Trump supporter sucker-punches black protester at Trump rally

At last night’s Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, a group of protestors were being peacefully led out by security when a Trump supporter stood up and sucker-punched one of the protestors as he was walking by. The unprovoked attack was captured on video from multiple angles.

The Washington Post spoke with Rakeem Jones, the man who was hit, over the phone earlier this morning:

“Boom, he caught me,” Jones told The Washington Post in a telephone interview. “After I get it, before I could even gain my thoughts, I’m on the ground getting escorted out. Now I’m waking up this morning looking at the news and seeing me getting hit again.”

Jones said he and four friends — a “diverse” group that included a white woman, a Muslim, and a gay man, had gone to the rally as a “social experiment.” He said the woman with them started shouting once Trump’s speech began.

***

In the video above, it is readily apparent that at least one security guard watched the attack take place before choosing to detain Jones. We have yet to see any evidence indicating that the man who punched Jones was even asked to leave.

http://gawker.com/trump-supporter-sucker-punches-protestor-at-north-carol-1764017993

It's beyond sickening now.

He throws out anyone who dares to peacefully protest as well as BUYING a ticket to his rants and throws major temper tantrums when others call him out on lack of policies and then he starts to bully them via social or regular media.

Someone tell me when this became an asset for a presidential candidate?

Think the word is NEVER Cass.  He is utterly repulsive.

Yes - the guy in the hat hits the guy in the pink trousers, and then the guy in the pink trousers is put on the floor by the police, or whoever they are.

Raggamuffin wrote:Yes - the guy in the hat hits the guy in the pink trousers, and then the guy in the pink trousers is put on the floor by the police, or whoever they are.

They are indeed the police, and notice that none of them even peeled off to take care of the guy who actually committed public assault right in front of them?

Thankfully, he was charged with assault later:

'Next time we see him we might have to kill him'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What an idiot! It's good that he was charged with assault - he was so blatantly proud of what he did.

Raggamuffin wrote:What an idiot! It's good that he was charged with assault...

But this is the south (Carolina).  You saw what happened to George Zimmerman?  This guy and the judge will sit back in chambers, and watch the video and laugh.



Trump will pay the fine.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What an idiot! It's good that he was charged with assault...

But this is the south (Carolina).  You saw what happened to George Zimmerman?  This guy and the judge will sit back in chambers, and watch the video and laugh.



Trump will pay the fine.

The George Zimmerman case was completely different - don't start that again.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But this is the south (Carolina).  You saw what happened to George Zimmerman?  This guy and the judge will sit back in chambers, and watch the video and laugh.



Trump will pay the fine.

The George Zimmerman case was completely different - don't start that again.

I raised Zimmerman's case as an example, for purposes of explaining how it works in the south. Most people in America have a different opinion than you about Zimmerman, so that ship has already sailed.

They get the point as it applies to crackers and rednecks. Southerners generally live within their own ideology, and have no independent moral ground. This individual spoke of killing...so it's as easy for him as powdering a baby's behind. Obviously you caught that part, so my mission is complete.

Unfortunately, it's not just happening in those kind of states though is it?

What a repulsive old man.
Trump must be so proud of his supporters.

sassy wrote:Unfortunately, it's not just happening in those kind of states though is it?

no it is not. I don't understand why Quill has this thing against Southerners???

I have plenty of Dem and Rep family and friends in most southern states and not one of them would think like this. EVER.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The George Zimmerman case was completely different - don't start that again.

I raised Zimmerman's case as an example, for purposes of explaining how it works in the south.  Most people in America have a different opinion than you about Zimmerman, so that ship has already sailed.  

They get the point as it applies to crackers and rednecks.  Southerners generally live within their own ideology, and have no independent moral ground.  This individual spoke of killing...so it's as easy for him as powdering a baby's behind.  Obviously you caught that part, so my mission is complete.

It's not a valid comparison. There was a trial with a lot of evidence - which I followed. There was a verdict by a jury, which I thought was fair according to the evidence which I saw. If that ship has sailed, why are you bringing it up again?

Your use of racial slurs does you no favours by the way.

Cass wrote:

sassy wrote:Unfortunately, it's not just happening in those kind of states though is it?

no it is not. I don't understand why Quill has this thing against Southerners???

I have plenty of Dem and Rep family and friends in most southern states and not one of them would think like this. EVER.

@ Sassy: yes, it is predominately in the southern states.  In this case, the action took place in North Carolina, one of the states most vested in the KKK.  Just because we find examples of it in the north, does not mean that it is a theme or movement in the north.  You can't generalize from specifics.  It's a southern thing.

