretty much ALWAYS try to put the blame elsewhere – some subset of the people – especially those that opposed them, and they move in steps from blame to persecution to violence.
The Lawfare by the left against – not just Trump, but pro-lifers and anyone that speaks out against the left is predictable. It is covering up the blame for the lefts failures. And as we see in this article – it often leads to violence.
“while simultaneously espousing their policies of small government, free enterprise and capitalism.”
Republicans are not the party of small government free enterprise and capitalism.
They are just the lessor of two evils.
“The word hypocrisy comes to mind.”
Yours.
“This would also be peak whataboutism.”
Again YOURS – you raised this issue. What about ism is a counter argument.
This is absolutely communism, and it is absolutely unconstitutional.
Congress has no Article 1, Section 8, power to tax for or fund this interference in private enterprise, private industry, and free markets, or to regulate any industry, including the banking industry, causing the Federal Reserve Act to be utterly and immutably unconstitutional.
Congress has no power to deprive or deny one of, modify, or interfere with the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property, except for the full taking of such for public use after just compensation.
“. . . the MAGA morons . . .”
Were it not for your gratuitous insult, I would have replied.
Given that he got off so lightly, I’d sue him civilly for damages, psychological distress, etc., just to drag him through the process. Has anyone else noticed that all these progressive lefties who are talking tough come from the societal class that has never ket their kids get slapped or punched in the face, without a “Do you know who I am?” comment? The people who are spouting off are big talkers and would quickly be laid out horizontally if they attempted to fulfill their dream fights with most people.
Lightly? He got exactly what the law allows. He punched the dude once after the other guy threw his food at him. All because of a poor decision on taking the hat off and throwing it on the ground.
“Lightly? He got exactly what the law allows. He punched the dude once after the other guy threw his food at him. All because of a poor decision on taking the hat off and throwing it on the ground.”
Way to reverse the actions. The initial assault was the forced removal of clothing from the innocent victim. It’s amazing (not really) that you fail to see that.
Its amazing that you don’t know how to read. Perhaps you should think before you post.
Maybe you should read the article before mouthing off again.
Uninvited physical contact is assault – Taking someones hat off them is theft and it is assault.
Mahoney INITIATED violence.
Punching someone is a serious assault – in some instances it is Aggravated Assault,
I can assure you that in much of the country the law allows a GREAT DEAL MORE PUNISHMENT for this conduct.
J6 Protestors were sent to jail for 4 years merely for placing their hand on a CP officer’s hand.
This appears to be a first offense, and should have only minor criminal punishment – though Mahoney should lose his job.
But then the same was true of 99% of J6 protestors that the left hunted down and jailed.
“J6 Protestors were sent to jail for 4 years merely for placing their hand on a CP officer’s hand.”
Yes. Because laying hands on law enforcement produces a harsher punishment just as it is with ICE and CBP officers.
Nobody is denying or disputing that Mahoney committed assault. It still does not ride to the level of a serious offense and neither does a single punch. The Professor is making it way bigger than it is. That’s all it is. He’s making it that way so readers can get outraged and upset about what amounts to a scuffle that involves a single punch to the head.
“Punching someone is a serious assault – in some instances it is Aggravated Assault,
I can assure you that in much of the country the law allows a GREAT DEAL MORE PUNISHMENT for this conduct.”
It is always dependent on the totality of the circumstances and the severity of the injury. But the incident in Turley’s article does not rise to the level of seriousness readers here want it to be.
Being a Texan, I always become amused by these impotent “threats” from those Far Left activists, who are only willing to sound and act tough if surrounded by their own bubble buddies, all of whom are (in Texan lingo) truly “pu$$ies”.
The hilarious truth is that (1) none of them have ever been in a real or fair fight, and (2) they always forget which side of 2A they are on. 😉
So kicking someone’s ass is the the way to fight leftists?
God help that idiot!
Self defense is a legitimate response to those who initiate violence.
You may use a firearm to defendyourself against someone who is an immediate threat to your life, or that of others or of serious bodily harm.
Punching someone in the face qualifies as a threat of serious bodily harm.
