Goodbye Freedom of Speech

The trial started about two weeks ago, and the jury of nine men and three women will soon decide if they believe Scarsella acted in self-defense. There are no African-Americans on the jury.

The prosecutor said Scarsella and his friends went to the protest to cause trouble and that he had “an obsession with shooting black people” as well as “a deep core of racial hatred.”

In the closing arguments for the defense, the attorney said nothing should matter in the jury’s decision outside of the night of the shooting and the events directly leading up to the shooting.

The defense argued that an angry crowd kept punching and pursuing Scarsella and his friend and that Scarsella shot several times because he feared for his life.

The jury is slated to start deliberating Wednesday morning.

In one message, Hennepin County prosecutors say, the 23-year-old asked a friend to join him at target practice "for when we have to shoot black guys."

>When he discussed buying a new gun — the one he would eventually use on the night in question — he complained that another firearm he owned "was not killing brown people dead enough."

"Once again you are texting about using a [gun] to kill black people?" Hawley asked.

"That's what we were talking about, yeah."

When Hawley asked if his texts were "just words," Scarsella said yes and that they didn't mean anything to him.

"So you can bandy around saying the N-word and it doesn't mean anything to you?" Hawley asked.

"I believe in freedom of speech," he responded.

He also said he was "ignorant" about the issues people of color face.

"I think that led me to the texts I sent," he said.

He described other texts as jokes "not meant to be taken seriously."

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079
oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/01/medford_man_arrested_after_pos.html
kare11.com/news/crime/scarsella-relives-shooting-of-protesters/394551228
kstp.com/news/closing-arguments-begin-in-trial-of-man-accused-of-shooting-protestors-jamar-clark-minneapolis/4386040/
liveleak.com/view?i=ec8_1448421489&comments=1
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>"So you can bandy around saying the N-word and it doesn't mean anything to you?"

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

It means only what you want it to mean. If you're a pussy Negro that can't handle mean words, you belong as a slave, because you are one.

>"So you can bandy around saying the N-word and it doesn't mean anything to you?"

"I'm an aspiring rapper. We all use it"

it just sounds like a couple of shitposters getting in over their heads

they good boys

i hope they get off and the dindus fucking riot and get shot again.

Seems more like a clear cut case of self defense.
The niggers shouldn't have attacked them in the first place.
There's no excusing that and there's no good reason to punish someone for defending their own life.

>taking the stand in your own defense
It's over, the defendant is finished. I'm a #ProsecutionMissile now.

It's up to the jury now. Why does this happen? Why were his texts taken into account when they were sent months before and have nothing to do with the incident in question?

lol little dick white boy going to JAIL ;)

Because black people have to have their special treatment since they'll throw a fucking tantrum because a racist was allowed to kill a worthless nigger.

state of mind and motivation.

if you go into a situation intending to provoke people with the desire to try to create an excuse to shoot them it doesn't really count.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words


since they can't argue with any reliability what they were actually doing that night, they can only argue that they were predisposed to go there and use "fighting words", and that that's sufficient reason to believe beyond reasonable doubt that they would not go there unless they were going to use "fighting words".

Wait. This guy didn't even kill anyone?

>After Scarsella took a punch to the cheek, the four started walking away from the crowd when Gustavsson got punched. Scarsella said he picked him up by the coat and kept walking north up Morgan Avenue. Scarsella said they saw a group of five to seven protesters break off and come after them.

>Scarsella said he told them to get back "20 or 30 times." But he said the group continued to yell at them, threatening to beat them. "One said, 'White boy, you're going to die,'" Scarsella testified.

>About a block from where the confrontation started, he said he saw a man closest to him pull out what he believed was a weapon. Scarsella pulled out his gun and opened fire.

This was a block away from the protest into the group that followed him back to his car. Every site I go to says the guy "Opened fire into the crowd." The crowd being the group that followed him back to his car a block away threatening to kill him. Not the protest crowd. And I don't see any talk of murder charges so I guess he just injured some din dus.

