The Confederate Flag

[Bells]

No, you're just ignorant of your own laws.

Pretty sure I am not.

Yes, most western countries have similar laws. And since no one here is talking about that part of the law, it's a complete non sequitur.

Not really. You are being broad and wrong. Which is not surprising for you.

Again, no one ever said otherwise. Don't be so dense or erect straw men

You are the one whining that there are laws against it.

Again, you betray your ignorance of your own laws. 18D is the exceptions to the hate speech section, "including acts relating to artistic works, genuine academic or scientific purposes, fair reporting, and fair comment on matters of public interest."

It's section 18C that details the restriction to speech, making it "unlawful for a person to do an act in public if it is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and the act was done because of one or more of those characteristics.". Offense is not "harm", and case history shows that it has been upheld for mere offense or insult to restrict speech:

My bad, I got them back to front..

Carrying on, it isn't a restriction, and the courts have yet to treat it as such. In other words, as I noted above, you can be a racist and homophobic twat as much as you want. You just can't discriminate against people.

You cherry picked examples of cases though.. It's cute.. Tell me, did you actually bother to read any of the particular cases you cherry picked because you thought it proved your point? For example:

Jones v Toben [2000]

Toben had a website which posted anti-semitic rubbish which was not only offensive, but also caused harm. The man is so anti-semitic he tried to call David Irving as a witness to support his claim that the Holocaust is a lie perpetuated by Jews so that they can apparently maintain financial and political control in the West, as well as other reprehensible claims that are not only offensive and wrong, but that also demonises Jews as a group, causing real harm.. Which should say it all..

But you chose this as your hill..

So...

The HREOCA found that Toben was more interested in the HREOCA finding on the validity of his claims on his public website about Jews (he wanted them to say whether the Holocaust was real or not and he tried to argue that holocaust denial was a valid field of research.. which the HREOCA found it was not..) and he had been advised right from the start that this was not going to be allowed as a response to the complaint by Jones under the Act. He then basically refused to engage .. Even after they asked him to consider supplying evidence under S18D and basically gave him 2 years to supply it, he did not bother to do so.. Why? Because Toben was using the hearings as a soapbox for his Holocaust denial.. Which was correctly rejected.. http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HREOCA/2000/39.html

McMahon v Bowman [2000]

Oh for goodness sakes.. It wasn't said privately. It was screamed out loud enough that it could have been heard by others in the street and next door and was. It was first screamed out at children and then tneir father who had heard it from inside his house from next door. That is why they ruled as they did.. Bowman also screamed out that all black people are the same for all and sundry to hear while racially abusing his neighbours.

Did you bother to even read the case? Or do you think racial abuse of others, including children, should be legal?

Wanjurri v Southern Cross Broadcasting (Aus) Ltd [2001]

Are you for real?

Sattler and his guests, on his radio show, denigrated and vilified the Nyungah people and elders as well as their culture and beliefs.. Not to mention it served to intimidate and abuse them on public radio.

In Eatock v Bolt [2011]

Andrew Bolt.. enough said..

Launched racist attacks on Aboriginal people.. Do you think it should be legal to racially abuse and denigrate others because of their ethnicity?

Jones v Toben involved a website that denied the Holocaust, so that alone refutes your: "You can be a racist ... twat as much as you want."

Yes. You can be racist as much as you want. You just can't be racist in public. Toben had a website where he vilified Jews as a whole and made various false claims about Jews that were also harmful or could lead to harm, as well as Holocaust denial.

And no, aside from some states, the US does not have hate speech laws. It does have hate crime laws, but those involve bigoted motives for regular crimes. What's allowed at work is between the employer and their avoidance of hostile workplace lawsuits.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says no.

So you're ignorant of both Aussie and US law. Congrats on being so consistent!

And you are a known bigot on this site and your arguments here prove that. I guess I should also congratulate you on your consistency.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Andrew Bolt..

Actually Andrew Bolt and Vociferous have a lot in common. Both are denialists that are having to confront the incredible cost of their and their cohorts denial.

Denialism:
n the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

It takes courage to face reality, a courage that many lack I guess...

 

[Bells]

Andrew Bolt is a festering pustule on the backside of humanity.

Probably why he is so soundly embraced by the far right in this country.