Don;t take peoples property, and do not punch them.
Then you will not have to worry about someone killing you in self defense.
Don’t retaliate. Sani swung his bag of food before getting punched in the head. The hat was already off and Sani decided to retaliate. Not defend himself. That action escalated the situation.
Not only can you read minds – but apparently you can tell the future.
Why was Sani to beleive that after Mahoney took his hat off his head – that Mahoney was NOT going to continue violent conduct.
You do not have to wait until someone has stabbed you – to defend yourself.
You do not have to stop defending yourself if your attacker MIGHT have stopped.
AGAIN – when you initiate violence – regardless of your politics YOU are responsible for what follows Until YOU have separated yourself AND CLEARLY no longer pose a threat.
It is NOT sufficient that you are NOT at this very second behaving violently.
Dogs bare their teeth and growl when threatened – that is a warning that wise people listen too.
Mahoney initiated violence against Sani – that made him a Threat.
Most animals – including humans respond to threats with violence – they do so to create a safe space arround them.
Smaller animals in particular respond to violence with often greater violence – the warning is “try again and you can get hurt”
AGAIN – do you actually think before you post ?
You seem to confuse mind reading and Prescience for logic and reason.
No you do not know why Sani responded as he did.
No you do not know that Sani was safe if he did not.
When you initiate violence against others YOU are responsible for what follows,
Because YOU had a choice. And because your target can not know for certain how much of a threat you are once you resort to violence. The Duty to descalate rests with the initiator.
This reminds me of Nicholas Sandmann, a Covington Catholic student being harassed by a fake medicine man/fake Vietnam Vet in Wash. DC. CNN was sued for $275 million dollars.
Distribute more MAGA hats
Yeah imagine all the people who can define what a woman is wearing MAGA hats how we would out number you idiots
*. It’s a bunch of rats in a maze. Psyops has done its violent work. It’s created by the net. Both, as fish, have been ensnared in the fishers net.
It’s a bad net. The fishers of men. It’s bad because it’s identifiable crime.
Sigh
How long will trolls like Gigi here be allowed to make threats against other commenters on this site? This article literally demonstrates how fine of a line there is between thought and action for these leftists with their unchecked emotional states.
The punishment is not enough! This could have been murder! Just imagine if this was your family member!?!?! When do we wake up and say ‘ENOUGH’?
As has been noted before, the criminal justice system is really more about protecting the criminals from unwarranted retribution than it is about protecting victims from crime. If the system will not properly punish crimes like this, then unfortunately people will start taking matters into their own hands.
It’s called the CRIMINAL justice system for a reason. Heaven forbid we call it the victim justice system.
@Anonymous
Honestly: just as sanctuary cities were a ploy to pad the census, I personally think the dems are anti-sentencing because their violent activists would end up in prison and we’d be taking away what amounts to their foot soldiers. Actually following the Constitution and law would make their entire grift fall apart, which it is (the MSM, free speech, redistricting, you name it). The jig is up, they never had the massive support they have claimed, it’s all been a lie, and it is one people see more and more everyday.
I don’t think there’s room for them to backpedal at this point – they’ve just gone too far. As I and many others have said, they can either fracture or cease to be, and even were that fracturing to occur, given they are still an extension of the globalist/elitist agenda, I would never trust them, ever again. The left is done in this country.
Doesn’t mean I favor one party governance – I hope something truly compelling can take their place. We could have multiple *common sense* pro-human parties. The dems ain’t, and will never again, be one of them.
Is Professor Turley really a lawyer? It seems he doesn’t understand there is a difference between a prison and jail.
“ He was just sentenced to one week in prison and a year’s probation.” -Turley
Mahoney didn’t go to prison. He went to jail. He webt to jail for a week.
A misdemeanor fourth-degree assault was recommended by the prosecution for what seems like the most benign form of assault, a single punch to the face.
The “attack” started when Mahoney swiped Sani’s hat off his head and threw it on the road. The Professor didn’t mention the fact that Sani swung his bag of food at Mahoney in retaliation which seems to have prompted the punch to the face. Sani escalated the situation with his own attempt at violence. Political violence? I don’t think so. This more of a bullying issue to me.
