Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire This Old Guy Is Awesome!

Gotta hand it to her, she has a bigger pair than the want to be bully she was with. She did stand her ground, the "galoot" tried intimidation, and got scared himself. She was well practiced in the calm quite methods of debate, self control is key. Too bad she knows so much that she can't learn, hate folk light that.

"All mouth, no muscle, little mind. Let's guess his campfire handle....mine doesn't count."

Out loud I laughed!

Even if your wife was doing the insulting ?

Condescension is a debate tactic, but it is meant to demean and lead to anger. Not nice. She feels all superior, but she escalated. He was supposed to lay back and play HER game. He did not allow her to set the parameters.

You don't know liberals well...she had no idea she was being condescending, she really believes conservatives have inferior minds, thus you must talk to them as such...to damned bad this guy fit the bill instead of adjusting her attitude. .

I disagree. I know liberals very well. I stand by my conclusion.

Whether or not he has the right of it, screaming expletives into my wife's face like he did her's, would earn him a thorough beating. (And if she declined, I might do it myself.)

Don't start one won't be none. Did i miss the part the 2 libtards are married ?

Good to see someone on the right that is willing to duke it out with the filth on the left. Most seem to run for cover when the other side raises their voices. Our side is content to write our congressman.

I don't believe you could give this old guy a beating but if you did because you didn't like what he said you should go to jail for assault. A better result was if he pulled his concealed pistol and shot you in self defense. Don't under estimate the ability of on old guy to defend himself.

Hear hear. Remember, the old man was merely standing at the station he had set up for expressing his views to any who wished to hear them. The big galoot and the woman chose to enter his space and converse with him. What the galoot should have done was pick his woman up by the waist and carry her away.

If he is in a public place with his stand, he is subject to the same rules of conduct as anyone else. His speech went well beyond what is legally permissible as "free speech" . He breached that line several times.

"In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[27] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[28] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[29][30]

One legal commentator has suggested that, along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if the speaker intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[31] However, the United States Supreme Court has not implemented such an exception, and even if it does, the exception would be probably be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[32] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[33] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[34]

Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[39]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Who came into whose space? The old guy didn't follow them around, nor enter their space to converse with them. It was the other way around.

Wish that old guy would have stroked that metro foreign pos girly man.

If he is in a public place, it isn't his space, now is it? Ask a lawyer if that would make any difference. Verbal assault, is still assault. The expletives and personal attacks, are not covered by free speech in the same manner as political opinions. Free speech does have limits, such as yelling fire in a theater. There are consequences for actions, and many of them such as "fighting words" and predictable trigger words such as " the N word" are not covered as free speech. (Talk with a lawyer or judge for any legal advice of course).
Screaming expletives in my wife's face, would be well over that line.

You did notice that after tuff guy got in his face, he quietly grabbed his Walking Stick. My guess is he knows how to use it as well.

LOL, so you think your wife is some kind of special and allowed condone the killing of other Americans under your protection because they differ with her?

Maybe you should take your wife aside and tell he shut the [bleep] up and respect the constitution before you beat the fucjout of her liberal ass yourself.

She could have walked away, thus ,ending the confrontation. He did not pursue her, she kept coming back. I think it would be a,stretch to charge him with verbal assault, ESPECIALLY since the galoot was to one who threatened physical confrontation. In his defense, the galoot understood the woman's annoying mouth, was very likely to get one of the men (not the agressor-the woman) punched in the nose. She wouldn't just STOP, and move on. You can't forget she was actually advocating murdering somebody.

A lawyer will tell you it does. It's called his personal space if he has a right to be there. Others who invade it are at a legal disadvantage with regard to the issue of who was in the right and the wrong with regard to provocative behavior, such as suggesting that people like the old man should be killed for exercising their right of free speech.

There's nothing in your long winded post that says it's legal to assault someone because you're offended by what they say.