GatewayPundit Journalist Lucian Wintrich Puts woman in headlock sparking melee gets arrested

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I doubt we need anyone to tell white people not to be ashamed of being white. After all white people have been in control for centuries. Messages can easily have undertones disguising themselves as being racially motivated. We've also seen this done at times in the black community.

originally posted by: abago71
a reply to: Tempter

Maybe he identifies as a woman. Then would it be ok?

You win the Internet today.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I doubt we need anyone to tell white people not to be ashamed of being white. After all white people have been in control for centuries. Messages can easily have undertones disguising themselves as being racially motivated. We've also seen this done at times in the black community.

That response doesn't even begin to answer the question and youu know it.

What people are missing here is that in the minds of the protesters, its NOT o.k. to be white.
And they are saying that anyone who says other wise is a Nazi racist. You obviously agree but cant be honest enough to say so.

The corolary to its not o.k. to be white will soon be that as long as POC feel uncomfortable on University Campus, the Universities should sharply decrease the number of whites they admit to te Universities. They probably cant do that but they can encourarge creation of an atmosphere of anxiety among white students.

Have the courage of your conviction.

ITT: Theft of a piece of paper justifies assault

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But I'm standing firm.

Okie dokie.

But, no, legally, she would not have been able to attack him. He didn't "manhandle" her--that's your (and others') hyperbole to coat the actions with malice and more force than was actually applied.

Further, I would say the same about anyone -- man or woman -- who would put their hands on another person -- man or woman -- for anything less than protecting life and limb. ... there is absolutely no justification for using physical force against a person for anything less, and especially when law enforcement/security is present. Period.

Again, you're not speaking from a legal standpoint, here, just a subjective opinion. But your opinion on the matter is not my focus, I care about laws, and CT laws allow someone to stop and detain a thief.

But, I'd love for her to press charges and see how far it goes. In Connecticut, maybe they are just that "progressive" to include pulling on someone's shoulder to get your property back as "assault." The law and court rulings, though, seem to disagree with you:

The leading case appears to be Malley v. Lane, 97 Conn. 133 (1921). The Supreme Court held that a person in whose presence another commits a misdemeanor theft may, without a warrant, arrest or detain the accused until a police officer arrives. An earlier case established the right of the owners of stolen goods, and those acting with the owner's authority, to pursue and arrest the thief without a warrant (Wrexford v. Smith, 2 Root 171 (1795)). In a relatively recent case, a Superior Court judge restated the common law rule that a citizen can make an arrest or prevent the escape of one whom he has observed committing a felony or a misdemeanor (State v. Ghiloni, 35 Conn. Sup. 570 (1978)).

Connecticut Citizen's Arrest -- Standards

And the actual penal code Chapter 951 § 53a-22 (2015):

(f) A private person acting on his or her own account is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; ...

And apparently you aren't reading too closely... or are simply blinded by your own propensities... because, yes, there are plenty of folks in here not just defending violence, but violence against women specifically.

And maybe you didn't read my comment too closely, as I stated (and purposefully used the words that I did...emphasis added):

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
...and nobody that I've read has said that he should have violently assaulted her...or that any man should violently assault a woman (or man) for taking their printed speech.

See, comment is that I haven't read anyone advocating for a violent assault against her, OR arguing for violent assault against anyone for taking a printed speech. You chose to inflate that into something that it's not, which is a direct reflection on your own reading comprehension. Let's not cast the first stone when you are committing the sin.

To break it down even more simply: I was talking about violent assault against the woman in the video AND concerning the specific instance of theft of a speech.

I will give you this much: I learned from the best. Most people haven't been so blessed. My dad was a big bear of a man -- six-and-a-half-feet tall and 250 pounds -- who knew and taught self-defense. He could break a man in two with his bare hands. But he wouldn't. He knew that violence and lethal force was always -- ALWAYS -- the last resort.

Neat. I train, too, by someone in the direct lineage of Bruce Lee (trained with the late Sigung Richard Bustillo) for JKD, under the teachings of Ran Nakash for Krav Maga, under the late SGM Cacoy Canete for Eskrima, under Professor Jak Othman for Pencak Silat, and many others for the Kempo and Combative Jujitsu that he teaches, and one of the biggest things that my Sifu and other instructors teach is that, first and foremost, you always try toavoid the fight. That said, you also don't just let someone walk all over you and take your property without at least attempting to get it back--if at that point, it becomes an issue of violence, you're correct, he can handle that with the security present.

I'm a foot shorter than your father, but I can also inflict great damage on people. But you're correct in your following point: I would not have gone up against him, because it's ignorant to do so willingly when the odds are that you have the deck stacked against you from the start. That doesn't make the speaker a coward for attempting to get his speech back from a woman smaller than him in an obvious hostile room, though.

Also, "learned from the best" is subjective.

