Seattle: Husband and wife involved in 2017 DGU on trial

[RevolverRob]

I have no truck with Antifa, but please don't think that I equate both sides. I remember what happened in Greensboro forty years ago.

Interestingly enough, though, the Feds held that only the non-CWP individual killed was the one the KKK was responsible for (in a civil rights trial). They basically said since both sides knew the other would show up prepared for violence, that there wasn’t a clear rights violation when they engaged each other.

It’s an interesting thought. Setting aside state laws, basically the Feds said if you want to show up and mutually kill each other, we’re fine with that. But don’t kill people not formally part of either group that plans violence on the other. And you have to both be prepared and planning violence.

Anyways - back to the topic at hand. This case does make an interesting public litmus for both Antifa and Self-Defense.

On the one hand, given the proclivities of Antifa protesters to be violent, going armed makes logical sense. On the other, planning to run your mouth and engage directly you start to run against the line of “reasonable” actions.

[JAD]

At what point do we say to ourselves we will stop going places because we are afraid of bad people? Not saying going to be confrontational. What if I wanted to hear Ben Shapiro speak at a conservative event? Should I just stay home because of fear of protesters left wing fascists? Do I not carry as I normally do because of leftest judges?

He’s on YouTube. I’m a subscriber.

[CWM11B]

It's not so much the feds are "alright" with killing each other in the streets as it was found, as a point of law, that the deaths of the CWP guys were not civil rights violations for the purpose of that particular trial.
My bottom line in all of this is not to go looking for, or asking for, trouble. If you do, then be prepared to face the consequences. If trouble comes, it is not going to be of my making. It is no longer my duty to seek out troublemakers, so I dont.

[0ddl0t]

Shitshow aside, I think the legal intricacies will make this an interesting case. Seems like the state shouldn't have any trouble showing the guy intended to commit violent acts at an event where violent acts are known to happen, but I didn't read anything to suggest the wife intended to participate. It is also interesting also that the "victim" refuses to testify.

[RevolverRob]

It's not so much the feds are "alright" with killing each other in the streets as it was found, as a point of law, that the deaths of the CWP guys were not civil rights violations for the purpose of that particular trial.

It’s true that what I wrote before is an over simplification. To be fair, the Feds don’t “care” about murder unless it is relevant to a Federal case or it meets the definition of Capital murder. By that, I mean murder/assault/etc are crimes prosecuted at the state level and not the primary jurisdiction of the Fed.

But we can still look at the precedent there and understand that though political beliefs/affiliations are constitutionally protected, violence between the two is not. That’s not a surprise, but it is important. Because at the end of the day - this does not mean one group has precedence over the other as a protected class.

This should give us pause to ask why is the Antifa protester who attempted to stab this guy also not on trial for assault with a deadly weapon? He too showed up prepared and looking for a fight. They both got what they wanted. At the end of the day, you have to charge both with their crimes if we want a fair and balanced justice system.

I think that’s probably the biggest beef folks have with this. It appears to favor certain groups over another. Perhaps I missed it, but it appears like the dude with the knife is the “victim” as opposed to a “consenting party” to the violence.

My bottom line in all of this is not to go looking for, or asking for, trouble. If you do, then be prepared to face the consequences. If trouble comes, it is not going to be of my making. It is no longer my duty to seek out troublemakers, so I dont.

Absolutely in agreement here. “Don’t start none, there won’t be none.” Was a phrase I heard a lot growing up, as advice for avoiding trouble.

[CWM11B]

@RevolverRob
Pretty much concur. Let's have a beer.

[blues]

To be fair, the Feds don’t “care” about murder unless it is relevant to a Federal case or it meets the definition of Capital murder. By that, I mean murder/assault/etc are crimes prosecuted at the state level and not the primary jurisdiction of the Fed.

I'm tempted to advise you to stay in your lane, Rob, just as most feds would probably stay out of attempting to run your lab. As in most things, the truth is somewhat more complicated than the broad brush approach reveals. (I know you meant no harm and therefore my comment is made without animus.)

[Borderland]

Quoting myself to clarify: I don't think any good can come out of fighting in the streets, just to fight in the streets. I'm just saying that I know a couple of people whom I think well of that fight in the streets sometimes.

One of my close relatives likes a good fight also. On one occasion he was involved in an altercation where a firearm was involved. Although nobody was injured he did 5 years in prison because he discharged a firearm.

I guess one has to ask the question. Is it worth it to carry a weapon to a riot?

I hope these people have enough good sense to leave the firearms at home.

[BehindBlueI's]

While I wouldn’t personally do what they did...

What makes this shoot “bad”? Choosing to go to a place where there is a stronger likelihood of violence? Choosing to go to that place armed?

We are starting to sound like those that say that women who go to dark places dress scantily are “asking”
To be raped.

There’s a difference between a series of bad choices and going out looking for trouble.

Did you read the facts of the case, or even this thread? Because, at least according to the prosecutor's narrative "going out looking for trouble" is exactly what they did.

If anybody wants to read the charging information: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/defa...-v-hokoana.pdf

“…this shooting was not an impulsive act done in a moment of fear. The evidence presented…demonstrates that the defendants went to the event at the UW campus with the intent to provoke altercations with protesters…the defendants created a situation designed to allow Elizabeth Hokoana to shoot the victim in the middle of an extremely crowded event under the guise of defending herself or her husband.”

Note the witness statements and how is own social media posts are used to further that narrative.

[BehindBlueI's]

Like my reply to Mitch. He went unarmed when it sounds like he could have strapped up. Was he really looking for deadly violence? I think not.

If we take his social media posts at face value, he was certainly looking for trouble.

As other LEO's have stated, having the female carry the gun is common among certain populations who routinely engage in violence and for several reasons.

At what point do we say to ourselves we will stop going places because we are afraid of bad people? Not saying going to be confrontational.

If we're saying "not going to be confrontational" then it's irrelevant to this thread, again assuming the facts match what has been reported. Personally, I'm not "afraid of bad people" as much as I value my time. I don't care to go through the whole shooting aftermath yet again, particularly if it's easily avoided by not going where stupid people are doing stupid things. Unless I'm being paid to be there and have the time, talent, and treasure of a gov't entity behind me if I do have to get involved, I'm not going to see the show. Same as I'm not "afraid" of bars, but you won't find me inside one. Risk/reward scale is not tilted in my favor. Your metrics may vary, and that's fine. As long as you're up to dealing with the consequences do whatever you like.