Let’s see. An attack on the host of this site. Minimizing of unprovoked leftist violence. Yep, you’re an idiot all right.
What makes Turley above criticism? He puts himself front and center. He wants the site visitors numbers to climb. He even brags about it.
“What makes Turley above criticism?”
None of the original comment is meaningful criticism. Someone mixing up prison and jail is hardly a black mark justifying an attack. The rest of the comment is similarly unhinged. Criticism is fine when warranted, this person didn’t offer any of note, just worthless bloviation.
“ Someone mixing up prison and jail is hardly a black mark justifying an attack.”
It is for a supposed esteemed law professor. It shows poor narrative discipline and opens him up to justified criticism.
The professor is engaging in hyperbole and innuendo over an incident by two college-aged students. It was a scuffle and Turley made it out to be a serious violent episode. Please, this is the stuff tabloids do not “esteemed” lawyers like Turley.
“The professor is engaging in hyperbole and innuendo over an incident by two college-aged students. It was a scuffle and Turley made it out to be a serious violent episode. Please, this is the stuff tabloids do not “esteemed” lawyers like Turley.”
Yes, by all means, let’s minimize leftist violence. Maybe if you people could control your yourselves, you wouldn’t wind up in jail so much.
“You people”? I didn’t t do anything. I didn’t engage in any violence.
Professor Turley is deliberately inflating the incident beyond what it is to manufacture rage. Its was a scuffle after one person made a stupid decision to remove a hat from another ending up with a punch being thrown. One person is going to jail for a week and paid restitution. That’s it. Professor Turley is making it out to be something that is way bigger than the facts say it is.
Professor Turley saying this guy went to prison for a week is a lie. He’s a lawyer and a university professor who is supposed to know the importance of stating facts correctly because it matters, especially when you’re a lawyer.
Mahoney is not a “college-aged student.” He is in his upper 30s.
“college-aged students?
oh georgie. Mahoney is in his 30s.
So? People in their 30’s don’t go to college?
are you “stating facts correctly” when you say it was just a non-political “scuffle” between two “college-age students?’ you would be so much fun in a courtroom.
The host is fair game since this is a free speech site. Professor Turley mischaracterized the situation and stated Mahoney was sentenced to one week in prison. That’s not true. He was sentenced to one week in jail and one year of probation and paying restitution. Professor Turley misleadingly paints this incident as more violent than it really was. It was a stupid moment of bad judgment on Mahoney’s part and he paid the consequences. Everyone else here is calling for federal charges and litigation over a punch and food being thrown.
You’re minimizing that unwarranted assault of an innocent person simply because of the clothing that he was wearing. In my mind, the assailant should indeed be facing much more of a punishment especially because this was an attack over protected political beliefs.
A constitutional lawyer. And you? A self appointed jealous whiner?
Ano
Sani swung his bag of food at Mahoney in retaliation
******************
Jezz you fool. Ever hear of defending yourself.
He was attacked because of a red hat fool You libs just keep lying
That wasn’t a defensive move. It was retaliatory. The “attack” was Mahoney taking the hat off of Sani and throwing it on the road. Sani retaliated by throwing his food at Mahoney who then chose to return the favor by punching him. Sani admits he shouldn’t have done that. His actions escalated the situation.
“The “attack” was Mahoney taking the hat off of Sani and throwing it on the road.”
Moron, you just defined assault. That’s a crime.
Nobody said it wasn’t. Why are you getting upset?
ATS – it was a proportionate response to the initiation of force.
Should Sani have done that ? That is a moral judgement.
But legally he was allowed – and Yes thowing food at someone is “defending your self”
Just as stabbing them or shooting them would be – If presented with the threat of deadly force.
If you initiate the use of Force – as Mahoney did, you are nearly always responsible for everything that follows.
You can not weasel out of things by calling something retaliation or returning the favor.
While it is NOT impossible to reverse the responsibility once you initiate violence, it is difficult.
Generally you have to retreat and be persued, or the “retaliation” has to be vastly disproportionate.
Sani would not have been justified in shooting Mahoney for stealing his hat off his head.
