Since the Charlottesville demonstrations, which ended in most horrible fashion, dozens other protests have been help around the country.
Some of them to support the white supremacist, other to contrast them – but can it be any good?
Almost no event has gone through without a single incident, just raising the suspicion and tension between parties, which could end catastrophically.
It wasn’t much different in Richmond, Virginia this week. The members of Antifa were furious of the white nationalist that caused havoc in their surroundings and made a rally themselves. As IJR wrote, the protesters were not so calm like they announced.
The “Unite the Right” rally maybe had its dark moments, it really did, but these people probably tried to stay in step with the opposition. While causing chaos on the streets, they attack a journalist and caused him serious injury.
Here is how the assault went, as somebody captured it on video:
— Laura French (@lfrenchnews) August 14, 2017
And for everyone that thought it was nothing, it actually left him a long and deep wound. As reported by his employer, the man got four staples in his head to stop bleeding:
Our photojournalist reported back that he got 4 staples after a protester hit him in the head. pic.twitter.com/bG5JRYfksJ
— WTVR CBS 6 Richmond (@CBS6) August 14, 2017
I really don’t understand how the protesters then come back trying to defend themselves. Instead of apologizing, they went on to write a huge piece of ‘evidence’ where they explain why they should be justified. Apparently, he shouldn’t have filmed them in a ‘public space’. However, that is exactly why he should – it’s not like he went in their homes and tried to do it.
We bring you their story, as written on Facebook:
“When this man ran up he was told people did not want to be filmed. He proceeded to film anyways. He was then told AGAIN that he was not to film people’s faces. He proceeded anyways. He intentionally ignored the denial of consent, still without identifying himself (though we still wouldn’t care), which was a threat to safety and should be considered in a context of perpetuating rape culture. Denial of consent by the media is still a denial of consent and is disgusting and parasitic behavior.”
So he should be charged for denial of consent, and you’ll be let off the hook. Of course he proceeded; he was there to do exactly what he did, so we have proof in case something like this assault happened.
They also took this last shot:
“At this point there were folks that felt they were in extreme danger as no one knew who this man was or what his intentions were … Then he got hit. Once. We aren’t sure with what or by who but he did and it was all due to his own ridiculous, likely drunk, behavior.”
Notice how they say ‘likely drunk’? If he was really acting terribly, they would’ve known for sure if he was under influence or not. He was not a great threat, and they clearly overreacted.
Scroll down to the comments and tell us – who should be charged?