He was an anarchist in the sense that he (and others) really opposed police.

He and others were dealing with two people whom they were trying to treat as if they had good character, but they really didn’t. Because they needed a bit of goodwill, they would sometimes cave in and return something they had stolen, but they just didn’t respect the general principle of not stealing.

The writer of this mentioned that the man he met again later was wearing a coat that looked just like the one he’d lost.

He realized, at the end, it was not a coat that looked his old coat, it was the very same coat, and it had been stolen! Although he doesn’t say that. (I was kind of wondering how two coats, that didn’t have a particular well known brand name or something, could be so similar.)

He stops there and doesn’t tell you what he did or said. Nothing?

I doubt any of the people most against Breitbart believe anything they’re saying. The motive of those people originating the libels is to be important – and thereby get things.

There is also the motive to convince other people that what they are doing is justified.

And then Breitbart’s activities could have impacted Neal R. and company, even if he didn’t know it yet. A little bit of this is self-defense, (of something that’s not entitled to be defended.)

And the fear that others might recognize that they are indeed inadequate or worthless, requires them to compensate by acting overconfident or tough.

Doubt if any of her colleagues were.

Gee, sounds like a lot of liberals I could mention.

Because of her love for her fellow beings.