Wrong. Mall guy who shot up the prankster faggot got acquitted on self defense grounds because he felt threatened. Nick was on his property, felt threatened and acted in self defense. Of course, the jury would need to agree with his position just like they did with the mall guy.
Again, this was not somebody. It was not a random person, but a woman(?) who clearly was there to make trouble. You are completely ignoring the context and circumstances. It was not a delivery guy, a scout girl or the Jehovah witness. The court and jury would need to take into account how the person got his address (doxxing) and what was her intent (her tweets indicate harassment).
The night of the long Dildos has begun, Groypers will be sodomized on sight.
The only tittle bitches are the "prankster" faggot and the kikes who harass people for attention.
And? She wasn't armed, whether she intended to do him bodily harm or not is unknowable, and this is far from the first time Fuentes has flown off the handle when he thought he had the advantage; throwing a milkshake at somebody at a burger joint while surrounded by security, conent spraying a dumpy yenta for making criminal threats of ringing his doorbell on xitter. Not castle doctrining the strapping young lad with the nitro though.
You can't punish them by giving them what they want.
So... Nick Fuentes.
Yet another false equivalency on top of confusing two different states self defense laws. While he was acquitted of the main charge, he was still incarcerated for 8 months and founded guilty of unlawful discharge of a weapon in an occupied building (which he served during his incarceration) along with being revoked of concealed carry permit. Also, Alan Colie was in a public place, he had repeatedly warned the prankster Tanner Cook to back away along with informing that he'll call the cops if he kept pursuing. Cook was taller than Colie, kept getting directly into his face and Colie didn't have a place to retreat. Fuentes was taller than that lady and was behind the closed door of his house.
He wants a harem, let's give it to him.
I think he wants to be the one with the harem, he probably unironically believes topping isn't gay.
But how do you know that? The lady doesn't have a sign on her head with her twitter handle. There is literally no indication whatsoever that she was there to cause trouble, because she didn't even get to say anything other than "Hi". It doesn't matter what her twitter activity, doxing, etc. was before she showed up to his house, only what Nick knew at the time. And what indication did he have that she was one of the main people posting his dox? She could have been anyone for all he knew.
She probably posted pictures on social media and he recognized her from those.
Did he even see her before he opened the door? He had the spray out before the door was even all the way open, and I didn't see windows on his door.
What Nick did wouldn't fly even in Texas which has one of if not the strongest castle doctrines in the country as well as robust SYG, and where someone is sometimes entitled to use force, sometimes even deadly force, in the protection of property. There's no indication that bitch had any intention whatsoever of destroying any property.
For the zillionth time, it's not up to her. It's up to the prosecutor.
So what? He didn't lure her to his house and ambushed her. She willingly went to his house after he got doxxed to harass/harm him. After the self defense act, he didn't go out and curb stumped her but retreated inside his home. He can claim the he was protecting his property and himself with the intent to repel the person from it.
And I suppose stealing her phone was also for his own protection?
Because she went to his house within 24 hours of him getting doxxed. Nick knew he got doxxed and acted in preemptive self-defense.
Yes. The phone footage that the person took without Nicks permission would be considered doxxing as well as it shows his home, so he took it hoping the footage would not be released.
Please stop baiting, you can't be this retarded.
