You only consider it dishonest because you've already found him guilty, and are dishonestly representing the facts to begin with. Of course I don't agree with your farcical version of the truth.
Hasn't been found guilty yet, and even if he is, doesn't change anything else, as already reported by multiple links in this thread.
Crossing state lines is not illegal. You would need to prove he crossed state lines expressly to commit a crime. This is 100% your assumption at this point.
Wearing gloves is a crime now, apparently. I see people all the time wearing latex gloves. Near daily at this point. I mean, this guy is wearing gloves. So is this guy. Are you saying they anyone wearing gloves should be arrested?
You seriously love throwing out the "harm's way" part of the quote while dishonestly leaving out the part before where the reason he's putting himself in harm's way is to help someone who is hurt. That's fucking incredibly dishonest. You're cherry picking one part of the statement to remove all context.
Should I lump all the protesters into being guilty of vandalism and property destruction, if we're going to play the guilt by association card?
Let me now when he's guilty. If he gets off on self-defense, will you admit the others attacking him were in the wrong?
I recommend a mirror.