Another assault for wearing MAGA hat, retaliates with a sword #magasamurai

[TECSHARE]

What have I been saying over and over people? It has become acceptable practice for deranged leftists to attack people for wearing a MAGA hat, and I said it was only a matter of time before there is serious retaliation resulting in bloodshed. How much longer will this kind of behavior be tolerated before some one is shot? What do you think the reaction in retaliation will be after that?

I can already hear the cries now "oh but he just knocked off his hat!". The fact is if some one on the street jumps at you and assaults you, you first of all do not know their intent, nor do you know how far they are willing to go with that violent act. Even if they were just knocking his hat off it is STILL ASSAULT, and no one has a right to do this to others regardless of how upset they are. When you are assaulting people on the street, you do not then get to cry about the level of force used.

I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword. As expected everyone is casting the man defending himself as the perpetrator and the attacker as the "victim". I am sure nothing bad will result of this continuation of denial of reality...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-09/he-was-just-gushing-blood-man-maga-hat-retaliates-against-hat-flipper-using-samurai

[1714839915]

1714839915

[1714839915]

1714839915

[1714839915]

1714839915

[unocash]

I never know whether to believe such stories
anyone can wear a maga hat and put the blame on Trump supporters

[mOgliE]

I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword. As expected everyone is casting the man defending himself as the perpetrator and the attacker as the "victim". I am sure nothing bad will result of this continuation of denial of reality...

Someone "assaults" a stranger in the street by knocking off his hat.

The "assaulted" person draws a samurai sword and cut the hand of the "assaulter".

Seems pretty obvious who's at fault there.


Remove the MAGA hat of the balance. If someone is pushing you around, do you have the right to draw a motherfucking sword and cut their hand?

If yes your country is very strange and I wouldn't dare visit it.

[KonstantinosM]

The guy with the sword needs to see some jail time, he was clearly in the wrong.

Even if the side you put forward, which is a false narrative is to be taken as fact, which it shouldn't, if someone knocks another persons hat off, that doesn't justify the use of lethal force, which a cut with a sword definitely is.

The fact is that MAGA hat man, was a dangerous weirdo who probably came in with a sword hidden up his jacket looking for trouble, he was probably yelling homophobic slurs at people and some idiot fell for the trap.

That's how I see it without getting all the facts.


This is a false narrative. I'm glad that the sword guy at least didn't have a gun.

edit: Grammatical correction

[DireWolfM14]

I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword.

The article you linked to claims the alleged "assailant" slashed at the guy who knocked his hat off.  Carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3" in San Francisco is a violation, which is probably why this guy is getting treated the way he is.  But obviously he was instigating the situation by wearing his assault hat, so there's that.

My kids came to pick me up from SFO the other night, so we stopped in the Mission for burritos.  I got, not one, but three dirty looks for wearing a woodland camo hat.  The only reason those dirty looks didn't turn into dirty words, chaffed knuckles, and bloody noses is because the woodland camo hat in question is adorned with a SF 49ers logo.

For such peace-loving, hippy-filled, progressive city it sure is full of intolerant bigots.

[yesiam6]

What have I been saying over and over people? It has become acceptable practice for deranged leftists to attack people for wearing a MAGA hat, and I said it was only a matter of time before there is serious retaliation resulting in bloodshed. How much longer will this kind of behavior be tolerated before some one is shot? What do you think the reaction in retaliation will be after that?

I can already hear the cries now "oh but he just knocked off his hat!". The fact is if some one on the street jumps at you and assaults you, you first of all do not know their intent, nor do you know how far they are willing to go with that violent act. Even if they were just knocking his hat off it is STILL ASSAULT, and no one has a right to do this to others regardless of how upset they are. When you are assaulting people on the street, you do not then get to cry about the level of force used.

I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword. As expected everyone is casting the man defending himself as the perpetrator and the attacker as the "victim". I am sure nothing bad will result of this continuation of denial of reality...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-09/he-was-just-gushing-blood-man-maga-hat-retaliates-against-hat-flipper-using-samurai

He "just" flipped his hat off that's assault i guess i don't really know much about the american law, but retaliating with a samurai sword sounds flipping insane
why was he carrying a katana in the first place ?

[TECSHARE]

I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword. As expected everyone is casting the man defending himself as the perpetrator and the attacker as the "victim". I am sure nothing bad will result of this continuation of denial of reality...

Someone "assaults" a stranger in the street by knocking off his hat.