Here's the proof in the pudding: I don't believe for a second that anyone here advocating violence against this woman or any woman would dare to go after my dad if he had done the same thing. That dude -- and everyone defending him -- would have been quaking in their boots at the very thought and cowering like a mutt with tail between the legs. He only did what he did because he thought he could get away with it... what a badass... Ooooh...

Yes, he's such a coward for attempting to take back his property in the midst of a hostile crowd while basically surrounded on all sides by that same crowd. You sure assessed that situation with the utmost clarity.

The right to one's property IS an important thing, as is the legal ability in Connecticut to regain such property if stolen or pursue and detain the thief. The fact that he was arrested for trying to do just that without the apparent intent to inflict harm on the girl (he didn't attack her, so just stop with that BS narrative) is a sad reflection of where we've come in support of doing the appropriate thing in the eyes of the law.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: DanDanDat

I'm not going to justify this young women for grabbing his hate speech off the podium, but I'm certainly not going to have sympathy for someone who wants to spread racial hate! If a member or sympathizer for ISIS were giving a speech and was justifying their beliefs to an audience, do you think members of the audience would just sit there and allow that hate speech to recruit additional members to their twisted ideology? Most likely than not, you would have seen more than just one person approaching the podium and it wouldn't surprise me if the guy would be beaten! Both ideas preach hate and both are guilty of terrorism and killing innocent people. Sure, one is more extreme than the other, but the hate message is the same.

The adult response for the speaker should have been to get on his microphone and tell the security police to "stop that young women she's taken my notes!" I have no sympathy for the speaker. He knew he was going into a lions den when his request to speak was granted. It's not like this is the first time hate speeches like this ended up in violence.

If a member of IS where speaking at the podeam I would again hope the opposition would act like adults and not insufferable children.

The actions of this woman, and those of the other protesters, does more to recruit new members to the podium guys cause than his arguments ever could. Their actions justify the podium guys arguments in the minds of fence sitters and thats the sad part about this situation. It's meaningless to lemeant over a Nazi being a Nazi, it's like complaining about water being wet. It is however extremely unhelpful to play right into a Nazi's hansds by acting in the very way he wants you to act. These people are giving the Nazi way to much power ... it's an unforced error on their part.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Quite the pretzel you're twisting yourself into there as you try to excuse the inexcusable.

As I said, I don't believe for one minute that weaselly coward would have taken one step towards my dad to retrieve his papers. He may have asked/demanded the papers back (but I doubt it), but probably would have called on the proper authorities to do what is necessary and proper. So his actions had nothing to do with what was necessary and proper in the situation. He was a bully and a coward who thinks might makes right.... except I'll betcha when the other person is mightier. Much like you said. Pretty stupid to start a fight with someone bigger and badder than you... but if his life and/or limb were truly in danger, he would simply fight that much harder and fiercer because HE HAS TO. But he didn't have to. And that's the difference.

Further, if laws are not written in the right way for the right reason, then the law is simply more bullying and also all about might making right. So wave those "laws" all you want. Some critters putting words to paper and enforcing those words at the point of a gun isn't any better -- it's worse, in fact.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the legal arena. To the best of my knowledge, he did not use words or non-violent means first. He grabbed her shoulder with force and the intent to impede her freedom of movement -- from behind! At that point, since he had no right to even touch her much less grab her, she had every reason to fear what else he might do, and to therefore use force to protect and defend herself. There is absolutely no justification for what she did; but neither is there any justification for what this man did, or anyone using physical force -- violence -- except when necessary to protect life and limb. Taking those papers put no one's well-being or life in jeopardy.

Well I think it was a fit up. They had security staff there, why didn't they stop the woman from taking his paper in the first instance ,and the quickness of the police presence smacks of collusion in disrupting his presentation.
I'm surprised with the hoo ha in the US at the moment that the woman didn't shout sexual assault being he was a man and she was a woman and "he touched her".
And to all the women out there if you want equality and start acting stupid expect a backlash, you can't have it both ways. You can't be treated like a lady, with decorum and politeness, (Yes if you act like a lady) but if you act like a troll you will be treated like one.

Emotional people do emotional things.
Rational people do rational things.

Invention of a solar-powered instant popcorn popper that fits in a backpack sounds like I would buy that for a dollar.
Can't say I would start wearing a backpack though.

that's a not a headlock

in martial arts a proper headlock is called a guillotine

that's not even remotely close to an assault he simply grabbed her to reach around her and take his stuff back

stop over reacting to everything



This is what a headlock looks like and how it's applied. When done properly you can render someone unconscious in as fast as 3 seconds.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Quite the pretzel you're twisting yourself into there as you try to excuse the inexcusable.

If you say so.

Of course, I've been absolutely consistent it what I've said: His response was legal, and his "force" was appropriate. I even provided legal citation and the actual penal code that backs it up--just because you don't like it or agree with the law doesn't mean that it's not applicable.