@Cass: The south is where slavery took place, and hence it is where racism predominates today.  Because, in the day, the Senate was elected by state legislatures, not just the voters, the affiliation of the state mattered.  So geography defined the political issue of slavery.  The Missouri compromise was simply a statement that when Missouri was admitted to the union as a state, no more slave states derived from the Louisiana Purchase would be permitted above (north) a certain (dotted) line:



That dotted line defined the south in geographic terms.  That set the terms.  We subsequently fought a Civil War over the matter, so I doubt you are saying that people didn't follow their passions when it comes to race relations.  They still do...and they still live in the south.

Is there any evidence that the man hit the black chap because he's black? He didn't mention his colour, just that he thought he had a big mouth.

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there any evidence that the man hit the black chap because he's black? He didn't mention his colour, just that he thought he had a big mouth.

It is what it is, Raggs. The perp was white. The victim was black. It was North Carolina.

End of...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there any evidence that the man hit the black chap because he's black? He didn't mention his colour, just that he thought he had a big mouth.

It is what it is, Raggs.  The perp was white.  The victim was black.  It was North Carolina.

End of...

Now you're making assumptions Quill. Maybe he hit him because he's anti-Trump. It might be nothing to do with his colour. You can't just assume that any crime is racially motivated.

What a motley crew, pink trowzuz, what did they expect?

Stormee wrote:What a motley crew, pink trowzuz, what did they expect?

I think they're quite nice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It is what it is, Raggs.  The perp was white.  The victim was black.  It was North Carolina.

End of...

Now you're making assumptions Quill. Maybe he hit him because he's anti-Trump. It might be nothing to do with his colour. You can't just assume that any crime is racially motivated.

What is the difference?  Trump is a bigot.  All Mexicans are rapists??

It's circumstantial, but you are making the case stronger by mentioning the Trump connection.  We've been discussing these associations for years now.  The Republican Party??  The Atwater connection??  The Southern Strategy??  It's a conservative, Republican, Trump rally, in North Carolina, which is a part of the deep South, over an issue of racism...denial is a river in East Africa.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Now you're making assumptions Quill. Maybe he hit him because he's anti-Trump. It might be nothing to do with his colour. You can't just assume that any crime is racially motivated.

What is the difference?  Trump is a racist.  All Mexicans are rapists??

It's circumstantial, but you are making the case stronger by mentioning the Trump connection.  We've been discussing these associations for years now.  The Republican Party??  The Atwater connection??  The Southern Strategy??  It's a conservative, Republican, Trump rally, in North Carolina, which is a part of the deep South, over and issue of racism...denial is a river in East Africa.

I'm surprised at you Quill. I thought you liked evidence, not assumptions.

Obviously I mentioned the Trump connection - it happened at a Trump rally. The guy who assaulted the guy in the pink trousers was a Trump supporter, and the other guy was a protester. You don't think that's relevant?

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

no it is not. I don't understand why Quill has this thing against Southerners???

I have plenty of Dem and Rep family and friends in most southern states and not one of them would think like this. EVER.

@ Sassy: yes, it is predominately in the southern states.  In this case, the action took place in North Carolina, one of the states most vested in the KKK.  Just because we find examples of it in the north, does not mean that it is a theme or movement in the north.  You can't generalize from specifics.  It's a southern thing.

@Cass: The south is where slavery took place, and hence it is where racism predominates today.  Because, in the day, the Senate was elected by state legislatures, not just the voters, the affiliation of the state mattered.  So geography defined the political issue of slavery.  The Missouri compromise was simply a statement that when Missouri was admitted to the union as a state, no more slave states derived from the Louisiana Purchase would be permitted above (north) a certain (dotted) line:



That dotted line defined the south in geographic terms.  That set the terms.  We subsequently fought a Civil War over the matter, so I doubt you are saying that people didn't follow their passions when it comes to race relations.  They still do...and they still live in the south.

do you seriously think I need a history lesson on this?

I do not thank you.

I'm talking about your rash generalizations.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm surprised at you Quill. I thought you liked evidence, not assumptions.

It is evidence. Strong evidence of a circumstantial nature, building a mountain. Remember...

Wiki wrote:Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Article IV.

The idea is elaborated on in Law.Com:

Dictionary Law wrote:circumstantial evidence

n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.

Like I said, it's a mountain of evidence.

Stormee wrote:What a motley crew, pink trowzuz, what did they expect?

