I already told you that it would be an objective decision by the court and anyone who could not see it would be about as retarded as you. He doesn't have to say in words that he is not welcome. Even with the edited video it was obvious he was not welcome. It's called objectivism. One does not need to say any exact word for someone to know that they are not welcome. If an average person in the same situation would know they were not welcome then that shows he was not welcome. If you think that that old man was welcoming him then you are stupider than I originally thought.
Now, you can continue trying to plea your case that you are correct but you are not. You can say anything you want about my knowledge of the law, and you can say you think I'm not a good lawyer. There are already 4 drug dealers and 1 coke snorter that would disagree with you.
I will repeat, he doesn't have to say he is not welcome. His non-welcome was implied. It is obvious. Now, you can try to argue this until you are blue in the face and it will not help you. It's all about objective reasoning. If you can't think objectively then you really have no way of thinking period.
Now, you are doing nothing but regurgitating the same old arguments that I have already shot down then I see no reason for you to continue to reply. You have nothing to say other than "one guy punched one guy and jeesh he is wrong"... well, he wasn't wrong. Now, go do some research, maybe take a class or two and then come back when you actually have some knowledge of the law.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: