Elk, let's say you're a shopkeeper and an Antifa comes in and starts shouting at you for being a Trump supporter, and states that that means you're worse than Hitler. You tell him to leave, and he just keeps shouting. You tell him he's now a trespasser, and that he has to leave or get pepper sprayed, and he keeps up his harangue. Now you spray him in the face, and he reluctantly complies with your command to leave your establishment. Who was in the wrong and who was in the right? After all, the Antifa presented no imminent threat of violence to you, right?
Holy cripes. ROFLMAO
Apples to oranges, no
No.
You set the criteria, i.e., no imminent threat of violence. Both instances are constant on that variable. You asserted that if there's no violence of imminent threat of violence, pepper spray may not be employed. Now you see you were wrong, correct?