 

[candy]

and do you think non-whites should be otherwise?

Of course not but non-whites should not be given a free pass to do or say anything they want without expecting blow back.

 

[billvon]

Of course not but non-whites should not be given a free pass to do or say anything they want without expecting blow back.

?? They get LOTS of blowback - and in fact get a lot more than white people do. Kaepernick, for example, was fired and effectively banned from the sport due to his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Only recently has the NFL settled with him for their actions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course not but non-whites should not be given a free pass to do or say anything they want without expecting blow back.

but I thought you were all for freedom of expression? ( sarc )
I guess you are referring only to those who enjoy white privilege?
If you were talking from a egalitarian status quo then sure you might have a point... but it is far from egalitarian.

To expect a person who is subjugated to racial abuse to remain quiet and accept his/her oppression and injustice with out complaint is absurd.
Trumps civil war is only a few deaths away. I hope you realise what this may mean to the USA?

 

[Bells]

Of course not but non-whites should not be given a free pass to do or say anything they want without expecting blow back.

What free pass are they getting?

Where do you see lack of blow back, exactly?

And we are talking within days of a white man shooting 3 people, killing two of them and he walked right past the police afterwards and they barely raised an eyebrow and he got to go home and sleep in his own bed that night - despite having broken the law to get there, crossed state lines to commit a crime (was out past curfew) with a gun.. And he kills 2 people after the police high fived him (despite his being out breaking curfew while openly armed).. You want to talk about free pass or somehow lack-there-of for whites?

Is this meant to be a joke post or something?

 

[iceaura]

The problem is that they are not just vilifying white supremacists. They are attacking anyone who does not support their agenda.

That is false.
They are attacking many of those who actively oppose their agenda for bad reasons.
And "vilify {+ declensions}" is apparently the word of the month in the Republican media feed - if you want to conceal your sources, try dialing your vocabulary to "non-parrot".

I refuse to give in to any bully without a good fight.

Too late. You rolled over for Trump on the first punch.
What would it take to get you to quit fighting for bullies?

Of course not but non-whites should not be given a free pass to do or say anything they want without expecting blow back.

Do you think that is reasonably likely in your lifetime?
- - -

Conflating violence with speech is a bs question.

The Confederate Flag is a credible violent threat. Are you conflating violent threats with speech?

In a free society, those called racist slurs can just as readily call out that racism. When such behavior is legislated against, you don't get rid of racism, it just festers without the appropriate condemnation it would receive if publicly aired.

Tolerating racial threats of violence for 150 years has not gotten rid of racism in the US.
And tolerating racial threats of violence for 150 years has not "aired" the racism involved and instigated and perpetuated by them.
So it's time to try something else. The US government is supposed to protect its citizens from assault - such protection is overdue.

 

[candy]

I think that what happened to Kaepernick was wrong but I understand that there are people who are so emotionally invested in the flag and the national anthem that they see what he did as wrong. I view the flag people as putting a symbol above the principles of the Constitution which I suppose they have a right to do.
Kaepernick has a right to take knee just as someone else has the right to put on a grey uniform and wave the stars and bars. I suspect that most of the people who were outraged by Kaepernick taking a knee would be equally outraged if another player showed up in a confederate uniform with his flag.
Political correctness does tend to suppress some peoples freedom speech. It is not about whether you agree with people but rather if you defend their right to be incorrect. I do not see a lot of that kind of tolerance coming from some of the people here.
Looting and vandalism are not peaceful protests. The people doing the rioting do not respect other people's right to disagree.

 

[iceaura]

Kaepernick has a right to take knee just as someone else has the right to put on a grey uniform and wave the stars and bars.

Kaepernick threatened nobody with violence. Those who wave the Confederate flag, outside of a theatrical performance, threaten everyone who isn't them with violence.
No definition of free speech includes the right to make credible terroristic threats against other people.

It is not about whether you agree with people but rather if you defend their right to be incorrect. I do not see a lot of that kind of tolerance coming from some of the people here.

If you were not tolerated you would not be here. Lots of people are tolerating you and your kind - bending over backwards to do so. Your right to be incorrect has been defended by everyone here.
Unfortunately you seem to think that includes a right to be protected from disparagement and contradiction, no matter what odious crap you parrot off of wingnut media feeds.

