PART 5)
Prosecutors allege Mr .Young is intentionally provoking these incidents .

Prosecutors may allege that you lose your right of self-defense over some act or statement that caused an unwarranted attack.

You may inadvertently provoke someone to attack you even though you have no intention of provoking an attack.

Prosecutors must require some evidence that Mr. Young intended his actions or words to create a pretext in order to harm the victim as some larger plan that later included a claim of self-defense.

California courts hold that even though you do or say something that does indeed provoke an attack, if you did not intend for your act to have such an effect as part of a larger plan of doing another harm, then you do not lose your right of self-defense.

Proving intent can be very challenging.

In this case, Mr. Young's intent is to get sexual gratification from a female & is attempting to demonstrate his lust by being extremely descriptive .

As it may be seen as vulgar in the prosecutions eyes, Mr. Young was merely acting upon the urge & desire that arises when he sees an attractive woman & was testing out a method in which he was uncertain may work.
He was seeing if the opposite sex found him attractive enough at first glance after hearing how blunt & descriptive he was, (since he gets nothing but rejection, which causes uncertainty)
he was testing his level of attractiveness; seeing that he is not attractive enough to those he spoke to, he clearly was not able to get a positive reaction out of his approaches .

Mr. Young was misinformed & taking the advice of just be confident/ be yourself to the furthest extent .

Saying that Mr . Young wanted sex with the females is not provoking an attack, it is stating his intent of wanting to engage intimately with the opposite gender .

Because Mr. Young is a straight male, & prefers females, it should not be valid grounds to accuse him of "targeting" women;
because he has no interest acquiring affection from the same gender as himself .

Prosection also is accusing young of hating females .
However if Mr. Young hated females so much why would be be actively pursuing them so frequently attempting new ways of trying to get them interested in him?

Mr .young's intent was to acquire a relationship & because he was not viewed as a worthy male by the opposite gender, he is being demonized.

Mr. Young has been actively trying to attain a long term relationship however gets nothing but rejections.

In other videos he clearly demonstrates non aggressive behavior towards women, therefore demonstrating the underlying intent that has been guiding his actions, which is to acquire a relationship with a female who would enjoy him as much as he would enjoy her .

PART 4)
common argument #1 :
Mr. Young escalated the situation to a point where the females are afraid & trying to get him to go away.

common argument #2 :
He was never in any danger & the use of pepper spray was not justified.
If he felt like he was in danger he could of ran away at any time.
He did not.

Common argument #3 :
He used the pepper spray to assault the females because that was likely his plan from the beginning which is why he intentionally escalated the situation and had pepper spray on him.

Mr. Young's Defense to the above arguments:

If the female was truly afraid or felt in danger, she could have got up and ran away at any time as well;
instead she escalated the situation by kicking Mr. Young, then further placing him in a situation of harm by attempting to get a bystander to get involved.
When that didn't work she then escalated again by throwing a high heel at him.
She also could have just ran away to de-escalate,
instead of actively pursuing Young with violence & threatening behavior; proving she was not in fear for her safety and had a motive of malice.

If Mr. Young was not in danger, why was he getting continuously pursued by the combative female after getting kicked, while he was retreating?

This posted an imminent threat/ danger while Mr. Young was retreating, causing him to keep an eye on her in case she decided further retaliation against him, which she acted upon.
She could have just as easily picked up the other high heel from the ground after missing him with the first one upon Mr. Young fleeing, risking getting hit in the back while attempting to leave.

The comment that Young intended to instigate this encounter as an excuse to use self defense is hard to prove as Mr. Young records all encounters for personal safety & has just as much right to carry legal self defense spray as anyone else in public .

You can reference all of his other videos where he leaves after talking to women that do not get violent or pose an imminent threat/danger of physical harm.

Mr. Young has a camera & self defense spray on him at all times .
Regardless of the circumstance, time of day/night .
It is a legal right in California to do so .

Would you please quote the words in the video that you believe are a "threat of physical violence"?
All I heard were insults & asking for consent to have sex.

"Assault" is physical violence. It's not "stalking" because there are no restraining orders filed. "Sexual harassment" is a crime that can only occur if the perpetrator is the victims employer or teacher.

The person who strikes first is the one who escalated the situation to physical actions .