>Why were his texts taken into account when they were sent months before and have nothing to do with the incident in question?
because they are biased against Whites and evil

The text messages should not even be used as evidence. They couldn't use trayvon's phone during zim zam's trial. Hell they couldn't really even point out trayvon's history unless the prosecution brought it up

It's not self defense if you start it.

The prosecution has a good case that he wanted to shoot black people, so he deliberately went to a protest, brought a gun with intent to use it, and deliberately acted suspicious to get people to punch him first so that he could claim self defense.

Note that he's being charged with Riot, not attempted murder.

> The prosecutor said Scarsella and his friends went to the protest to cause trouble and that he had “an obsession with shooting black people” as well as “a deep core of racial hatred.”

Which is completely irrelevant if you're attacked by a mob and have to defend your life.

You can be the most racist fuck imaginable and that doesn't rob you of the right to defend your own life.

The argument "you shouldn't have been near a BLM protest because that would incite them" isn't exactly a great defense of the actions of the black crowd.

Read
And tell me they started it.

You know I could get behind this if he opened fire immediately after being punched. But they tried to leave but were followed. And a confrontation was forced.

>There are no African-Americans on the jury.
Blacks did this

But they can and did. You're just getting all of your news through shit hole "news" that literally omitted the entire defense and bitched there weren't any black people on the jury.

Until the court records are available you won't hear the defense's side.

>There are no African-Americans on the jury.
dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1079

HAH!
What a pussy.
Doesn't even have the balls to hold true to his convictions. "OH PLEASE DON'T PROSECUTE ME THEY WERE JUST JOKES".

I don't even hate black people. But if I did I wouldn't fucking start acting like a good tolerant liberal the second the shit comes back at me.

Hope he gets life just for having no backbone.

There is actually no direct evidence to prove they went there with intent to harm. Literally 0. They have a video from a few days before where they memed on camera and some racist texts, but they have no direct evidence of what you claim. Their entire case hinges on trying to convince the jury he's a no good racist and that's literally it.

Their first witness they called, Julio, killed their case so much that the prosecution brought up his tour of duty in Iraq to try to label him "mentally unstable" as an attempt to discredit his testimony. Then they spent the next week and a half calling over a dozen witnesses, a few of which admitted to smoking weed and drinking liquor before chasing the guys down.

So not only is there no evidence of intent to harm, they have established a clear cut case of self defense with Minnesota's dumb "duty to retreat" completely satisfied.

the prosecution's argument is basically: "he's racist therefore he's guilty", and "he didn't retreat far enough before opening fire". the niggers punched them and then chased them a block with them telling them to back off before they blocked them in and they opened fire. i'm pretty sure they'll get away with it unless the jury is full of sjws

Easily dismissed. The protest was outside of a police station.

"I was trying to walk away!" could just as easily mean in reality he was trying to lure them away so he could shoot them and escape (After the shooting, he fled from the crime scene, instead of going to the police station, literally across the street where an army of cops were).

If he was actually worried, he should have walked towards the cops, not away from them.

Through the black lives matter protestors after having just shot a few of them?

When you are innocent, you wait, you don't flee.

Zimmerman waited, OJ started a police chase.

And again, if he wanted to get away from them, he shouldn't have gone down a dark street away from police protection, unless of course he was planning to get a chance to use his gun.

Bump

Scarsella's legal team contends angry demonstrators, already enflamed by the shooting of Jamar Clark, turned on the group and threatened to attack.

>They say their client opened fire only as he retreated, when he saw someone pull out a shiny metal object that he thought was a knife.

>Five men were seriously injured in the shooting.

In their closing arguments, prosecutors pointed out that no knives or weapons were ever recovered from the shooting victims.

So he sees one knife and shoots five people? That doesn't make any sense for self-defense.

Info from thread

How do you prove that? The prosecution's word is not evidence. It seems you lack the fundamental notions of what evidence is.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest what you are saying is what occured. There is evidence that a bunch of niggers drank and smoked weed before assaulting a bunch of white guys.