“ATS – it was a proportionate response to the initiation of force.
Should Sani have done that ? That is a moral judgement.”
No, he shouldn’t have done that. He could have picked up his hat and walked away. If was a retaliatory response.
“But legally he was allowed – and Yes thowing food at someone is “defending your self”
Just as stabbing them or shooting them would be – If presented with the threat of deadly force.”
Defending himself from what? Mahoney already took the hat and threw it on the ground. He wasn’t threatening Sani with violence. Only after Sani decided to take a swing at Mahoney did the violence escalate. Swinging the bag of food was retaliation not a defense.
“If you initiate the use of Force – as Mahoney did, you are nearly always responsible for everything that follows.”
Not always and in this case it wasn’t. The video clearly shows Sani swinging his bag after the hat is already on the ground and Mahoney walking away. It was the retaliatory swing that provoked Mahoney and the ensuing punch. The video is pretty clear about the sequence of events. That doesn’t excuse Mahoney’s punch. But its a consequence of Sani’s poor attempt at retaliation.
“No, he shouldn’t have done that. He could have picked up his hat and walked away. If was a retaliatory response.”
Because you say so ?
Mahoney had violently ripped his hat off. If Sani turned anbd Walked away – how was he to know he was Safe ? We are expect to assume that we are safe under ordinary circumstances – but once someone else initiates violence – those assumptions go out the window.
mahoney had initiated violence – he has broken one of the most important societal norms.
The foundation of the social contract. In doing so he LOST the presumption that he was not dangerous.
Sani had the right to treat Mahoney as dangerous.
You keep ranting about retaliation as if that is both the only possibility and exclusive.
Neither is true. Throwing things can be retaliation, it also can be a warning to stay away.
It can also be both, neither or several other things. YOU can not know precisely why Sani responded as he did. And even if you are right about ONE reason, you are unlikely to be right that is the only reason.
There is excellent reason that the duty to descalate rests with the initiator.
But you are still to stupid to grasp that.
“Defending himself from what? ”
Fram a person who had initiated violence who remained a threat.
“Mahoney already took the hat and threw it on the ground.”
And what comes next ?
“He wasn’t threatening Sani with violence.”
He had already initiated violence – he remained inherently a threat until Mahony made it absolutely clear that he was not.
Once you initiate violence – YOU ARE A THREAT. And you remain one – possibly forever. Though certainly immediately. Mahoney was convicted of a crime and jailed – there are many reasons for that. Punishment is one. But deterence is another – deterance of others who think that they can initiate violence. But also Deterance of Mahoney who Hopefully will think twice next time.
Regardless, Mahoney was convicted and jailed – because he was willing to initiate violence.
You keep trying to pretend this was over but for Sani’s response.
But you do not know that. We are not allowed to presume that people who have not initiated violence will be violent. But self defense litterally means we are free to assume that once someone has initiated violence we are free to assume they have not stopped until they make it clear they have.
Mahoney violated a norm so important that we have criminal laws against it. Once he did so – Sani – and frankly others were entitled to treat him as a serious threat until it was absolutely clear than he no longer was.
“Only after Sani decided to take a swing at Mahoney did the violence escalate.”
Again you are permitted to respond to the initiation of violence with proportionate violence.
You keep ignoring that.
” Swinging the bag of food was retaliation not a defense.”
Because you say so ?
What is it when a dog bares their teeth or growls ?
“If you initiate the use of Force – as Mahoney did, you are nearly always responsible for everything that follows.”
“Not always and in this case it wasn’t.”
Almost always in this case was not even close to an exception.
“The video clearly shows Sani swinging his bag after the hat is already on the ground and Mahoney walking away.”
So ? Mahoney was close enough to feel threatened and turn and punch Sani.
It is completely irrelevant where the hat was. The big deal is that a Mahoney took it from Sani’s person by force. We only allow very limited violence to defend property. We allow far more in defense of your person. We allow deadly force in respons to a threat of serious bodily harm or death.
“It was the retaliatory swing”
You keep fixating on mind reading.