Pink trousers can look nice sometimes.

Now there's evidence of a certain circumstance!!

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

@ Sassy: yes, it is predominately in the southern states.  In this case, the action took place in North Carolina, one of the states most vested in the KKK.  Just because we find examples of it in the north, does not mean that it is a theme or movement in the north.  You can't generalize from specifics.  It's a southern thing.

@Cass: The south is where slavery took place, and hence it is where racism predominates today.  Because, in the day, the Senate was elected by state legislatures, not just the voters, the affiliation of the state mattered.  So geography defined the political issue of slavery.  The Missouri compromise was simply a statement that when Missouri was admitted to the union as a state, no more slave states derived from the Louisiana Purchase would be permitted above (north) a certain (dotted) line:



That dotted line defined the south in geographic terms.  That set the terms.  We subsequently fought a Civil War over the matter, so I doubt you are saying that people didn't follow their passions when it comes to race relations.  They still do...and they still live in the south.

do you seriously think I need a history lesson on this?

I do not thank you.

I'm talking about your rash generalizations.

Oh you are always soooo huffy.

You asked a question, you got an answer. Why is racism correlated with the south? If you don't want to pay heed to history, try psychology. Why do southerns fear that blacks will take their women? http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/multiple-people-shot-at-s-carolina-church/ Why do southerners favor guns and killing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state Or anthropology. Why does the KKK like to hang blacks?

No I'm not huffy.

I didn't ask a question requiring a history lesson.

I made a statement saying I didn't understand why you consistently put southern statesxand their citizens in a bad light by generalizing.

I was also agreeing with Sassy's reply that is happening not just in southern States.

Thanks.

Cass wrote:No I'm not huffy.

I didn't ask a question requiring a history lesson.

I made a statement saying I didn't understand why you consistently put southern statesxand their citizens in a bad light by generalizing.

I was also agreeing with Sassy's reply that is happening not just in southern States.

Thanks.

You asked a question.  You don't like the answer.  You can't dictate the answer if you ask and invite the response.

I responded to sassy's comment...you can't generalize from specific incidents.  You can generalize from long-standing, historic patterns of slavery, segregation, and racism.  Hence, the natural resort to history in giving my explanation of the southern man.  You don't like that?

I have given you alternatives.  But the questions are the same.  Now, perhaps you can answer this question: Why is the American south so bent on the death of the African man?  Why is death the answer?  Why can't the southerner manage to live with anyone of a different opinion?  Why always guns?  Why always death...as this North Carolina man expressed when he wished death on that protester?  Why is the southern man dedicated to death, death, death?  Isn't he the equivalent of the Muslim extremist?  Isn't the KKK centuries older than Wahhabism?  Why are we adverse to Muslims, when the enemy is right here in our own corn-fed underbelly? Southern racism has been going on for 500-years...do you have an answer?  Why the dedication to death?  Who is this sick person who wants to go from enslavement of another human being, to the death of anyone who disagrees with him?

Are southerners the people who will take us to nuclear war?  I honestly think that is who they are.  They have no morality except their racism and hatred.  If so, I want to secede from the US, and form the Pacific States of America.  I want nothing to do with the southerner.  They are our curse...and politically, we need to rid ourselves of that virus.

There, you want an honest opinion?  You've got it.  Since the beginning of this nation we have been trying to placate the southern, slave-holder's presumption that slavery is right.  Senator Webster gave a speech in the Senate in 1850, placating the southern racist presumptions.  For god's sake, that was Webster from Massachusetts.  Enough!!!  No longer will we tolerate the southern belief system.  Call it what it is...racist, slavish, ignorant, evil and blasphemous.  May god have mercy on their heathen souls!  I have none to spare.

Gosh. You sure put me in my place.
You know what? You sound a lot like Trump. You say (write) a lot of letters but, put them together and it says nothing.

Wahhabism came about in the mid 18th century. The KKK was founded on December 24,1865 in Tennessee. So to refute your statement, "Isn't the KKK centuries older than Wahhabism? No.

"Southern racism has been ongoing for 500 years...do you have an answer?" No it hasn't. Even if people use Roanoke, Virginia as a starting point of white settlers. That took place in 1585 so that means 431 year.

Bless your heart.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I raised Zimmerman's case as an example, for purposes of explaining how it works in the south.  Most people in America have a different opinion than you about Zimmerman, so that ship has already sailed.  

They get the point as it applies to crackers and rednecks.  Southerners generally live within their own ideology, and have no independent moral ground.  This individual spoke of killing...so it's as easy for him as powdering a baby's behind.  Obviously you caught that part, so my mission is complete.