All you gotta do is convince a jury.

And if the jury can't think of a single legitimate reason he tried to evade police protection, and then flee the scene, then he's gonna be found guilty.

Makes sense when one guy had already been beaten to the ground with a broken nose and lost teeth and a mob is charging you. You're just assuming a bunch of white boys would just stuck around in a black neighborhood after shooting a bunch of people too. How fucking retarded are you?

Luckily I actually know the details of the case and you're not the jury so your opinion is pointless.

How about being scared, white, and in a black neighborhood that is know to be extremely hostile?

The jury isn't made up of retards on Sup Forums that don't know the area this they aren't ignorant of the variables.

>to get people to punch him first
Way to BTFO of your own case, McCoy

Whole bunch of shilling ITT.
>Hurddurrr why didn't he just let them assault him and wait for the cops to help.
>OMG HOW COULD HE SPRAY N PRAY ON A PACK OF DINDUS THAT WERE TRYING TO PEACEFULLY PROTEST HIS FACE???

You have to go back. Then gas yourself.

Oh also, there is clear video of them walking away without turning to engage the protesters further. They were then followed, the gap was closed, then they were attacked.

If you scared and white, why would you retreat away from the police, deeper into the black neighborhood?

>HAH!
>What a pussy.
>Doesn't even have the balls to hold true to his convictions. "OH PLEASE DON'T PROSECUTE ME THEY WERE JUST JOKES".

They are just jokes.

>mfw I finally get to see the transcripts to read how they explained what loli is to the court

He "THOUGHT" he saw a knife.
He FIRED without thinking.
No Weapon was ever found.
He shot 5 different people.
He repeatedly talked about getting black people to chimp out so he could shoot them.
That is exactly what he did.

Your snowflake is going to prison.

They were going to their car two blocks away, they aren't legally obligated to file a report for assault, they fulfilled gay ass Minnesota's duty to run for your life law, KYS.

So then they couldn't have felt very threatened if they were going to casually walk back two blocks to their car.

I've been following this story somewhat, but not too sure how your courts work. Can we expect a verdict today or will it take the jury a few days for this?

Yes five innocent baby angels who thought it was justifies to chase him from the scene while throwing punches and threats. It isn't one knife per nigger shot you know, in most reasonable states you are allowed to open fire on aggressors

>He "THOUGHT" he saw a knife.
His concern is still valid

>He FIRED without thinking.
He thought his life was in danger

>No Weapon was ever found.
"Ay homeboy toss yo knife away before the police get here"
>He shot 5 different people.
He was getting chased by 7

>He repeatedly talked about getting black people to chimp out so he could shoot them.
Source?
>That is exactly what he did.
No

They were running you moron. Why don't you get the BBC out of your mouth and read something related to the case

If they were so scared they had to run, why did they run two blocks in an unfamiliar neighborhood to their car, instead of across the well lit street to the police line?

oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/01/medford_man_arrested_after_pos.html
Americans please explain to me how this is legal? I would expect this to happen in Europe, but in the USA land of the free to get aressted and chraged with 5 diffrent charges for putting up a fucking poster? What is going on?

Probably because they knew the media would spin it as FIVE ASIAN NEONAZIS THREATEN BLM BITCHFEST and just had enough after getting unjustifiably assaulted?

So then they weren't actually afraid for their lives, just afraid of a CNN headline?

>Source
kare11.com/news/crime/scarsella-relives-shooting-of-protesters/394551228

When it came time for cross-examination, the prosecution aggressively questioned Scarsella on his prior racist text messages. In several of them, he used the N-word and joked about shooting or killing black people.

One text, written long before the protest said, "And stars and bars grips on your 1911. So that way you can tempt a chimp to chimp out then you get to shoot him.”

Assistant County Attorney Judith Hawley asked Scarsella, "Does this text reference provoking a black person so that you can shoot him?"

Scarsella answered, "Yes."

