> According to video captured by TheBlaze's Elijah Schaffer, violent protesters descended on the man after he chased looters with a large sword. The man did not, however, attack the looters.
In my world, "chasing someone with a large sword" sounds like initiating a fight, no? Is the complaint that... he lost it? Because it seems clear that he started it.
A meta point: this is why you need to stay away from sites like The Blaze. The guy with the lethal weapon was "beaten", but it's the protestors who were "violent".
I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no sword. Nor would you like to protect your property from looters unarmed.
The article doesn't allege he was hit with a rock unbidden though. It says he was attacked after "chasing" "looters" with a sword. I'm sorry, but at that point combat has been engaged. Every 2A advocate here would agree that anyone in that circumstances would be entitled to stand their ground and fight back. And apparently they did.
So if looters get shot, that's OK in your book as well? Or, if a store owner catches a looter, would it be OK to "engage combat" and bash their head in with a rock? Best I can tell he was just chasing them away, he hasn't done harm to anybody.
If I see someone chasing another down with a quote, "large sword", then they turn and start running at me with this sword, I am sure that in that moment I would be afraid for my life. I think many if not most agree deadly force can be used in direct defense of your own life.