I do not care if Sani was retaliating.
he did not initiate the violence – he was therefore entitled to respond to violence with violence.
Regardless as I have said over and over – it is near certain that Sani had multiple reasons for his reaction.
We do not make complex moral judgements of split second reactions. It does not matter WHY you think Sani responded as he did. It only matters that he was justified in doing so. Which he was.
People who are FORCED into situations by the violent actiosn of others are NOT obligated to thread YOUR needle of perfect conduct – one that likely you would hold differently if the politics was reversed.
“that provoked Mahoney and the ensuing punch.”
Not relevant. The moment Mahoney initiated violence – the duty to end it was HIS alone.
Maybe if Mahoney had fled, was 100 yards away and Sani came after him – you would have a point.
Regardless, Mahoney did not satisfy his duty to descalate by taking a step away. He needed to get far enough away that he no longer posed a threat. and he needed to do so quickly. He did not.
“The video is pretty clear about the sequence of events.”
I do not think we are disagreeing over facts. Though you keep interjecting presience and clairvoyance.
“That doesn’t excuse Mahoney’s punch.”
Correct.
“But its a consequence of Sani’s poor attempt at retaliation.”
That is litterally called making an excuse.
Would Mahoney have punched Sani but for Sani swing food at him ?
Probably not – but that is NOT good enough to require Sani to Stand down in the face of someone who CLEARLY had no trouble initiating violence.
Once you initiate violence YOU ARE A THREAT, and you remain one until you clearly are not.
It is called self defense you moron. That violent idiot clearly did it knowing who the assaulted was, as he even confess
Self-defense? Against what. Sani threw his food at Mahoney before he got punched.
Sani swung a bag of food at Mahoney before getting punched. That’s not defense. That’s a retaliatory action. Have you seen the video?
ATS still playing games. Taking somenes hat from there head is assault. It is a minor assault but it is still assault.
It is a crime, it is violence, and proportionate violence is acceptable in response.
You can call throwing food retaliation – which it may be. But it is still a legally acceptable and proportionate response to a minor assault. In otherwords it IS legitimate self defense.
Defending yourself against someone who initiated violence can be violence, it can be agressive, it can as you say be retaliation. To be legal it must be proportionate and in response to violence.
“You can call throwing food retaliation – which it may be. But it is still a legally acceptable and proportionate response to a minor assault. In otherwords it IS legitimate self defense.”
Whose is playing games? You’re playing semantics over a clear retaliation. Sani lunges at Mahoney when he swung the bag. That’s not a defensive posture. Its retaliatory.
Again, nobody is disputing the crime or the assault. Its still a minor assault. Sani retaliated and provoked Mahoney to throw the punch. He wasn’t defending himself. He was provoking the fight into further escalation
“Whose is playing games? You’re playing semantics”
Nope, not only is this the law – but it is also the basic rules for human conduct that we have worked out over thousands of years.
You may not INITIATE violence – except under rare circumstances that are not relevant here.
But once violence has been initiated you MAY reciprocate proportionally.
You can call it “clear retaliation” – and it may well be – though that is an oppinion that requires mind reading to ascertain. But that is typical of left wing nuts, you constantly are certain you KNOW the specific intentions of others.
Sani MAY have been retailiating.
He also MAY have been acting to create space between himself and an attacker.
He MAY have been doing myriads of other things – possibly concurrently.
and He MAY have done these as an instinctive response without any clear intentions.
But what he did without any doubt was a proportionate response to violence initiated against him.
And so long as the response is not disproportionate – it is legal and justified.
I would note that while tossing food at someone in response to having your hat removed from your body by force, is a response that is less than or equal to the initial violence – a proportionate response need NOT be less than or equal to. It just can not be vastly out of scope.
You can not kill someone who steals your hat off your head.
You can kill someone who has not tried to kill you but HAS tried to seriously injure you or another.
This is NOT semantics of games – it is as I said both law and the norms of human conduct that we have spent millenia establishing.
It is what most consider morally acceptable in response to violence – even where there are no laws or government. While our law is based on this – it is supra legal.
“That’s not a defensive posture. Its retaliatory.”
So says you – and not relevant.