The threat warranting fire emerged when they continued to follow and assault them while making threats upon their lives.

What are they supposed to do at that point, run back to the cops while being smashed in the head or worse?

It's hilarious to ne you're unironically defending people who think assault is an ok form of communicating disagreement as innocent victims.

kstp.com/news/closing-arguments-begin-in-trial-of-man-accused-of-shooting-protestors-jamar-clark-minneapolis/4386040/
On the night of the protest, Scarsella and the three other men he was with stood by a fence at the protest. When asked by the defense, why they stopped and stood at the fence, Scarsella said, "I don't really know."

Scarsella said, during Monday’s testimony, the following in court on Monday during direct examination:

"Protesters came close to us and try to intimidate us. At this point I was really scared and I just wanted to leave, that's all. A protester punched my friend in the face. I helped him up. We crossed the street and tried to get away. I told the protesters get back and stay back. But five to seven of them followed us. They were very angry. I could tell by their voices. Some of them were yelling to each other that they thought we were the KKK. I told them to get back. At the time I was at a loss. I couldn't figure out why these people wouldn't leave us alone. They asked us to take off our masks. We did, and I couldn't figure out what else they wanted. They were yelling at each other saying they wanted to beat our (expletive). I heard one of them say white boy you're going to die. I saw a shiny object the protester took it out of his pocket with a threatening gesture. I thought it was a knife. So I pulled out my gun and I shot him. At the time I had no idea how many times I fired. I thought it was five or six times. After I shot, I turned and ran away I was mortified I almost didn't understand what happened."

> I saw a shiny object the protester took it out of his pocket with a threatening gesture. I thought it was a knife. So I pulled out my gun and I shot him. At the time I had no idea how many times I fired. I thought it was five or six times. After I shot, I turned and ran away I was mortified I almost didn't understand what happened."
SO HOW DID FIVE PEOPLE GET SHOT?

So let me get your story straight:

The men went to a BLM protest armed with weapons, after having a history of saying they wanted to provoke people into giving them an opportunity to shoot them. While they were at the protest, they were confronted by several people. One of them was punched, and then they reasoned "Well, if we go to the police across the street, we will get a bad news headline about us." So instead of walking across the street, they decided they just had enough and started running away from the police, to their car, which was two blocks away. At some point during the trip, one of them thought they saw a knife, and decided only now (remember, according to you they are fleeing/running already) that there was a real threat, stopped running, puled out a gun and shooting randomly into the crowd. They then continued running away from the police station, got in their car and fled the scene because they didn't legally have to report it.

Congratulations, you just got your client found guilty for having a completely ludicrous story that doesn't even match the facts of the case!

It's hilarious to me you're unironically defending people who think deliberately provoking someone in order to be allowed to get away with shoot them is ok.

>oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/01/medford_man_arrested_after_pos.html

RTFA

"The police department would like to make it clear that Marbury was arrested for defacing others' property with the flyers, not directly for what the flyers contained,"


I'm guessing he put it on private property.

Sorry that was a wall of text I'm not gonna bother to read but it's cute that you wrote all of it to defend being "provoked" as following someone down the street while punching them and threatening to kill them while they are fleeing.

Sorry that was a wall of text I'm not gonna bother to read

You can't unlawfully "provoke" a mob of people to attack you and chase you down the street as you attempt to flee. That's ridiculous.

The mob is guilty of attacking people and were shot during the commission of a crime.

Saying that the mob was provoked is like saying that it's my fault that a person driving too fast rear ended me when I stopped at a stop sign.

Prepare your anus Saiga, you gonna get culturally enriched in prison.

Try telling thisGuy that. Hell write you five pages about how you can knock someone in the head while threatening upon their life and still be an innocent baby angel

Right, so basically someone can run up to you, say they are going to rape your little sister, then when you chase them down to beat their ass, they can shoot you, say you had a knife, and get off from any charges.

Not an argument. Mob approached them, swung unprovoked. You ever even watch the vid?

