What intrepido34 doesn't want to talk about...
This wasn't just an assault, of the kind we've heard about from London, Sydney and elsewhere. This isn't just a case of Scientology victim flipping out and trying to tear a protester's mask off, or shoving them, throwing one punch or in one bizarre case, kissing him. No: what we see here is far worse. This was a situation where there was a longer "fight" in which one person did not attempt to defend himself. Obviously, in this situation, the Scientologist aggressor will have had the upper hand - yet three more Scientologists felt justified in weighing in.
We
might debate whether it's reasonable that a father goes
nuts when somebody expresses a general opinion that children ought to be kept out of cults: certainly some posters here appear to be trying to justify the violent actions of that man.
For me, though, the real issue is that three other Scientologists felt that they were justified in joining in and between them giving 'NoNo' a savage beating.
There can be no reasonable explanation for this. Jumping into an already one-sided fight for... what reason exactly?
The only possible explanation I can see is the the HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967. "... May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
Scientology's violence is standard tech, built in by LRH, but it's worth pointing out that "without any discipline of the Scientologist" only applies to the failure of Scientology to put its own house in order; it doesn't mean that the Scientologists who were involved won't find themselves in court.