Looting and vandalism are not peaceful protests. The people doing the rioting do not respect other people's right to disagree.

Where did you get the idea that people were rioting because someone disagreed with them?
How do you know who is looting and vandalizing?
In Minneapolis it turned out, weeks later, that between the police, the demonstrators, and the provocateurs, the demonstrators were the least violent people on the streets. Whether that was also the case elsewhere remains to be seen - it's the most likely explanation, based on the hospital records.

 

[candy]

Kaepernick threatened nobody with violence. Those who wave the Confederate flag, outside of a theatrical performance, threaten everyone who isn't them with violence.
No definition of free speech includes the right to make credible terroristic threats against other people.
If you were not tolerated you would not be here. Lots of people are tolerating you and your kind - bending over backwards to do so. Your right to be incorrect has been defended by everyone here.
Unfortunately you seem to think that includes a right to be protected from disparagement and contradiction, no matter what odious crap you parrot off of wingnut media feeds.
Where did you get the idea that people were rioting because someone disagreed with them?
How do you know who is looting and vandalizing?
In Minneapolis it turned out, weeks later, that between the police, the demonstrators, and the provocateurs, the demonstrators were the least violent people on the streets. Whether that was also the case elsewhere remains to be seen - it's the most likely explanation, based on the hospital records.

Those who wave a confederate flag are no more threatening violence than Kaepernick was. They are most probably celebrating their heritage not making a terroristic threat. I do understand that for some people the stars and bars is as repulsive as a swastika is to others but your emotional reaction to it as a terroristic threat is something you should seek help to deal with.
You are the one who is resorting to an odious personal attack to defend your fear.
Looting and vandalism happened in Minneapolis that is a fact; who did what is open to question but it did occur.

 

[Quantum Quack]

They are most probably celebrating their heritage not making a terroristic threat.

Perhaps not a terrorist threat but certainly a terrorist incitement.
Do you consider mass slavery, thousands killed, raped and tortured something to celebrate about?

 

[billvon]

Political correctness does tend to suppress some peoples freedom speech.

Agreed. It certainly suppressed Kaepernick's.

Looting and vandalism are not peaceful protests.

Also agreed. But sometimes that's what it takes. As Americans we have a long history of using violent protest when nonviolent protest is ignored, derided and crushed. Ideally violent protest would not need to happen - but as we saw with Kaepernick, sometimes peaceful protest is ignored or suppressed due to political correctness.

 

[Bells]

Those who wave a confederate flag are no more threatening violence than Kaepernick was.

Right.. Dude kneeling during a national anthem:

can somehow be compared to, say as one example:

They are most probably celebrating their heritage not making a terroristic threat.

As one often celebrates one's heritage of slavery, slave ownership, viewing black people like cattle and mass kidnappings, terrorism of black people.. yes?

I do understand that for some people the stars and bars is as repulsive as a swastika is to others but your emotional reaction to it as a terroristic threat is something you should seek help to deal with.

Because in the US, one is usually accompanied by the other.

Naw.. Not threatening at all..

You are the one who is resorting to an odious personal attack to defend your fear.

Everyone should be fearful of those who wield that flag around simply because of the risk they present to those around them. White supremacists and conservatives who condone their behaviour and rhetoric or who tries to excuse it should be feared. Because their actions and at times their silence, leads to the death of others, particularly minorities and LGBTQ..

Looting and vandalism happened in Minneapolis that is a fact; who did what is open to question but it did occur.

Yes.

And?

As iceaura posted earlier, how do you know it's the people protesting who are doing the looting?

Conservatives:

Black man kneeling for national anthem - bad.
Peaceful protest against police brutality and murder of minorities - bad.

White supremacists marching with the confederate flag chanting how the Jews shall not defeat them between screeching about white power and a driving car into peaceful protesters - "very good people".

 

[paddoboy]

The following illustrates admirably the excuse making the vociferous one is making for his leader....

 

[iceaura]

Those who wave a confederate flag are no more threatening violence than Kaepernick was.

Now you're just being silly.

The Confederate Flag was, has always been, and is, a threat of violence in defense of white supremacy. That's what it was designed to be, that's why it was and is flown, that's what it has been ever since it was first designed and first flown by people dedicated to violence in defense of white supremacy.