The "assaulted" person draws a samurai sword and cut the hand of the "assaulter".

Seems pretty obvious who's at fault there.


Remove the MAGA hat of the balance. If someone is pushing you around, do you have the right to draw a motherfucking sword and cut their hand?

If yes your country is very strange and I wouldn't dare visit it.

You conveniently skipped over the part where he tried to flee and they chased him before he turned to defend himself. If some one is physically attacking some one they have a right to defend themselves, yes. I am glad you don't care to visit, we are already have too many brain dead commies born and raised here thanks.

He "just" flipped his hat off that's assault i guess i don't really know much about the american law, but retaliating with a samurai sword sounds flipping insane
why was he carrying a katana in the first place ?

Again, you conveniently skipped the part where he tried to flee but was chased down before he then decided to fight back. He was probably armed because of the almost daily occurrence of people being physically assaulted and harassed simply because they chose to wear a MAGA hat. Swords are not legal in California as far as I know, but that is besides the point. He was attacked and he defended himself, which other than the fact that he did so with a contraband sword was completely legal.  

The guy with the sword needs to see some jail time, he was clearly in the wrong.

Even if the side you put forward, which is a false narrative is to be taken as fact, which it shouldn't, if someone knocks another persons hat off, that doesn't justify the use of lethal force, which a cut with a sword definitely is.

The fact is that MAGA hat man, was a dangerous weirdo who probably came in with a sword hidden up his jacket looking for trouble, he was probably yelling homophobic slurs at people and some idiot fell for the trap.

That's how I see it without getting all the facts.


This is a false narrative. I'm glad that the sword guy at least didn't have a gun.

edit: Grammatical correction

As the person being attacked, how do you know all they want to do is knock off his hat? At what point in an assault does it become justifiable to defend yourself? They did chase him down after all. What is some one to expect after being chased down by multiple people, that they only want to talk? He may be a weirdo and may have been shouting homophobic slurs, but HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO LEGALLY. Again, the sword was not legal to posses AFAIK by California law, but that is irrelevant. If he is charged with anything it should be for having the sword, not using it to defend himself from an attack.

[mOgliE]

You conveniently skipped over the part where he tried to flee and they chased him before he turned to defend himself. If some one is physically attacking some one they have a right to defend themselves, yes. I am glad you don't care to visit, we are already have too many brain dead commies born and raised here thanks.

You mean the part where they "pursued him" without harming him in any way?

Oh I'm very sorry I skipped this part. It changes everything. So if you follow me I have the right to cut your hand? Great justice idea you have.

You're crazy. Completely crazy.

The guy haven't been attacked stop saying that, they haven't hit him, they have merely... Annoyed him. Attack means use of physical aggression, here they did nothing more but... Harassed him. It happens every day at every bar you go.

You don't defend yourself from "being chased". The guy insulted them then they harass him, if you want to legalize the use of deadly weapon here, you're going to get a crazy city.

Crazy asshole.

[TECSHARE]

You conveniently skipped over the part where he tried to flee and they chased him before he turned to defend himself. If some one is physically attacking some one they have a right to defend themselves, yes. I am glad you don't care to visit, we are already have too many brain dead commies born and raised here thanks.

You mean the part where they "pursued him" without harming him in any way?

Oh I'm very sorry I skipped this part. It changes everything. So if you follow me I have the right to cut your hand? Great justice idea you have.

You're crazy. Completely crazy.

The guy haven't been attacked stop saying that, they haven't hit him, they have merely... Annoyed him. Attack means use of physical aggression, here they did nothing more but... Harassed him. It happens every day at every bar you go.

You don't defend yourself from "being chased". The guy insulted them then they harass him, if you want to legalize the use of deadly weapon here, you're going to get a crazy city.

Crazy asshole.

What is some one on the street who was just assaulted by one or more people he does not know and then chased supposed to assume, that they just wanted to have a little chat with him? He was assaulted, he tried to get away from the assailant(s), they chased him. Self defense is perfectly justified. He was in fact physically assaulted, hitting someones head to knock of his hat is assault, this is where the criminal activity began. This is an illegal form of physical aggression unless you are insinuating they yelled loud enough to make his hat fly off. I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.

[mOgliE]

What is some one on the street who was just assaulted by one or more people he does not know and then chased supposed to assume, that they just wanted to have a little chat with him? He was assaulted, he tried to get away from the assailant(s), they chased him. Self defense is perfectly justified. He was in fact physically assaulted, hitting someones head to knock of his hat is assault, this is where the criminal activity began. This is an illegal form of physical aggression unless you are insinuating they yelled loud enough to make his hat fly off. I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.

