@Fantom
Oh, okay, I just pulled Nazi out of the air because that's what I label everybody. Yeah.
What bothers me is conservatives defending a Nazi, or at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. To me, if you're out there taking part in a Nazi rally, then you are one of them. The information is out there if you want it. But it seems we've descended to the point that we'll defend anyone, no matter how heinous, as long as BLM or Antifa is standing on the other side.
Strip the politics out of the events.
I can't defend intentionally running down anyone in the street without that being a clear response to a lethal threat, and as far as I can tell, there was no lethal threat being posed by those that guy hit.
As for the rest, it becomes a question of who had the permit to have their little shindig, and who did not. Apparently, one group did, the other did not.
If they had a permit, they had the Right to have that assembly, peacefully, without breaking any laws. That does not, nor should it imply that the message involved, that their symbols will not be offensive to anyone, as long as they do not break any laws, they are within their right to show those without molestation.
When people start threatening, hurling containers of bodily fluids and noxious substances, or projectiles, or otherwise molesting those who are abiding by the law, those people have infringed on the Rights of the people thus attacked, regardless of which groups are involved. Those people attacked, by statute and convention, have a Right to defend themselves, proportional to the nature of the attack, and hopefully with less onerous means than the attackers' methods. For the most part, defensive devices appear to have been used by the group which was attacked, (although a shield can be used offensively, its primary purpose is to protect, not offend, and if used in an offensive manner (other than to the sensibilities over its decoration), the subject of that must be at close quarters indeed, provided the user retains possession of the shield).
Those utilizing projectiles, thrown containers of bodily fluids, fire, and finally clubs and other means could attack from further away, and apparently did.
As has been said my right to swing my fist ends where someone else begins. That isn't dependent on ideology, political party, religion, color, etc., it applies to everyone.
Whether or not we like it, one group attacked another.
Even more onerous is that those charged with keeping the peace pushed the two groups into further confrontation.
Worse yet, is that that appears to have been done for political gain by the carpetbagger in charge in Richmond, or on his orders.
I don't like any of the groups involved, they soil, imho, the very memory commemorated by the monuments to Southern Heritage they allegedly were there to protest or promote the removal of. But in legal terms, in terms of Rights, one group appears to have had theirs violated by the other, and wherever those chips may fall that does not imply any approval of the ideologies involved.