 

[iceaura]

Looting and vandalism happened in Minneapolis that is a fact; who did what is open to question but it did occur.

That question is much less "open" than it was - it has been partly answered: there have been several arrests for looting and vandalism during the demonstrations, and despite the well-known and thoroughly documented biases of Minneapolis Police, most of the arrests have been of provocateurs such as "umbrella man" https://www.salon.com/2020/07/29/mi...ed-to-incite-riot-after-floyd-killing-police/
and similar folks - young male white supremacists using the Floyd demonstrations as cover for riot and vandalism and violence (disproportionately against black people and black-owned businesses, btw).

That also happened at the Republican Convention in Minneapolis a couple years ago - same prevalence of provocateurs doing stuff that was blamed on "protestors" and "demonstrators".

Police violence and abuse of demonstrators happened in Minneapolis - that is a fact. It was planned, prepared for, and carried out as a tactic - another fact.

And there's nothing new or surprising about that - this stuff is part of the motivation of the demonstrators going back decades now: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white-vigilantes-kenosha_n_5f4822bcc5b6cf66b2b5103e

White vigilantes and far-right actors have shown up to oppose Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S. at least 497 times this year, according to data collected by Alexander Reid Ross, a doctoral fellow at the Center for Analysis of the Radical Right. He started gathering data on May 27, two days after police in Minneapolis killed George Floyd, and continued through this week.

The dataset, which Ross shared with HuffPost, documents a staggering amount of violence directed at protesters by the far-right, including 64 cases of simple assault, 38 incidents of vigilantes driving cars into demonstrators, and nine times shots were fired at protesters.

All told, six protesters were hit by vigilante bullets in this summer’s violence. Three died from their wounds.

 

[Vociferous]

?? They get LOTS of blowback - and in fact get a lot more than white people do. Kaepernick, for example, was fired and effectively banned from the sport due to his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Only recently has the NFL settled with him for their actions.

No, they get Democrats and media fawning all over them, even though they're a second-rate player, at best. And sports is a business, where insulting your fans means you lose money. No one stopped Kaepernick from exercising his freedom of speech outside of his job, just like no business is likely to allow "f**k the police" shirts on the job. And then there's Democrats and media excusing riots and looting for months on end. Again, breaking the law or the conditions of your employment are not exercising free speech, especially when your speech can be accomplished without either. No right is absolute.

What free pass are they getting?

Where do you see lack of blow back, exactly?

And we are talking within days of a white man shooting 3 people, killing two of them and he walked right past the police afterwards and they barely raised an eyebrow and he got to go home and sleep in his own bed that night - despite having broken the law to get there, crossed state lines to commit a crime (was out past curfew) with a gun.. And he kills 2 people after the police high fived him (despite his being out breaking curfew while openly armed).. You want to talk about free pass or somehow lack-there-of for whites?

Is this meant to be a joke post or something?

No, you're just ignorant of the facts. Rittenhouse tried to stay on the scene of the first shooting before being chased away, and tried to turn himself in to police immediately after the next two. The police reacted to the greater threat, a mob attacking one man (one with a skateboard and one of them holding a gun, mind you). Rittenhouse works in Kenosha, the gun never crossed state lines, and Wisconsin law allows him to open carry. And the police where aware of his presence beyond curfew:

Video shot by McGinnis shows that at 11:30 p.m., about 15 minutes before Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum and Huber, a law enforcement official in an armored vehicle gave him water and thanked him for his presence there that night.
https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/t...otesters-killings/DF3G3T5U65FQVCORO5XZPTR57Y/
​

So aside from him technically violating curfew (tacitly approved of by the police), which was obviously enacted to stop vandalism from those equally in violation of curfew, you seem to be completely ignorant of what actually happened. He wouldn't have had to shoot anyone if they hadn't been chasing and physically assaulting him. But I know you Aussies don't understand self-defense any more than you understand freedom of speech.

Now compare Rittenhouse to hundreds of millions in property damage, over 30 people killed, over 14,000 arrests, hundreds of police casualties, etc.. So yeah, it looks like violent rioters have been getting a free pass, with cover from Democrat mayors, governors, congressmen, and media, who either expressly supported or obtusely denied it for months.