Following your explanation, I just have to insult you and your mother and wife strong and long enough to make you angry enough so you push me then I can cut your hand with a sword.

If you don't see a problem here, you're the problem.

[TECSHARE]

What is some one on the street who was just assaulted by one or more people he does not know and then chased supposed to assume, that they just wanted to have a little chat with him? He was assaulted, he tried to get away from the assailant(s), they chased him. Self defense is perfectly justified. He was in fact physically assaulted, hitting someones head to knock of his hat is assault, this is where the criminal activity began. This is an illegal form of physical aggression unless you are insinuating they yelled loud enough to make his hat fly off. I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.

Following your explanation, I just have to insult you and your mother and wife strong and long enough to make you angry enough so you push me then I can cut your hand with a sword.

If you don't see a problem here, you're the problem.

Words are not physical assault. Hitting some one is. Try again fat man.

[mOgliE]

What is some one on the street who was just assaulted by one or more people he does not know and then chased supposed to assume, that they just wanted to have a little chat with him? He was assaulted, he tried to get away from the assailant(s), they chased him. Self defense is perfectly justified. He was in fact physically assaulted, hitting someones head to knock of his hat is assault, this is where the criminal activity began. This is an illegal form of physical aggression unless you are insinuating they yelled loud enough to make his hat fly off. I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.

Following your explanation, I just have to insult you and your mother and wife strong and long enough to make you angry enough so you push me then I can cut your hand with a sword.

If you don't see a problem here, you're the problem.

Words are not physical assault. Hitting some one is. Try again fat man.

Can you read?

I said that following your explanations, I just have to provoke you into pushing me so I have the right to kill you. Or mutilate you at least.

If someone start insulting me and my loved ones in front of me there is a 80% chance I will assault him physically. Everyone with a grain of dignity would do that.

So in your world, I could kill ANYONE just by insulting them enough so they push me around, then I would be justified to cut their limbs of.

You're really a dangerous person!

[TECSHARE]

What is some one on the street who was just assaulted by one or more people he does not know and then chased supposed to assume, that they just wanted to have a little chat with him? He was assaulted, he tried to get away from the assailant(s), they chased him. Self defense is perfectly justified. He was in fact physically assaulted, hitting someones head to knock of his hat is assault, this is where the criminal activity began. This is an illegal form of physical aggression unless you are insinuating they yelled loud enough to make his hat fly off. I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.

Following your explanation, I just have to insult you and your mother and wife strong and long enough to make you angry enough so you push me then I can cut your hand with a sword.

If you don't see a problem here, you're the problem.

Words are not physical assault. Hitting some one is. Try again fat man.

Can you read?

I said that following your explanations, I just have to provoke you into pushing me so I have the right to kill you. Or mutilate you at least.

If someone start insulting me and my loved ones in front of me there is a 80% chance I will assault him physically. Everyone with a grain of dignity would do that.

So in your world, I could kill ANYONE just by insulting them enough so they push me around, then I would be justified to cut their limbs of.

You're really a dangerous person!

First of all no one was killed. Second of all, if some one can not control themselves and assaults another person, use of force is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED under the law in the United States, but probably not in your country where you are a subject without the right to self defense.

[poptok1]

He "just" flipped his hat off that's assault i guess i don't really know much about the american law, but retaliating with a samurai sword sounds flipping insane
why was he carrying a katana in the first place ?

Maybe he was a spiritual samurai, following the bushido codex? It's a form of religion, ya know? Complicated believe system that obliges believers to carry a sword. He was just fulfilling he's religious rights. Or maybe he just bought it, in the souvenir store?
Think about what kind of moron one have to be, to attack a man with a freaking katana... that's what's really insane here.

   

[mOgliE]

First of all no one was killed. Second of all, if some one can not control themselves and assaults another person, use of force is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED under the law in the United States, but probably not in your country where you are a subject without the right to self defense.

Thank you for proving you're a crazy asshole.

[TECSHARE]

First of all no one was killed. Second of all, if some one can not control themselves and assaults another person, use of force is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED under the law in the United States, but probably not in your country where you are a subject without the right to self defense.

Thank you for proving you're a crazy asshole.

Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long. Better safe than sorry.

[mOgliE]

Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.

Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.

[TECSHARE]

Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.

Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.

I am not advocating for anything. I am stating the FACT that in The United States of America, if some one physically assaults you, you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to use force against them to stop the assault. He was assaulted, he attempted to flea, he was chased. What do you want him to do just stand there and let these people beat him? Would they stop at just beating on him or would they go further? He had no way of knowing. You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.

[Astargath]

Thank you for providing even more evidence you don't have two brain cells to rub together to form a cogent reply. I can't blame you though, you would probably stop breathing if you stopped to think that long.

Dude you're advocating the right for someone to MUTILATE someone else if they dare pushing you. What do you want? You're even worse than Islamist fundamentalist. Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.

I am not advocating for anything. I am stating the FACT that in The United States of America, if some one physically assaults you, you have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to use force against them to stop the assault. He was assaulted, he attempted to flea, he was chased. What do you want him to do just stand there and let these people beat him? Would they stop at just beating on him or would they go further? He had no way of knowing. You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.

It's against the law to have a sword like that with you though.

[TECSHARE]

The polarization has reached to such level that a person is chased for practising his right to free speech and just because he was chased he decided to effing cut off his hand!

Assaulted, then chased.

It's against the law to have a sword like that with you though.

I have no problem with him being charged with having the sword, but by no means should he be charged for defending himself from assault.

Also, he is not the perpetrator here regardless of his possession of contraband.

[poptok1]

Even Sharia law doesn't allow that.

Are you sure?

In al-Rawd al-Murabbi’ (p. 677) it says:

If a person or one of his womenfolk, such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife, is attacked, or his property, whether a slave or an animal, is attacked, then he has the right to defend that by the least means that he thinks will ward off the attack. If he is able to ward it off with the least means then it is haraam for him to do more than that because there is no need for it.

If he cannot ward off the attacker except by killing him, then he may do that, i.e., kill the assailant, and he is not liable for that, because he killed him to ward off his evil.

And straight from the Qur'an:

Surah Al-Hajj – Verse 39

    اُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِاَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَي نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ

39. “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) for they have been oppressed, and verily Allah is well able to assist them.”

I'm not a Muslim but for me it looks kinda straight forward.

[mOgliE]

I am not advocating for anything. -snip-  You don't get to assault people then cry when they defend themselves, sorry.

No you're clearly not advocating for anything.

You're a psychopath.

But you're not alone, tons of people here agree with you. Just happy you have a country on your own.

You're all just saying "it's ok to mutilate someone if they pushed you"

Wahou.

[mOgliE]

For fuck's sake that's not something difficult to understand!

If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?

Yes or no question. Nothing else.

[TECSHARE]

No you're clearly not advocating for anything.

You're a psychopath.

But you're not alone, tons of people here agree with you. Just happy you have a country on your own.

You're all just saying "it's ok to mutilate someone if they pushed you"

Wahou.

For fuck's sake that's not something difficult to understand!

If you insult me and I push you, should you have the right to kill me? Or mutilate me?

Yes or no question. Nothing else.

If I am clearly not advocating for anything, why did you state I am advocating for something? A more important question is do you have the right to push (physically assault) some one? No? In that case this is the genesis of the criminal activity, and therefore legally the responsible party.

I have just one question for you...

Did you stop beating your wife?

Yes or no question. Nothing else.

[mOgliE]

I have just one question for you...

And you clearly avoided mine.

You're one to talk about logical fallacies and diversions.

But if you think that the one initiating the illegal act is responsible for everything legally, I'm just going to quote this to you anytime you discuss law in any way.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read here.

[TECSHARE]

I have just one question for you...

And you clearly avoided mine.

You're one to talk about logical fallacies and diversions.

But if you think that the one initiating the illegal act is responsible for everything legally, I'm just going to quote this to you anytime you discuss law in any way.

This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read here.

That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.

[mOgliE]

That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.

Hmm... No...
If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun.
Proportional use of force.

So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works.

Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are.

Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours.

[TECSHARE]

That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.

Hmm... No...
If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun.
Proportional use of force.

So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works.

Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are.

Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours.

As usual you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The laws vary from state to state, some states have "stand your ground" laws where once some one instigates violence against you, you have no requirement to retreat and are legally authorized to use lethal force if you are in fear for your life.