Everything else is just basically fluff that you brought into the discussion, to which I only responded because how you used it really wasn't making any sense in the eyes of what actually happened. I played the game, but I'm done with that.


But you do understand that consistently and repeatedly calling him a coward for his actions reflects poorly on your assessment of the entirety of the situation. But, I've already noted that once...twice is it for me.

Further, if laws are not written in the right way for the right reason, then the law is simply more bullying and also all about might making right. So wave those "laws" all you want. Some critters putting words to paper and enforcing those words at the point of a gun isn't any better -- it's worse, in fact.

A point of what gun? These types of laws don't get enforced with a gun, they are allowances that apply to all citizens in how they can respond to someone breaking the law. Stop with the hyperbole.

But the point still remains, your subjective opinion, on the incident AND the laws, is irrelevant to reality and my argument.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the legal arena. To the best of my knowledge, he did not use words or non-violent means first. He grabbed her shoulder with force and the intent to impede her freedom of movement -- from behind! At that point, since he had no right to even touch her much less grab her, she had every reason to fear what else he might do, and to therefore use force to protect and defend herself. There is absolutely no justification for what she did; but neither is there any justification for what this man did, or anyone using physical force -- violence -- except when necessary to protect life and limb. Taking those papers put no one's well-being or life in jeopardy.

NO! NOT FROM...*gasp*...BEHIND!!!

I would argue that you would do yourself well to refrain from discussing what the speaker was legally able to do at this point. It is painfully obvious that you don't understand the laws, or you refuse to accept them--in either scenario, that doesn't negate the law itself nor his legal right to do what he did.

Again, your subjectivity is clouding your assessment of this incident. I could sit here all day and argue if I think what he did was morally just or not, but that is irrelevant to my points. So, your subjective opinion and moral objectives aside, you have nothing to stand on in your argument.

But like I said, I do agree that it will be interesting to see how the courts, if it makes it there, handles this incident. At least you admit that there's no justification for her actions--she should be brought up on charges, too, if she hasn't been already.

I will opine this, though: I tend to agree that this came across as a set-up by the security and, by extension, the university, judging on the initial response of the security detail that was there.

a reply to: toysforadults

Stop with your reality and logic--too many in this thread don't want to hear it; they prefer hyperbole.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No, not at all. But when you are a woman (or anyone else for that matter) and you want to interject yourself into a situation that may get physical, such as a protest, you are fair game.

He was reaching for his stuff. She did not give it to him. Both are childish in this situation but there is no headlock or assault.

Why is it that the 'left' seems ok with suppressing any type of speech they do not agree with?

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
UCONN had what appeared to be a small get together for what was billed as a talk about "identity politics".

"It's OK to be White" was the technical name of his speech.

"Journalist"?...more like Dufus.

What I saw was a person stole from him, so he grabbed the person and pulled her back in an effort to get his property back. I didn't see anything viciously violent; just a rough grabbing and pulling back.

I'm by no means a conservative, and I don't really like this squirrelly Wintrich guy, but I am a realist -- and I think the reality of it is that this guy reacted like anyone would to having something taken away from them, and that reaction, while a bit rough, was not violent enough to cause any physical harm.

a reply to: DanDanDat

i just saw a video of a pee wee herman looking troll sit there like a terrible comedian being heckled and refusing to leave the stage. his freedom of speech was merely an attempt to troll a crowd he knew did not want to and would heckle his message. he wanted to create the melee so he could point his fingers and say "the left is anti free speech" . of course that lady should not have taken his paper and both parties were wrong in this instance but pee wee was lucky that was the least of the damage he instigated, that crowd looks like it was ready to cause some serious trouble and believe me these types of situations will increase especially if trolls like pee wee continue to insist on speaking in front of crowds that do not approve of his incendiary troll message.

So laws should only be followed depending on the situation, good to know.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

So, your theory is that he only came to give that speech to piss people off and therefore, they were perfectly justified to prevent him from speaking and take his stuff?

My, I will have to tell my son to tell his classmates that so they can use it the next time the teacher tries to teach them something they don't want to learn.

"See, honey, it's like this. She is only trying to teach you that stuff you don't like because she wants to piss you kids off, so you are all perfectly justified to stop acting like well behaved children and riot and take her stuff to prevent her from teaching you that lesson ..."

Yeah, when the cop comes to tell me my kid has been tasered and hand-cuffed for misbehaving in school, I'll come ask you what happened.

Violent Alt-Light, Gangs? Thugs? domestic Terrorists? are you going to Disavow? who will Disavow?. MUH ANTIFA!!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
ITT: Theft of a piece of paper justifies assault

What would happen if someone grabbed a cop that took a piece of paper from behind like that? My guess is they would be arrested for assault.