As one often celebrates one's heritage of slavery, slave ownership, viewing black people like cattle and mass kidnappings, terrorism of black people.. yes?

No, that's just and ignorant caricature. Not that I expect any better from a foreigner.

Because in the US, one is usually accompanied by the other.

Only when you're intellectually dishonest and intentionally cherry-pick.

Everyone should be fearful of those who wield that flag around simply because of the risk they present to those around them. White supremacists and conservatives who condone their behaviour and rhetoric or who tries to excuse it should be feared. Because their actions and at times their silence, leads to the death of others, particularly minorities and LGBTQ..

There is no harmful rhetoric in simply being proud of your heritage. Nor does that pride condone any white supremacy. But moron leftists can't manage to understand the very simple concept that a place, name, or thing doesn't forever represent the worst of its history. That's the idiocy of postmodernism.

White supremacists marching with the confederate flag chanting how the Jews shall not defeat them between screeching about white power and a driving car into peaceful protesters - "very good people".

Roundly debunked as a complete lie, even by just the context of the original remark, according to Politifact.

 

[Vociferous]

Pretty sure I am not.

I'm 100% sure that you are demonstrably ignorant.

Not really. You are being broad and wrong. Which is not surprising for you.

So you're not only ignorant of your own laws but you're also unable to figure out which parts of your own laws apply to hate speech.

You are the one whining that there are laws against it.

No, I didn't. That was your confusion over your own irrelevant non sequitur.

My bad, I got them back to front..

Yes, your ignorance.

Carrying on, it isn't a restriction, and the courts have yet to treat it as such. In other words, as I noted above, you can be a racist and homophobic twat as much as you want. You just can't discriminate against people.

You cherry picked examples of cases though.. It's cute.. Tell me, did you actually bother to read any of the particular cases you cherry picked because you thought it proved your point? For example:

I didn't cherry pick anything. I gave you all the relevant upheld cases from the wiki. I did read, and they do prove my point. You just have the Aussie ignorance of what real freedom of expression actually entails, in an actual free country. Case history proves it restricts speech without discriminating against anyone. But then, you Aussies probably have some vague, slippery definition of "discriminate" that manages to include speech, and thus refute your own claim that "it isn't a restriction".

Toben had a website which posted anti-semitic rubbish which was not only offensive, but also caused harm. The man is so anti-semitic he tried to call David Irving as a witness to support his claim that the Holocaust is a lie perpetuated by Jews so that they can apparently maintain financial and political control in the West, as well as other reprehensible claims that are not only offensive and wrong, but that also demonises Jews as a group, causing real harm.. Which should say it all..

But you chose this as your hill..

This is my hill:

Pregnant woman arrested in Ballarat for creating anti-lockdown protest event on Facebook
Zoe Buhler the fourth person charged with incitement in Victoria in recent days as police take hardline approach to ‘Freedom Day’ protests

Police in Victoria have arrested a pregnant 28-year-old woman in front of her partner and two children for planning an anti-lockdown protest in regional Victoria this weekend.
...
“I have no idea why you guys are doing this,” she tells officers in the video.

“My two kids are here. I have an ultrasound in an hour. I’m happy to delete the post.

“I don’t really understand what I’ve done wrong. This is ridiculous. I didn’t realise I was doing anything wrong.”
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-of-planned-anti-lockdown-protest-in-victoria​

If you think words, themselves, cause harm, you're not an adult ("...but words will never hurt me"). "Incitement"? To what, hold a peaceful rally? Isn't that what you've been defending in American protests? Hypocrite.

So...

The HREOCA found that Toben was more interested in the HREOCA finding on the validity of his claims on his public website about Jews (he wanted them to say whether the Holocaust was real or not and he tried to argue that holocaust denial was a valid field of research.. which the HREOCA found it was not..) and he had been advised right from the start that this was not going to be allowed as a response to the complaint by Jones under the Act. He then basically refused to engage .. Even after they asked him to consider supplying evidence under S18D and basically gave him 2 years to supply it, he did not bother to do so.. Why? Because Toben was using the hearings as a soapbox for his Holocaust denial.. Which was correctly rejected.. http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HREOCA/2000/39.html

Again, you're conflating s.18C and 18D. 18C restricts speech, while 18D is only about exceptions to that restriction. So the second you go talking about anyone supplying evidence under 18D, you've already admitted that their speech has been deemed illegal.

