Crime TX man murders BLM protestor. Abbot vows to pardon murderer ASAP

[spamking]

The protest was Illegal because the event organizer didnt have a permit you said. I throughly addressed that point. You said i was pathetic for comparing one event blocking a road to another event blocking the road. I addressed that. Now you are just crying calling it all lies?

I never said this protest was illegal. I provided context regarding when it's not okay to block a roadway.

The only things you've thoroughly addressed regarding my comments have been things you've made up.

 

[spamking]

What are streets for again?

Block parties.

Duh.

 

[LMP]

I never said this protest was illegal. I provided context regarding when it's not okay to block a roadway.

The only things you've thoroughly addressed regarding my comments have been things you've made up.

You seemed to imply they were illegally blocking traffic in thread about a protester getting murdered at march where other drivers were able to get through. I believe that was your first response to me. This seems to me to state that you believe that this protest must be illegal if you believe that they were illegally blocking traffic. Is that not fair to assume that as your argument? If you are talking about a different protest were I've already stated even on side walks you cant block path ways, then i have no clue what you are on about. There are levels to people walking in the street, but still allowing for others to pass, and completely blocking a path way all together. If they are blocking a path of travel it's still not a justification for the driver to try and drive into the crowd.

It's up to the city and police to clear protest and rioters if they are conducting acts clearly outside of their rights.

 

[spamking]

You seemed to imply they were illegally blocking traffic in thread about a protester getting murdered at march where other drivers were able to get through. I believe that was your first response to me. This seems to me to state that you believe that this protest must be illegal if you believe that they were illegally blocking traffic. Is that not fair to assume that as your argument? If you are talking about a different protest were I've already stated even on side walks you cant block path ways, then i have no clue what you are on about. There are levels to people walking in the street, but still allowing for others to pass, and completely blocking a path way all together. If they are blocking a path of travel it's still not a justification for the driver to try and drive into the crowd.

It's up to the city and police to clear protest and rioters if they are conducting acts clearly outside of their rights.

Again, my comments were about protestors blocking traffic IN GENERAL in response to your implication that it was acceptable and held precedence over vehicles using the roadway for travel. I did not say this case was one where the shooting was justified nor did I state support for the shooter to seek out conflict. In fact, I said just the opposite.

I'm all for someone being able to defend themselves, but if he truly went down there itchin' for a fight and looking for the exact situation that happened in mind, I'm not sure I can agree that he isn't at fault for what happened. If he was driving to or from work and just happened upon a group of protestors blocking the road that's one thing. Purposefully going to an area where a protest is actively taking place is something completely different.

 

[nostradumbass]

Yea you think planning out then carrying out those actions make it self defense, when the shooter himself said the gun was pointed at him.

Ashli Babbit was a rioter that was part of bashing out and climbing through a window so she could clear a barricade, so the rest of the rioters could have access to politicians. Rioting is not a expression of free speech and anyone that decides to take part should face legal consequences. Unfortunately for Ashli Babbit she believed the lies that the election was stolen told to her by politicians and media personalities. This cost her life. But yea these two incidents are exactly the same.

You're right, shooting an unarmed girl from down a hallway for trespassing is not even close to the same thing as defending yourself against a mob surrounding your car and threatening you with their finger on the trigger of an AK-47.

Unfortunately for this clown, he got a hard lesson that trying to play fake traffic cop with an AK-47 is bad idea, because not everybody is "too much of a pussy to do shit about it" like he claimed an hour earlier. Sorry that your hero didn't have any common sense and had to learn the hard way.

 

[Staph infection]

You're right, shooting an unarmed girl from down a hallway for trespassing is not even close to the same thing as defending yourself against a mob surrounding your car and threatening you with their finger on the trigger of an AK-47.

Unfortunately for this clown, he got a hard lesson that trying to play fake traffic cop with an AK-47 is bad idea, because not everybody is "too much of a pussy to do shit about it" like he claimed an hour earlier. Sorry that your hero didn't have any common sense and had to learn the hard way.

Certain people love to cite the driver saying he may have to shoot someone but forget about this idiot doing an interview and making that statement.

 

[Fergelmince]

 

[LMP]

Again, my comments were about protestors blocking traffic IN GENERAL in response to your implication that it was acceptable and held precedence over vehicles using the roadway for travel. I did not say this case was one where the shooting was justified nor did I state support for the shooter to seek out conflict. In fact, I said just the opposite.