Mr. Young is clearly a jerk with no social skills who deliberately tries to make women uncomfortable 'to prove a point'... But when these women feel entitled to flat-out attack him for simply trying his hand (poorly, I'll admit), it kind of proves that point, in his mind at least.

His whole issue is that he thinks society is structured in such a way as to favor women's position in the dating game over men's, to the point where he believes the only way to get laid is to completely disregard any of the 'rules' of courtship altogether.

The real problem here is that we've reached a massive, irreconcilable gulf between the genders about what are acceptable standards for courtship.

PART 3)
Proving motive of hate crime:
violates due process and equal protection clauses and subject persons influenced by unconscious sexism to unwarranted convictions.

Proving that the defendant acted with hate crime intent by prosecution will likely fall upon the accusations that Johnny is identifying with groups that hate women, which stem from his videos on YouTube.

The issue here is that Johnny does not hate women, he wants a girlfriend so badly that he continues to try different approaches to attaining a long term partner yet continues to fail .
The entire interview with I,hypocrite (YouTube channel) is about how Johnny longs for a relationship, yet continues to fail at attaining one .
Johnny loves women & does not go out with the intent to harm them or provoke them;
However it may seem that he is due to being blunt, uncertain, and trying to say the first thing on his mind when met with the challenge of talking to a new person.

If Johnny "hates women" so much, why does he continue to try & become partners with them? As seen in various videos.

Prosecution says young "self identifies" with incel movement.

In this interview:
youtu.be/J8_tRQiQjAo

which prosecution is referencing
@ 3:04
Mr. Young states that he believes:

"There is gender inequality going on, which sometimes causes rage with young men who cannot acquire sex, or who can but are limited for a duration of time, considering himself incel for that limiting duration of time that he wishes for sex but is unable to recieve it by the opposite gender"

Johnny however, does not specifically identify with being incel directly, nevertheless identifies with wanting to have sex, however struggling to get it from the opposite gender.

@3:27 young states:
" people say I am an incel but I am not due to getting sex before, however the term incel is a generalization which stems from not being able to achieve sexual gratification during certain durations of time that you would prefer to get it, then you are an incel for that period of time"

He is staying that being incel is a time situation, not an identification with radical misogynistic beliefs.

There is no source online or off, where Mr. Young explicitly states that he mysoginistic.

@25:07 Johnny states: " I have a problem with seeing things pass me by which I know I'll probably never see again, & try with no filter, by saying what's on my mind "

Indicating that young is not sure how to act when faced with a girl that he finds attractive in public .

This proves Johnny's motive which is stated above clearly :

He is very uncertain what to do when faced with a desirable person, & just guesses on what to say by trying what first pops into his mind without a filter,
therefore searching for signals of the desirable person which tell whether or not he is mutually liked or disliked .

@39:56 young states: "I don't hate women, I think it is the most exciting thing ever to hangout with a girl".

Johnny has never admitted offline or online that there was ever a bias or hatred for women.

To secure a conviction for a hate crime, the prosecutor must convince the judge or jury that the defendant committed the underlying criminal act (such as assault or vandalism) and did so with the requisite intent.

PART 2)
People may seem to think there is some kind of:
"I'm a female and whatever I don't like is illegal"
section in the criminal law, and there isn't.

Certain elements of civil employment law have led these believers to falsely believe in the existence of criminal laws that are utterly absent.

The female in brown is the one with an attitude problem and aggressively escalates the situation
ordering some male passerby to fight for her.

For it to be harassment mr. Young would need to threaten their physical well being or their property, without correct legal authority (this is to stop people falsely accusing police of harassment).

You don't need to fear for your life to use pepper spray, only to protect yourself from an "an unlawful attack".

A court would likey find his actions legal and theirs, illegal.
You can't really physically attack someone who isn't hurting you (in a public place), despite how creepy/rude/unwanted their presence is.

He wasnt stalking anyone, he was just shooting his shot.
All they had to say was no thank you, they didn't have to physically assault him.
That woman should be behind bars for assault and battery.

If asked why he is recording or has self defense spray:
76% of all homicides are men who are the victim.
Men are also more likely to be a victim of violent crime from a stranger than women. Not downplaying the experience of women, but men have just as much a right to be fearful out in the world.
Especially if someone purposefully puts out information on them as a target online, making them a potential target in real life.