For reference here is some information on how the California self defense laws work.

https://cinteanlaw.com/california-stand-ground-law/

The man in California was assaulted. He attempted to flee but was pursued by MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS. This is WELL WITHIN the standard of fearing for life or injury as set by California code. Additionally because of the fact it was MULTIPLE people pursuing him, the use of a weapon is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and proportional use of force. You can boo hoo about proportional use of force all you want, but how is one man supposed to defend himself from multiple assailants without a weapon? What is proportional about fighting off multiple attackers bare handed? We have the right to self defense in this country, we aren't forced to be subjects and victims in waiting like you in your nation, and I am grateful for it. You don't get to assault people then cry they fought back, that's not how it works. The moral of the story?

DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT PEOPLE

[mOgliE]

That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.

Hmm... No...
If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun.
Proportional use of force.

So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works.

Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are.

Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours.

As usual you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The laws vary from state to state, some states have "stand your ground" laws where once some one instigates violence against you, you have no requirement to retreat and are legally authorized to use lethal force if you are in fear for your life.

For reference here is some information on how the California self defense laws work.

https://cinteanlaw.com/california-stand-ground-law/

The man in California was assaulted. He attempted to flee but was pursued by MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS. This is WELL WITHIN the standard of fearing for life or injury as set by California code. Additionally because of the fact it was MULTIPLE people pursuing him, the use of a weapon is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and proportional use of force. You can boo hoo about proportional use of force all you want, but how is one man supposed to defend himself from multiple assailants without a weapon? What is proportional about fighting off multiple attackers bare handed? We have the right to self defense in this country, we aren't forced to be subjects and victims in waiting like you in your nation, and I am grateful for it. You don't get to assault people then cry they fought back, that's not how it works. The moral of the story?

DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT PEOPLE

ahahahahah

So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE:
-Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can
-Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you
-This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!!
-Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you

You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about.

[TECSHARE]

ahahahahah

So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE:
-Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can
-Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you
-This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!!
-Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you

You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about.

Once again you ignore the facts of the situation as if they change nothing...

-He was assaulted
-He attempted to flee
-Multiple people chased him
-Only after this did he attempt to defend himself, ceasing his attack once it was made clear to the assailants he would not be made a victim

I know as a subject in a nation where it is illegal to defend yourself from violence this is difficult for you to understand, but here we have rights, even if it makes soft little flowers such as you cry yourself to sleep at night over the poor criminal who got a boo boo after attacking some one on the street.

[r1s2g3]

lot of exchange between moglie and techshare.

My view is that man should be charged for possession of weapon only.
Everybody has full right to defend himself/herself. If multiple people start chasing you, I bet you will be scared. I do not think chaser have any good intentions. Since that guys used sword so many people are in assumption that guy was wrong. Might be if he hasn't used sword then news article headline might be as below.

Man was lynched  by unknown people.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I would have just broken a bone or two instead to remind people they can't just jump on anyone without consequences. Though if the cost of having to pay for his hospital bill is much more than what I'll pay for outright offing him...

Suddenly remembered that guy in China who ran over a kid twice coz it's cheaper if the kid died.

I do not condone violence, but particularly in this case, the man attempted to first run but was then chased, and then eventually turned to fight off his attackers using a sword.

The article you linked to claims the alleged "assailant" slashed at the guy who knocked his hat off.  Carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3" in San Francisco is a violation, which is probably why this guy is getting treated the way he is.  But obviously he was instigating the situation by wearing his assault hat, so there's that.

My kids came to pick me up from SFO the other night, so we stopped in the Mission for burritos.  I got, not one, but three dirty looks for wearing a woodland camo hat.  The only reason those dirty looks didn't turn into dirty words, chaffed knuckles, and bloody noses is because the woodland camo hat in question is adorned with a SF 49ers logo.

For such peace-loving, hippy-filled, progressive city it sure is full of intolerant bigots.

That's beyond fcuked up. Seriously, an assault hat? What's next, assault shirts? Have you no heart, terrorizing people just like that?!

Surprised they didn't call SWAT on you though for carrying such a dangerous apparel in public.

[kenzawak]

So in the US, you can walk the streets with your sword ?
Everything's fine in your country.  

Oh look, somebody must have stolen this one's MAGA hat too...



Come on killer, get your revenge !  

[Mometaskers]

He got exactly what he asked for. The impression I'm getting is that that hat would get you killed in the US. That must suck for people there that the country has gone to this. Still, there are good news every once in a while, like this...

https://youtu.be/fuHepjHA2JY

Imagine accusing a Jewish grampa a NAZI. And the idiot said she'll get a RETIRED old man fired.