And what motivations anyone may have in any hearing is immaterial to whether the government tried to restrict their speech, which it obviously did.

And it's just like an ignorant leftist to conflate defense of the principle of free speech with defense of any particular speech itself. There are no principles in only defending the rights of people you agree with.

Oh for goodness sakes.. It wasn't said privately. It was screamed out loud enough that it could have been heard by others in the street and next door and was. It was first screamed out at children and then tneir father who had heard it from inside his house from next door. That is why they ruled as they did.. Bowman also screamed out that all black people are the same for all and sundry to hear while racially abusing his neighbours.

Did you bother to even read the case? Or do you think racial abuse of others, including children, should be legal?

Jeez. Since when is freedom of speech only a secret, private right? Oh right, ignorant Aussies.
You keep projecting about not reading things, but it's clear you haven't read, or at least comprehended, the First Amendment and it's foundation in common law. Nowhere is freedom of speech restricted to "in private".

Are you for real?

Sattler and his guests, on his radio show, denigrated and vilified the Nyungah people and elders as well as their culture and beliefs.. Not to mention it served to intimidate and abuse them on public radio.

Really? Intimidate and abuse? With just words?
You really have no clue what freedom is.

Andrew Bolt.. enough said..

Launched racist attacks on Aboriginal people.. Do you think it should be legal to racially abuse and denigrate others because of their ethnicity?

It should be legal to spout any ignorant opinion short of threats and inciting to violence or panic. That's how basic principles work. Yes, they allow stuff we don't like or approve of, but policing speech is, itself, ripe for abuse from those who determine what is allowable. That's how authoritarians ultimately use the law to imprison and execute political dissenters.

Yes. You can be racist as much as you want. You just can't be racist in public. Toben had a website where he vilified Jews as a whole and made various false claims about Jews that were also harmful or could lead to harm, as well as Holocaust denial.

Again, only ignorant Aussies would think that freedom of speech only protects private speech.

And no, aside from some states, the US does not have hate speech laws. It does have hate crime laws, but those involve bigoted motives for regular crimes. What's allowed at work is between the employer and their avoidance of hostile workplace lawsuits.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says no.

Then quote where the EEOC restricts speech. You can't, because it doesn't. It protects against discrimination, which I've already told you I've never been against. You conflating the two just illustrates your ignorance.

And you are a known bigot on this site and your arguments here prove that. I guess I should also congratulate you on your consistency.

Again, that's your own ignorance speaking. Otherwise, prove it. Just because you share company with many ignorant people here doesn't mean that you could actually show evidence of bigotry in any of my posts. No doubt, you can twist things up, with your own mental gymnastics, to think they say whatever you want them to, as you've shown here. That doesn't make it so. Too bad reality doesn't seem to impinge upon your reason.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, you're just ignorant of the facts.

and yet you get so many wrong.

Rittenhouse tried to stay on the scene of the first shooting before being chased away,

yeah to kill more people

and tried to turn himself in to police immediately after the next two.

and with his white privalege they didn't do shit. so much for your argument cops aren't racist

The police reacted to the greater threat, a mob attacking one man (one with a skateboard and one of them holding a gun, mind you).

no this facist thug was the bigger threat.

Rittenhouse works in Kenosha,

doubtful

the gun never crossed state lines, and Wisconsin law allows him to open carry

if he is an adult it does. you have to be 18 to possess a long arm in both il and wi.[/QUOTE] you got almost everything wrong

​

So aside from him technically violating curfew (tacitly approved of by the police), which was obviously enacted to stop vandalism from those equally in violation of curfew, you seem to be completely ignorant of what actually happened. He wouldn't have had to shoot anyone if they hadn't been chasing and physically assaulting him.

he shot someone before they chased him to fascist potato, the whole reason he was being chased was because he nurdered someone.

But I know you Aussies don't understand self-defense any more than you understand freedom of speech.

says the guy who thinks murder is self defense. guess what brandishing a long arm that it is illegal for you to carry is a threat. why is it thugs like you only think racists and fascists have the right to self defense and never their victims?