Is killing someone who attempts to seriously injure you a “defensive posture” ?
Self Defense does NOT require that you take a defensive posture or Wait for your assailent to attack you again. Self Defense is whatever you do to keep yourself safe, and that CAN include going after and killing your assailent – if they are sufficiently much of a threat – though in SOME states killing an assailent rquires that ou can not safely retreat. But even that judgement is MOSTLY left to you.
This may be difficult for you – but once another has initiated violence against you – we do not expect you to
delay and debate what the appropriate response will be. You can as an example kill an assailent who is a threat of serious bodily injury – Even if you are able to retreat – if you are not aware that you are able to retreat.
“Again, nobody is disputing the crime or the assault. Its still a minor assault.”
Correct, nobody is disputing that.
You are disputing whether Sani is allowed to respond to that assault.
Both morally and legally he is – so long as his response is proportionate to the greater of the initial attack or the current threat.
“Sani retaliated”
Sani responded – your ability to mind read is not sufficient to ascertain that it is retaliation.
Further that is irrelevant. Sani’s response can be MANY things at once.
It can be retailation. It can be an agressive defense. It can be a warning that he is not defenseless
It can be a warning that he will response to violence with violence.
It can be all of these and a instinctive response, it can be a heat of the moment response in anger.
All that matters is that it is not disproportionate to the initial violence.
“provoked Mahoney to throw the punch.”
I have no idea if that is true – again I can not read minds. I do not know whay Mahoney threw the punch.
What we ALL Know is that Mahoney initiated violence, and that he is therefore responsible for EVERYTHING that follows – assuming that the response is proportionate OR that Mahoney did not himself retreat and Sani chose to REINITIATE violence after separation had been acheived.
“He wasn’t defending himself.”
Self Defense does NOT mean taking a purely defensive posture.
“He was provoking the fight into further escalation”
Not how the norms of human conduct or the law work.
Again Self defense is ALL responses to the initiation of violence by another, that are proportionate to the initiated violence. The defending party CAN respond with more force than the initiating party – though not significantly more.
The duty to descalate rests with the person who initiated the violence.
I would further note – that should not be very hard for you to grasp logically.
The defender does NOT control things – the initiator does. The responsibility to descalate is SOLELY with them. Nor is the defender limited to purely “defensive” acts.
This is not political – it is just the norms of human conduct.
The initiation of violence is a CHOICE – defending against violence is NOT a choice,
it is atleast partly instinctual. Further we do not judge the person defendings actions unless they are substantially outside the scope of the violence that was initiated against them.
As an example you generally can not use DEADLY force in response to threats to property.
Proportionate physical violence in resoponse to the initiation of violence is justified.
Sani’s actions were a justified and proportionate self defense response.
It is Mahoney that “escalated”. The use of deadly force in response to a punch in the face is likely justified.
“Proportionate physical violence in resoponse to the initiation of violence is justified.”
What was proportionate about it? Mahoney took Sani’s hat off and threw it on the ground. Swinging a bag full of food at Mahoney was not a proportional response. It was an escalated retaliation.
He wasn’t defending himself. He retaliated poorly and the attempt provoked Mahoney into throwing the punch.
“It is Mahoney that “escalated”. The use of deadly force in response to a punch in the face is likely justified.”
That makes no sense. Mahoney threw one punch to the head and walked away. The use of deadly force is only justified when life or serious bodily harm is imminent. One punch to the head does not justify deadly force.
ATS – you are going against not only the law, but logic and thousands of years of human experience as well as engaging in massive mind reading.
You are also presuming that a person who was not expecting violence can in microsecends engage in YOUR complex moral calculus – calculus that you have done a poor job of defending – despite having hours not microseconds to think about it.
Mahoney made a CHOICE to initiate violence. While in court he called it an impulsive decision – it is still a choice – and frankly if it is not, then Mahoney is NOT someone that is safe enough to be free in society.
We treat the initation of violence very seriously – either it is a choice – and one that we absolutely want you to make differently in the future, or it is an uncontrollable influence – in which case, you are not safe to be free.