It's not a valid comparison. There was a trial with a lot of evidence - which I followed. There was a verdict by a jury, which I thought was fair according to the evidence which I saw. If that ship has sailed, why are you bringing it up again?

Your use of racial slurs does you no favours by the way.

WHAT "racial slurs" would they be, then, Rags ?

THE only apparent slurs I saw were to lowlife cultural types, and NOT against any racial types..

ONCE again your views seem to be biased and plain wrong...

WHAT a surprise..

OR not.

Cass wrote:Gosh. You sure put me in my place.
You know what? You sound a lot like Trump. You say (write) a lot of letters but, put them together and it says nothing.

And you sound like an apologist for southern racism. Hmmm...didn't know that about you.

Cass wrote:Wahhabism came about in the mid 18th century. The KKK was founded on December 24,1865 in Tennessee. So to refute your statement, "Isn't the KKK centuries older than Wahhabism? No.

The KKK is the inheritance of the slavers of the south...people who hunted down escaped slaves. It's origins are the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which spawned slave hunters. If you are going to pretend to be American, learn the history:

history.com wrote:The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway slaves within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escaped slaves to their owners and imposed penalties on anyone who aided in their flight. Widespread resistance to the 1793 law later led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which added further provisions regarding runaways and levied even harsher punishments for interfering in their capture. The Fugitive Slave Acts were among the most controversial laws of the early 19th century, and many Northern states passed special legislation in an attempt to circumvent them. Both laws were formally repealed by an act of Congress in 1864.
It goes back to the beginnings of slavery, which is the beginnings of racism.

Cass wrote:"Southern racism has been ongoing for 500 years...do you have an answer?" No it hasn't. Even if people use Roanoke, Virginia as a starting point of white settlers. That took place in 1585 so that means 431 year.

Rounded off, that's 500-years. My point exactly. Thank you.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not a valid comparison. There was a trial with a lot of evidence - which I followed. There was a verdict by a jury, which I thought was fair according to the evidence which I saw. If that ship has sailed, why are you bringing it up again?

Your use of racial slurs does you no favours by the way.

WHAT "racial slurs" would they be, then, Rags ?

THE only apparent slurs I saw were to lowlife cultural types, and NOT against any racial types..

ONCE again your views seem to be biased and plain wrong...

WHAT a surprise..

OR not.

"Cracker" is a racial slur. There's nothing wrong with my views - they're based on evidence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

WHAT "racial slurs" would they be, then, Rags ?

THE only apparent slurs I saw were to lowlife cultural types, and NOT against any racial types..

ONCE again your views seem to be biased and plain wrong...

WHAT a surprise..

OR not.

"Cracker" is a racial slur. There's nothing wrong with my views - they're based on evidence.

FGS, what race?  Cracker is a reference to the slavers who dined on cracked corn, while living on the trail.

Raggs, stay out of this one.  You have no comprehension about America, and you can only make yourself look silly.

Quill saying "you have no comprehension about America"--------pot,,, kettle, black anyone?

Not a bad read this thread, bit of point scoring though, as usual.

Why do some people think they can turn up and disrupt other peoples right to free association and free speech?


It's a trump/republican rally... if you dont like it... Tough!


You don't have the right to try to shut them up just because YOU don't like it!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You don't have the right to try to shut them up just because YOU don't like it!!!

Not the right to shut them up, certainly. But the right to shout back in equal measure.

That's America. The minute the government tries to take sides, is when it is ousted and replaced. So it's a tough spot to be in, as they found out in the 1968 Chicago convention.

Stormee wrote:Not a bad read this thread, bit of point scoring though, as usual.

Point scoring is senseless, as a sucker punch will turn into a brawl. Next day, the other side will show up in force, and lo...what did we see last night in Chicago?

What points did Trump gain? He had to cancel.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You don't have the right to try to shut them up just because YOU don't like it!!!

Not the right to shut them up, certainly.  But the right to shout back in equal measure.

That's America.  The minute the government tries to take sides, is when it is ousted and replaced.  So it's a tough spot to be in, as they found out in the 1968 Chicago convention.

They have their own rallies to go to and can shout as much as they like from there...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not the right to shut them up, certainly.  But the right to shout back in equal measure.

That's America.  The minute the government tries to take sides, is when it is ousted and replaced.  So it's a tough spot to be in, as they found out in the 1968 Chicago convention.

They have their own rallies to go to and can shout as much as they like from there...

