This is what I read about that event. “In response, people at the protest tackled the man and attacked him. At least 15 people pinned the man against his vehicle to punch, kick and throw things at him. His face was left bloody and his vehicle was looted and flipped, according to 2News reporter Kelly Vaughen“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/slc-pro...

There need to be consequences for threatening people with a deadly weapon. An overturned truck is mild in such a situation. I'd have expected at least a broken bone, but, no, only a bloody face. Try that with the cops.

This is not unharmed. You clearly knew about the case yet you deliberately obfuscated the facts until you were called out on it. Instead of backpedaling own up to why you would try to distort the facts. This is not to say the fellow with the bow and arrow isn't a complete imbecile, and didn't deserve what was coming. On that I have no view.

At least the fellow still has all his teeth, unlike that physician that Chicago transport cop pulled off that plane.

So your definition of unharmed is somewhere between unharmed, and the beating by the Chicago transport cop of a physician on a plane.

We're talking apples and oranges, HarryHirsh, and I don't think you're willing to view this discussion in good faith. Good day.

Still should have at least said something like “nearly unharmed” instead of “unharmed”?

Wow, that guy is lucky he didn't accidently flag a cop with his bow; they would have beat him with truncheons, pepper sprayed him, then killed him with a blood choke!

No, he's white. He might have been arrested at most.

Why lie? The guyt threated people, but was not unharmed and his car was burned. https://twitter.com/MsDBZbabe/status/1266904275785056262?s=2...

Now do this one: https://www.theblaze.com/news/violent-mob-brutally-beats-dal...

> According to video captured by TheBlaze's Elijah Schaffer, violent protesters descended on the man after he chased looters with a large sword. The man did not, however, attack the looters.

In my world, "chasing someone with a large sword" sounds like initiating a fight, no? Is the complaint that... he lost it? Because it seems clear that he started it.

A meta point: this is why you need to stay away from sites like The Blaze. The guy with the lethal weapon was "beaten", but it's the protestors who were "violent".

I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no sword. Nor would you like to protect your property from looters unarmed.

This comment and others like it reminds me of this gem right here: https://twitter.com/Whateverlmao/status/1267132165935923201/...

The article doesn't allege he was hit with a rock unbidden though. It says he was attacked after "chasing" "looters" with a sword. I'm sorry, but at that point combat has been engaged. Every 2A advocate here would agree that anyone in that circumstances would be entitled to stand their ground and fight back. And apparently they did.

So if looters get shot, that's OK in your book as well? Or, if a store owner catches a looter, would it be OK to "engage combat" and bash their head in with a rock? Best I can tell he was just chasing them away, he hasn't done harm to anybody.

Reddit has something to say about this man: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/gu5eal/machetewield...

It thinks he was a total fuckwit.

If I see someone chasing another down with a quote, "large sword", then they turn and start running at me with this sword, I am sure that in that moment I would be afraid for my life. I think many if not most agree deadly force can be used in direct defense of your own life.

Only if you do these first: https://nypost.com/2020/05/30/nypd-officer-plows-into-crowd-...