Conversely defenders do not get much choice. What they KNOW is that someone has already violated a STRONG societal prohibition against initiating violence. The defender can not – without your incredible ability to mid read, know how much more violent the initiator will be. The initiator has triggered a fight or flight response.
Did Sani throwing food on Mahoney trigger a similar response – Likely – But Mahoney was still the initiator – his choice started the chain – the responsibility for what follows remains with him until HE has separated himself and CLEARLY no longer presents a threat.
The reason that proportionate is NOT the same as less than or equal too, is because by the mere fact of breaking a critical tabbo and initiating violence, Sani can not instantly know the full extent of the threat he faces.
Maybe Mahoney was going to stop with the Hat. Maybe is was going to go further – possibly even much further.
Sani can not know. Sani’s response is NOT limited to less than or equal too, it is not even limited to a purely defensive posture. responding to threats with agression is often the best way to end the threat.
Regardless the duty to back down, the duty to descalate rests with the person who initiate the violence.
and it remains there until They separate or otherwise CLEARLY no longer pose a threat.
This is not difficult to understand. It is not only logic – it is also our law, and the norms of society for many milenia.
It is also the only arrangement that works.
Not is it some political standard. Has Sani initiated violence against Mahoney – Mahoney would be similarly unconstrained in his response.
In my county all incarceration for less than 2 years is at the county jail. The name of the county jail is the county prison – it says so right on the building.
“The name of the county jail is the county prison – it says so right on the building.”
You must be confusing a state prison with a county jail or a joint facility. Still a jail is for offenses less than a year or waiting for trials or hearings. Prisons are where incarceration for state offenders and long-term (longer than a year) stays.
Mahoney was sentenced to a week in jail. Not prison. Those are the facts and the professor was wrong on that characterization.
I am glad that you are so clairvoyant and KNOW what I am thinking as well as the reality of my county.
Regardless you missed the point entirely.
YOUR distinction between jail and prison is a CONVENTION – it is NOT a law or the law.
If Mahoney was convicted in MY county – he would have spent a week in PRISON. Often people call it jail – just as your convention – but the name literally on the building is “County prison”
Anyone incarcerated awaiting trial or serving a sentence less than 2 years does so in the county “Prison”
If you are going to get pedantic about terms – you would be wise to be able to distinguish between frequently followed conventions and actually hard and fast rules.
You are correct that short sentences are usually called being sent to jail.
But you are incorrect in claiming that Turley erred in calling a short sentence being sent to prison.
The foul-mouthedness fad has been bad enough. Threats and assault are 100% no bueno. Apparently self-control is no longer a basic skill to be mastered by all adults, let alone a virtue.
Words are violence too. A here you can see it in all it splendor.
“Words are violence too. A here you can see it in all it splendor.”
Yeah, words have killed countless people over the years. Much more dangerous than knives, bullets, bombs. Didn’t you get the memo that you’re not supposed to use that kind of leftist lingo anymore, since it just drives away the normies?
Much more than knives…. do you really mean that or just provoking? Its interesting when intellectuals come out of the woodwork to shine here.
It’s called sarcasm. A word has never killed anything or anybody.
No words are not violence.
Only your feelings can be hurt by words.
Anyone who has actually experienced REAL violence knows the difference.
This is also a dangerous and stupid claim.
You may use ACTUAL violence to defend against ACTUAL violence.
You may NOT use actual violence in response to words.
Nor would any sane person want a society in which you can respond to offensive words with real violence.
Do you left wing nuts EVER engage in critical thinking ?
Do you even spend a few moments thinking about the actual meaning of what you say before opening your mouth and sticking your foot in it ?
Lots of people – more on the left than right, but still accross the political spectrum make stupid claims.
That does not make them true.
Someone should just have to tell a person of normal intelligence that No Words are not violence ONCE and they should then think about it, realize that is obvious error – it is a catagorical fallacy, and never make that stupid claim again.
Yet we get this kind of nonsense form left wing nuts all the time.
Put the tiniest bit of thought into this and consider the radical changes to society – and the fact that you could not even make society that actually functioned if we treated words as if they were actual violenece.
