Why the Activist Shot While Protesting Milo Yiannopoulos Doesn't Want His Attacker to Go to Jail


1. UW needs to ban the Hokoanas from Campus permanently. Yesterday.
2. The City should file Man 1 charges, at a minimum. When there are squads of riot police within yards of you, you are not in immanent danger. What the victim wants is irrelevant; she has no business possessing a firearm ever again, and only the courts can make that happen. He can argue for leniency at her sentencing.
.....Sasha said:

“I’m not the one who did that harm. SPD, UWPD, the administration, they’re the ones that need to see that. I’m tired of carrying this by myself. I want people to see. I want them to see what right-wing violence looks like. I want the College Republicans to see what happens at their event that they insisted upon having.”

Right. "I want the College Republicans to see what happens at their event that they insisted upon having."

Rs wanted to be able to speak exercise their right to speak freely but people protested...if there is anyone plausibly guilty (beyond the shooter, obviously) it was the protestors who tried to block people from attending.
You have to be dumb as a rock not to see the hypocrisy of protesting against free speech.
Harassment isn't free speech. Milo was a big part of Gamergate, and loves to use publicity in order to set the internet hate machine off on innocent people.
@6 Wait. Milo was part of Gamergate?

More importantly, what's Gamergate?

And for the record, harassment is a crime. Saying things other's don't like most definitely is not.
I'd venture to guess that everyone at that event acted foolishly.
So, an older, bald white dude - ahem, "anti-fascist" & self admitted anarchist with a nosering, ear studs and combat boots, along with his alias "Hex," goes to protest a (crazy) conservative speaker.

A conservative, younger Asian couple go to hear the (crazy) conservative speaker and start to get roughed up by the agitators, including "Hex." The wife shoots to protect her husband from getting further attacked. According to the Seattle Times, the detectives have video evidence proving this too:

"UW detectives, along with a private technician, have been examining videos of the incident from various sources. Analysis of video appeared to show Marc Hokoana turning away from Dukes while his wife’s arms were in an extended position, the second law-enforcement source said. Gordon said the video shows Marc Hokoana in a “position of retreating” and Dukes in a “position of advancing.”"

According to State Law & the apparent evidence, it appears the Hokoanas have nothing to worry about - and "Hex" should rethink his protesting and anarchist methods - especially when it comes to trying to beat up a smaller, younger Asian guy and his wife.

Sure, quote the Hokoana's attorneys' versions of events as if it's neutral.

What actually happened, if you were to actually watch the footage, is Marc Hokoana blasted an unidentified protester in the face with pepper spray, even though the guy was not engaging Marc in any way. Hex saw this, grabbed Marc's can of pepper spray, and tried to wrest it away from him. Liz Hokoana freaked out, and shot Hex.

The claim of "self defense" only works when 1. you weren't escalating other people's fights by wading in to pepper spray them, and 2. you're not resorting to deadly force against an unarmed person who's done nothing but tug at your precious can of pepper spray.
@GermanSausage: You should pay more attention in class.

@jsera: Harassment isn't free speech.

Right. And terrorism isn't free speech either, which is the excuse law enforcement used for infiltrating and shutting down left wing protest groups after 9/11. Your word games cut both ways, and they don't make you any less of a hypocrite.
@10 That is not correct. In Washington State lethal force, including shooting an unarmed man, may be used by private citizens under the "reasonable person standard". In WA state the use of force is justifiable.... "Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;" RCW 9A.16.030;

It is up to prosecutors to determine if her use of force was reasonable in this case, but it is not a crime to shoot someone who you reasonably believe to be an imminent threat to you or someone else. It is that reasonable standard that matters; there is a man on trial right now in WA state for shooting and killing another man who he discovered showering in his bathroom. He was charged because his actions were not deemed reasonable (the shooter actually had to leave the building to go get his weapon).
@10 In WA you can use deadly force to prevent a felony from being committed. There is also Disparity of Force, meaning that you can use a firearm for protection if there is a disparity of force from unarmed attackers (I.e. sizable difference in body mass, multiple attackers, attack continues once you're on the ground, etc...)

My guess is that the shooter will escape charges but would likely be civilly liable if Hex wanted to file a lawsuit, though it doesn't sound like he would.
Josh Dukes was the attacker. That is why no arrests have been made. Self defense is legal, as it should be.
@16, 17: duh.

Sara Brereton walked away because she was a white lady who shot a black street crazy. hers was a massive overreaction. "but she had CHILDREN with her!"

when all you have is a hammer...
@12 Google gamergate. Then google tu quoque while you're at it.
I think the contextual details that will weigh heavily in the outcome is the context in which this shooting happened.

The woman who was the shooter made the choice to attend a ultra conservative political rally. The common understanding well in advance of the rally is that most reasonable people anticipated that it had the potential for unrest, which why there were a lot of police assembled and on hand in case of generally assumed violence. The shooter understood that she was attending a politically charged assembly in support of the speaker and his politically unpopular sentiments and that there was a potential for violence and there would be a police presence in expectation of that and made the choice to bring a gun anyway.

The anti-fascism protester also made similar choices but was attending to protest the speaker but declined to bring a gun, despite also knowing that the potential for violence was high. It's not clear if he actually attacked the shooter or her husband. He may have been moving towards them but his intent is not clear in the chaos of the event and there are conflicting stories if he was initiating physical violence, he was defending himself in a general melee in which the shooter was involved in, or he was being pushed into people in the surging chaos of the general unrest and the shooter interpreted that as an attack.

There is no dispute that the wife shot him, though.

This is much different than a random event on the street where wrong place, wrong time or another public event where neither person anticipated the possibility of violence. They both chose to be at this event and they both chosen to bring or not bring weapons to what was already anticipated to be a violent situation.

It will be interesting to see how these details may frame the choice or not to prosecute the shooter. It may be difficult for the shooter to prove a 'standing your ground' defense (there is no such law in WA) since she knowingly put herself in the path of a potentially violent situation and brought a weapon in anticipation of that violence happening.