I don't think Nick Fuentes should of got arrested.

[76561199698586428]

I do not agree with all of his views but imagine a random stranger coming on your property filming, you never know who it could be.

[Bind0fGod]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Tree Hugger:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Bind0fGod:

He did gross stuff with Destiny.

Liberal propaganda

Fuentes is a liberal plant.

[Mason]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Tree Hugger:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Sek-Raktaa:

No its not.

If that were illegal, we wouldn't be having Google Street View.

We wouldn't even have TV.

What nonsense is this?

You need consent to be on someone's private property, you need to consent to enter someone's private home, you need consent to film inside someone's private home.

filming someone's private property though, like their house or whatever?

perfectly legal.

"You need consent to be on someones private property" Ok this person was on Nick Fuentes Private property, where was the consent?

Knocking on someone's door isn't illegal, don't need any "consent" to do this. However if someone is trespassing on your property you would first need to order them to leave. If they don't leave the next logical... rational... normal step would be to call the police... not assault them.

[Azza ☠]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Tree Hugger:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Sek-Raktaa:

No its not.

If that were illegal, we wouldn't be having Google Street View.

We wouldn't even have TV.

What nonsense is this?

You need consent to be on someone's private property, you need to consent to enter someone's private home, you need consent to film inside someone's private home.

filming someone's private property though, like their house or whatever?

perfectly legal.

"You need consent to be on someones private property" Ok this person was on Nick Fuentes Private property, where was the consent?

Doxing someone isn't actually illegal, it depends on the actions done upon using that dox.

Coming up to a house door and ringing the doorbell isn't illegal.

Filming in public isn't illegal.

You however need a consent to film on private property. In New Zealand it would be the "Section 30 of the Summary Offences Act 1981", breaching the Privacy Act. It's more to do with peeping or peering into another person's house or if they keep on loitering on their land. It would normally be a fine of $500 NZD.

You should however ask them to stop, not pepper spray and attack them right at your front door after they just attempt to ring your doorbell to chat.

As for the battery charge:

Simple battery may include any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact, regardless of the injury caused.

Criminal battery requires intent to inflict an injury on another.

Sexual battery may be defined as non-consensual touching of the intimate parts of another.

Family-violence battery may be limited in its scope between persons within a certain degree of relationship

Aggravated battery may occur when a battery causes serious bodily injury or permanent disfigurement, then it becomes a felony grade offence.

In this case, it's most likely just "Simple battery" and typically a misdemeanor.

[aka]

If someone you don't know comes up to your door and knocks, you do what you gotta do... It's common sense.

No one ever got home invaded by a dead fool.

MIC DROP!!

Hell yeah boss, someone just got REAL OWNED!


Go stand over there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0wXLHXaOE

[Crashed]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Tree Hugger:

Oprindeligt skrevet af eram:

yes because humans have no way to communicate with each other and must therefore instantly attack.

Well i would if a stranger was on my property and filming it.

Especially when you do things that make you suspicious already, like white supremacist activities?

[Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...]

it's not "should of."
you're meaning "should've" as in "should have."
it's a contraction.

[Adversary]

Fuentes is a fed. I don't care what happens to him.

[Ulfrinn]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mason:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Tree Hugger:

You must be slow, I was saying that I don't agree with Nick Fuentes overall since he is a neo nazi, the point i'm making is this arrest is completely unjustified, can you get that threw your pre mature brain?

The arrest is NOT unjustified GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BRAIN. HE ATTACKED SOMEONE for no reason, for simply knocking on his f ing door. That is NOT justification for assaulting someone. Idiot. Calling someone else slow, and yet you're too slow to realize that assaulting someone isn't something you can just do for any little inconvenience in your miserable existence. All they did was knock on his door and he immediately attacked, that IS NOT NORMAL. Moron.

For no reason? The woman doxxed him online, then went to his home to further harass him over a difference of political views. She wasn't some random stranger that knocked on the wrong door. She went looking for a confrontation. Also, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of any assault besides her saying so. No marks, no signs of being hit.

[Marmarmar34]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ulfrinn:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mason:

The arrest is NOT unjustified GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BRAIN. HE ATTACKED SOMEONE for no reason, for simply knocking on his f ing door. That is NOT justification for assaulting someone. Idiot. Calling someone else slow, and yet you're too slow to realize that assaulting someone isn't something you can just do for any little inconvenience in your miserable existence. All they did was knock on his door and he immediately attacked, that IS NOT NORMAL. Moron.