They like to go to Trump rallies. It's much like I say here: I like to hear conservatives to speak up. It gives me more to refute and a greater opportunity to express what I think is right. Remember, confrontation is always cleansing.

What's the point of politics if it's not adversarial?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not the right to shut them up, certainly.  But the right to shout back in equal measure.

That's America.  The minute the government tries to take sides, is when it is ousted and replaced.  So it's a tough spot to be in, as they found out in the 1968 Chicago convention.

They have their own rallies to go to and can shout as much as they like from there...

Exactly Tommy.

Apologist for southern racism? Yeah ok.

Pretend to be an American? Hmmm guess the birth certificate and passport are wrong then. Oh well.


Adios.

I hope more and more go and protest, I hope they shut him down, as they should have done with Hitler.

Cass wrote:Apologist for southern racism? Yeah ok.

Pretend to be an American? Hmmm guess the birth certificate and passport are wrong then. Oh well.


Adios.

He's got to be kidding!

You are not, and would never be an apologist for racism from anywhere, and NOT AMERICAN.  Quill you really have lost it!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

"Cracker" is a racial slur. There's nothing wrong with my views - they're based on evidence.

FGS, what race?  Cracker is a reference to the slavers who dined on cracked corn, while living on the trail.

Raggs, stay out of this one.  You have no comprehension about America, and you can only make yourself look silly.

It's a racial slur against white people. An American person told me that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

FGS, what race?  Cracker is a reference to the slavers who dined on cracked corn, while living on the trail.

Raggs, stay out of this one.  You have no comprehension about America, and you can only make yourself look silly.

It's a racial slur against white people. An American person told me that.

No it's not.  It's a criticism of a certain type of food.  But the food is not linked to anyone or anything, save that in the New World they discovered corn, and people found it very useful cracked and dried, to carry and eat when traveling.

It's not even like snails or frogs and French people.  The redneck bounty-hunters could be any race or ethnicity.  It's what they did, not who they were.

If they are going with the intent to disrupt others rights to freely gather and freely speak then they are doing so against the constitutional rights of everyone!


They are not above the rules just because they personally don't like what some others may be PERFECTLY LEGALLY meeting up and talking about!!!


This self righteous belief of some that they are above the law and can trample over the rights and freedoms of other law abiding people, just because they don't like it, is an affront to the principles of the rights and freedoms of everyone... and exactly how fascist dictatorships start...!


What is trump saying that is so bad...!?


He wants to strengthen the already existing border line with mexico and enforce the already existing laws on preventing illegal immigration, drug trafficking and people smuggling from there...?

He wants to try to protect usa citizens by trying to prevent dangerous Muslim terrorists from entering the USA and killing them...?


If he wasn't saying what huge numbers of USA people wanted then he wouldn't be so popular!!!


And if you are going to insult trump and his popular ideas and beliefs... then you are also insulting the huge numbers of normal everyday American people who support him!!!


Are you really saying that such a large section of American people are evil and are hitlerite Nazis. ..!?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a racial slur against white people. An American person told me that.

No it's not.  It's a criticism of a certain type of food.  But the food is not linked to anyone or anything, save that in the New World they discovered corn, and people found it very useful cracked and dried, to carry and eat when traveling.

It's not even like snails or frogs and French people.  The redneck bounty-hunters could be any race or ethnicity.  It's what they did, not who they were.

It's a racial slur Quill.

Tommy Monk wrote:If they are going with the intent to disrupt others rights to freely gather and freely speak then they are doing so against the constitutional rights of everyone!


They are not above the rules just because they personally don't like what some others may be PERFECTLY LEGALLY meeting up and talking about!!!


This self righteous belief of some that they are above the law and can trample over the rights and freedoms of other law abiding people, just because they don't like it, is an affront to the principles of the rights and freedoms of everyone... and exactly how fascist dictatorships start...!


What is trump saying that is so bad...!?


He wants to strengthen the already existing border line with mexico and enforce the already existing laws on preventing illegal immigration, drug trafficking and people smuggling from there...?

He wants to try to protect usa citizens by trying to prevent dangerous Muslim terrorists from entering the USA and killing them...?


If he wasn't saying what huge numbers of USA people wanted then he wouldn't be so popular!!!


And if you are going to insult trump and his popular ideas and beliefs... then you are also insulting the huge numbers of normal everyday American people who support him!!!


Are you really saying that such a large section of American people are evil and are hitlerite Nazis. ..!?

A lot of valid points there Tommy.