What is the most important part of a ship? The ruder. The tongue is the same.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
What the hell gets into peoples minds that they are right and that’s that. These people on the left think they have some kind of moral high ground. This is behavior similar to the way the Nazis were. After the Germans invaded Poland a Polish citizen asked a German soldier why they were doing this and he replied, because we must.
“a Polish citizen asked a German soldier why they were doing this and he replied..”
How about citing the source of this obvious lie please.
These WSU TAs need to be stopped before they kill people like that other WSU TA.
What do you propose? Line up against a wall and …
“What do you propose? Line up against a wall and …”
Well, to be fair, that’s the standard tactic used by leftists around the world. It’s just so tiresome for our superior leftists to have to reason with the proles, better to just be rid of them.
I am fine with a week in jail – followed by a long time looking for a new job.
It would be nice if humans learned without having to make mistakes.
But the reality is that the primary source of learning for humans is through mistakes.
But that learning does not occur unless mistakes have consequences.
The best consequences are those that come naturally – that do not require government or others to step in.
When nature bitch slaps you – it is hard to play the martyr or claim the moral high ground – and nature does not care. But natures consequences are sometimes brutal.
A significant part of parenting is supposed to be protecting your child from life altering consequences of their conduct, while assuring that errors have sufficient consequences to result in actual learning.
As we become adults – what we did not learn as children generally requires more serious consequences.
This is important – because humans – even intelligent ones make incredibly poor decisions when there are no benefits to them or consequences for them for those decisions.
We should all have gotten that as a huge life less from our recent experiences with covid.
With a few exceptions the near universally bad advice we got from government experts did not come from malice.
But it was a beautiful example of how highly wrong intelligent people can be when they do not have “skin in the game”
Rachel Lavine had no problems sending elderly covid patients into homes with other elderly people.
But she removed her own mother from a home at the same time.
As PA’s health secretary – there was no consequence for her bad decisions – in fact she was promoted and served in a significantly higher position in the Biden administration.
But she made entirely different decisions in her own life involving her own mother.
The decisions that even stupid people make when those choices have consequences are normaly better than those of smart people when there are no consequences.
So what I propose is consequences – the earlier the better. And the earlier the milder they can be to result in the same learning.
It’s only right when the left does it.
Funny, this foolishness rarely happens where people are armed and can shoot straight. Just in liberal enclaves.
The lame jail time, no fines aside, this woke leftist moron likely still sees himself as some kind of hero.
No. Just typical anti-Constitution woke leftist, who sees nothing wrong with committing violence.
Well, the kid did taunt people with his public persona, albeit crazy people, so what did he expect? Praise? Pat on the back? Hero worship? I guess, all those things.
“Well, the kid did taunt people with his public persona, albeit crazy people, so what did he expect? Praise? Pat on the back? Hero worship? I guess, all those things.”
I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to expect to be free from the threat of assault and battery for having opinions, especially on a college campus of all places. It’s really too bad that leftists resort to violence so easily.
“Well, the kid did taunt people with his public persona, albeit crazy people, so what did he expect? Praise? Pat on the back? Hero worship? I guess, all those things.”
Her skirt was just too short, right?
Or just ignore the hat if you don’t like it. Wearing a hat is protected free speech, whether or not you personally agree with it.
“Or just ignore the hat if you don’t like it. ”
Leftists are mentally unstable. You can’t expect them to control their base urges like normal people do every single day.
No. What I would expect of any sane, normal, freedom loving American would be to respect someone else’s right to free speech, and go on their way. But what we get instead is stupid and crazy woke leftists (but I repeat myself) who are perfectly fine with violating other’s personal property and committing acts of violence.
The lame jail time, no fines aside, this woke leftist moron likely still sees himself as some kind of hero.
We just returned from vacationing in Florida where it seems my in-laws, their neighbors, friends and various people we met at our beach condo property carried concealed weapons permit. I just renewed mine online. It is the only way to go.
If I am facing an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death, I would not think twice about shooting them dead. Evolution (survival of the fittest) works just dandy. Follow the science™
🔫💪🏾
This Texan agrees with you 100%. 😉