For no reason? The woman doxxed him online, then went to his home to further harass him over a difference of political views. She wasn't some random stranger that knocked on the wrong door. She went looking for a confrontation. Also, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of any assault besides her saying so. No marks, no signs of being hit.

The law doesn't care about the events leading up to it. Just the actual crime itself. As I said before, there's been plenty of cases like this before. Each time the defendant is told they should have just called the police. Opening the door was a poor choice.

[NW/RL]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mason:

how stupid must you be to defend a literal neo nazi

Let's do a thought experiment: you have managed to piss off some neo-nazis online. In fact, you manage to piss of Nick himself. Nick then doxxes your address, and shows up at your front door to harass you. Technically, Nick hasn't done anything illegal, he just published already public information and came to knock on your door.

Now are you going to be civil, not resort to pepper spray, and talk it out with Nick? Or are you going to pepper spray him? I have my money on the pepper spray

That being said, I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about Nick. He's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and his politics are highly restarted. Hell, he said ♥♥♥♥ like "having sex with a woman is gay". Regardless, if someone is putting you in potential danger via doxxing and actively trying to harass you, as the woman who doxxed him did, I'm not going to feel bad for the doxxer

[blacksunchaos]

The woman seems like a terrible person who deserved it.

[Ulfrinn]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Marmarmar34:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ulfrinn:

For no reason? The woman doxxed him online, then went to his home to further harass him over a difference of political views. She wasn't some random stranger that knocked on the wrong door. She went looking for a confrontation. Also, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of any assault besides her saying so. No marks, no signs of being hit.

The law doesn't care about the events leading up to it. Just the actual crime itself. As I said before, there's been plenty of cases like this before. Each time the defendant is told they should have just called the police. Opening the door was a poor choice.

Actually, the law cares both about the events leading up to it, the credibility of the woman making the claim, and the general lack of evidence to back up her claims which is why he was immediately released. Harassing someone online, then coming to their home is definitely crossing a line of escalation that is legally relevant.

[Azza ☠]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ulfrinn:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Marmarmar34:

The law doesn't care about the events leading up to it. Just the actual crime itself. As I said before, there's been plenty of cases like this before. Each time the defendant is told they should have just called the police. Opening the door was a poor choice.

Actually, the law cares both about the events leading up to it, the credibility of the woman making the claim, and the general lack of evidence to back up her claims which is why he was immediately released. Harassing someone online, then coming to their home is definitely crossing a line of escalation that is legally relevant.

You will likely find it's both cases...

Nick Fuentes however prematurely overreacted to the event and performed "battery" upon a person, just because. He had no real reason to do so and could of avoided it.

He could of easily answered the door bell and asked them not to record, or just closed the door on them. The female in question didn't get to do much, except ring the door bell and record the event on a cellphone.

Now if the female had attacked him first, he could do battery but as self-defence, which would of helped his case... yet he instantly attacked them.

[Mason]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ulfrinn:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mason:

The arrest is NOT unjustified GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BRAIN. HE ATTACKED SOMEONE for no reason, for simply knocking on his f ing door. That is NOT justification for assaulting someone. Idiot. Calling someone else slow, and yet you're too slow to realize that assaulting someone isn't something you can just do for any little inconvenience in your miserable existence. All they did was knock on his door and he immediately attacked, that IS NOT NORMAL. Moron.

For no reason? The woman doxxed him online, then went to his home to further harass him over a difference of political views. She wasn't some random stranger that knocked on the wrong door. She went looking for a confrontation. Also, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of any assault besides her saying so. No marks, no signs of being hit.

"A difference of political views," that's putting it mildly. The guy is a neo-nazi woman hating incel loser. I mean are we watching the same video? He opened the door and immediately pepper sprayed the woman, even stole her phone. Assault and theft, seems pretty clear to me.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Azza ☠:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ulfrinn:

Actually, the law cares both about the events leading up to it, the credibility of the woman making the claim, and the general lack of evidence to back up her claims which is why he was immediately released. Harassing someone online, then coming to their home is definitely crossing a line of escalation that is legally relevant.

You will likely find it's both cases...

Nick Fuentes however prematurely overreacted to the event and performed "battery" upon a person, just because. He had no real reason to do so and could of avoided it.

He could of easily answered the door bell and asked them not to record, or just closed the door on them. The female in question didn't get to do much, except ring the door bell and record the event on a cellphone.

Now if the female had attacked him first, he could do battery but as self-defence, which would of helped his case... yet he instantly attacked them.

Meanwhile when masked up people firebomb a federal building, they get off scot-free :^)

Classic two-tier justice system.