Their mistake is not reporting the incident to the police and lying. They could have easily gotten away with it with all the footage they have. A black lynch mob in the USA would never stand a chance in court under circumstances where the defendant reported the incident instead trying to hide and lie.

>You ever even watch the vid?
Yes, I also watched lots of other videos, they never show the full story. The video doesn't show what was said prior to the video being started. It just shows a brief moment. Like the Rodney King video, it just showed a beating, it didn't show what lead up to it.

Don't forget they also tried to hide evidence and scrub all their videos off of the internet.

Except the shorter ones (like OP's pic) got saved and reuploaded.

Saigamarine dindu nuffin

If they find him guilty we make angsty posts on the internet.

Retarded bogan

>"So you can bandy around saying the N-word
it's a free country. git gud nigga.

If they are convicted, that means you aren't allowed to defend yourself if you're a racist.

Gotcha so Rodney King was justified too.

>they could just be luring them
the fuck argument is that? i was luring you to punch me and chase me? don't punch and chase.

what did he do? did he kill any niggers? if so i hope thy award him a medal

Yes, the police got off. They proved he was fighting with the police before the attack started.

All this kid can prove is he was a racist that hated black people, so he shows up at a black protest so that he could shoot black people.

Yes

you can't prove the kids provoked the attack. you have 0.

0000000000000000 this much evidence. racists texts are not evidence of inciting violence against yourself.

He said nothing to the protesters before they hit him. They chose of their own volition to follow him, assault him, threaten his life. That they were shot in the process of this does nothing to prove he is culpable in acting outside of self defense.

>SO HOW DID FIVE PEOPLE GET SHOT?
adrenaline dump

user was in over his head, didn't shoot straight

>HE A GOOD BOY
>HE DINDU NUFFIN

Its pathetic how Sup Forums will defend degenerates, so long as their whites

saw the exact same with with Turner

>get attacked
>defend yourself
who did you expect me to defend?

It's pathetic how you live in a western country and cannot into English.

>start fights for no reason other than to satisfy your violent, nigger-like urges

I bet you fantasize about doing this too

Right, and you know every shooter has account for all his shots right?
So he shot a guy he thinks had a knife and hit 4 others, yeah, that's where he's going to get nailed with an assault charge.

evidence they started a fight? oh, no sorry you don't have any because there is none. sorry honey, that's not how the law works. i bet you fantasize about being a faggot.

>start fights

Memeing at a nigger protest is not a violation of the NAP

Assaulting people you disagree with because of actual niggerbrain thought processes is a violation of the NAP and justifies self defense.

And there were only 5 or 6 people following him.

So he shot everyone he could.

They were supposedly /k/ tripfags if the thread there is any indication, so yes you're right.

>They were supposedly /k/ tripfags

Horrible tripfags at that, this shooting is their one redeeming quality

>sorry honey, that's not how the law works.
I guess we'll find out, won't we.

Don't hurt yourself trying to understand why this conduct needs to be policed.

liveleak.com/view?i=ec8_1448421489&comments=1

Don't cry too hard when they are let off and come here to meme about it, Trayvon.

free speech needs to be policed? don't hurt yourself figuring out why your country is such shit.

>On Tuesday, prosecutors told the courtroom Scarsella shot eight times and that they believed he used racial slurs to enrage protesters to pursue him.
kstp.com/news/closing-arguments-begin-in-trial-of-man-accused-of-shooting-protestors-jamar-clark-minneapolis/4386040/

Basically, he has used racial slurs so often, they feel it is reasonable they he continued to use them that night to enrage the protesters into attacking him. After all the texts and videos, I think the jury will buy into this one.

>they believed
Damn. I guess they're going away for life.

is saying a racial slur a crime? is that in the declaration of independence? so you're saying the next time i get my feelings hurt i can beat that person up and if they fight back they were provoking me so they will be arrested for defending themselves?

If you have a mountain of text messages saying that you are going to do that, then yes, you'll be going to jail.