We're talking about the same exact thing: fear of being attacked.
And statistically, men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, more likely to be a victim of a homicide, and more likely to be attacked by a stranger.

a woman can lie and say she felt harassed and then ruin your very existence with a mere statement, regardless of whether it be true or false--

Remember - in many people's minds, It is never their
fault.
Many people simply lack the ability to own up to their life choices.

For whatever reason the female imperative has conditioned society through humanity to see them as something that can do no wrong.

freedom of speech is
protected, and you have no expectations of privacy in public,

the problem with johnny is that he has a very damaged amygdala and damaged pre frontal cortex.
these two things will only get worse as he ages.
there is simply no solution to Johnny's problem.
telling johnny to stop being a creep is just like telling the diabetic to stop being a diabetic.

Johnny cannot change being creepy just like
Johnny cannot change his face without surgery.

Feel a sort of empathy towards johnny because his brain is wired in such a way that whenever/ whatever he says will sound creepy because being a Creep is genetic just the same as prowling is a genetic trait by science.

Demonizing Johnny & abusing him by throwing him in the jail is not going to change the neurochemistry of his brain.

Nobody on earth tried to understand why Johnny is the way he is.
not his drug addicted mother, not his absent father, not the consumer driven culture of America.

Look up what meth does to prenatal infancy. His mother admits to smoking both meth & cigarrettes while he was in her stomach for many months.

"Amygdala hijack."
The amygdala hijack occurs when your amygdala responds to stress and disables your frontal lobes.

That activates the fight-or-flight response and disables rational, reasoned responses.
In other words, the amygdala "hijacks" control of your brain and your responses.

Evidently the female didn't feel all that harassed because if they did, they would have fled the area instead of attacking and pursuing him.
Also if they insulted him first he can insult them back, it's mutual.

The whole "but he was harassing us" thing is a weak defense because of their behavior. Truly harassed people don't attack then pursue the guy, scream at him to go away and follow him and ignore when he tells them to back off, and then attack him again.

Seems like the prosecution is grasping for straws at any excuse they can get to claim he was in the wrong when the female started the unjust violence & he only responded to it.

PART 1)
A post of a video where females assault Mr. Young has been made.

The comments below the video is especially concerning that majority are in coalition for female rights, however dismissing the rights of a male.

If genders were flipped for the video situation then people would applaud the woman.

(If a man kicks a woman, it's totally okay for her to pepper spray him. How is this any different?)

Many people are unable to discern the evidence of the video of assault and leave out telling information as to how Mr. Young was assaulted first and continued to have a threat be present as he is in the process of leaving.

The results of the video include online harrassment, death threats, vigilantism, & threats of bodily harm for the alleged "attacker" Johnny young.

Without regard for the actions of the female attackers in the video.

Mr. Young is in danger for his safety and may be in the midst of facing inequality and injustice by the judicial system.

We ask that anyone who is in support of mr. Young consider a donation in case this inequity gets out of hand.

Mr. Young does not have the current capabilities to hire legal defense.

If you stand against gender inequality and the false allegations with which men are faced with, and are in a state of siding with Mr. Young, the encouragement for your support will be helpful in case this is situation is blown out of proportion by media,online activists, prosecutors, police detectives, judge, public defender etc.

IF A LAWYER IS TO REPRESENT JOHNNY HE NEED READ THESE LETTERS BELOW:

they attacked him.
it wasn't just rudeness.

THESE DAYS people can watch something and warp it around to suit their narrative.

Mr. Young is not a savage animal or danger to society.
Mr. Young does not celebrate or condone mindless violence.
He did attempt to retreat,
even though he would have been within his rights to stand his ground.
He's a good man, unlike the progressive psychopaths that comprise reddit.

Provide a single shred of evidence he harassed them.
He literally just talked to them.
There is no evidence he followed them home, stopped them from leaving, or threatened them.

You can record whatever you want in public. Trying to prove he had malicious intent by filming them is hard to prove.

There are very few jurisdictions in the US where: "you said something offensive to me that I don't like in public"
constitutes criminal harassment.
Even if the content is sexual.