Fair enough, I apologize if you felt I was intentionally misrepresenting your views. Yea in general protester can't just block traffic. Time/place/manner laws cover that as I pointed out myself. That's why it was weird to me that you kept asking about blocking path from traveling.


There is a difference between having your path way impeded vs being blocked. Even still if one wants to claim that the protesters in the particular case were "illegally blocking traffic", it is still the drivers responsibility to yield to them in the street. On the protest being "illegal" because a permit was not pulled, what I said about the organizer vs those just attending holds true. Streets are still a public forum and a place where you have a right to protest. The Right to protest in the street > of the privilege to drive on those same streets.

 

[Confucamus]

Perry's own statement to police says that Foster didnt point the gun at him and Perry wasn't going to give him a chance. Apparently in your mind open carry means weapon at the ready. Foster's gun was found with the safety on and no rounds in the chamber.

Perry wasn't going to give Foster a chance to fire because he had the weapon at the ready and only needed to raise it a few inches to fire on him. This, after running up on Perry's car. Would you take that chance? You think Perry had X-ray vision and could see if there were bullets in the chamber??

His lawyer claimed Perry was using the phone that is why he ran the red light and didn't see protesters. Another of your arguments that's simply made up not supported by Perrys own legal team. I've never said he ran anyone over. That doesn't change Perry using his vehicle as a way to incite a reactions. Perrys friend testified that Perry had talk to him multiple times about his plan. His friend even told him that he reminded Perrt that they went through the same CCW class and Perry knew that he couldn't claim self defense if he incited a reaction.

So, you're kinda contradicting yourself here. Did he run the red light due to being on his phone like an idiot or did he purposely run the red light to run into protestors he doesn't like? You need to adjust what you're saying here.

Just that cars have rights to drive into them?

Again, and for the last time, he didn't run over any protestors.

Perry had stated multiple times he wanted to kill protesters. He googled where the protests where happening as part of his plan. You don't get to plan an event then carry out the plan and claim self defense.

Unfortunately, based on the facts of this case, he does. His "plan" didn't make Foster threaten him with a gun.

Perrys own word say that Foster never presented himself as a threat by pointing the firearm at him. Unlike the police offers that you claimed prove Foster deserved to die there were eye witnesses that say Foster told Perry to stay in his car and moved on. It's almost like there is so much evidence that a jury would find Perry guilty of murder....

Can you show me where Perry said Foster didn't present himself as a threat? The gun didn't need to be pointed directly at him for him to feel that Foster was a threat. Also again, I haven't said Foster "deserved to die." You're just making stuff up now because your emotions are wrapped up in winning an argument.

Wonder why you keep trying to defend Perry and this pardon when there is so much evidence that supports his intentions to create an event and kill protesters.

I don't think you care enough to look into why Perry was pardoned. You've made up your mind.

 

[LMP]

Perry wasn't going to give Foster a chance to fire because he had the weapon at the ready and only needed to raise it a few inches to fire on him. This, after running up on Perry's car. Would you take that chance? You think Perry had X-ray vision and could see if there were bullets in the chamber??

I won't drive my car at protests.

So, you're kinda contradicting yourself here. Did he run the red light due to being on his phone like an idiot or did he purposely run the red light to run into protestors he doesn't like? You need to adjust what you're saying here.

No I am showing you that your statement was wrong, even by the words of Perrys own defense.

Again, and for the last time, he didn't run over any protestors.

Where did I say he ran over anyone. I said he drove into the crowd.

Unfortunately, based on the facts of this case, he does. His "plan" didn't make Foster threaten him with a gun.

Show proof the Foster threatened him.

Can you show me where Perry said Foster didn't present himself as a threat? The gun didn't need to be pointed directly at him for him to feel that Foster was a threat. Also again, I haven't said Foster "deserved to die." You're just making stuff up now because your emotions are wrapped up in winning an argument.

I love you ignore everything Perry said about what he wanted to do to protesters and him telling his friend his plan. Then you say Foster threatened him based on what, Perry saying so? Perry who committed a crime now telling people he was threatened after the guy he shot died. Good proof that Foster raised his gun "at" and had his finger on the trigger. I like how you will believe Perry now, but not the words he said before the events about wanting to kill protester and get away with it.

I don't think you care enough to look into why Perry was pardoned. You've made up your mind.

This is an easy statement to just say back to you in reverse.

 

[LMP]

threatening you with their finger on the trigger of an AK-47.

I'm sure you can prove that Foster had his finger on the trigger. There is video of Ashli with her fellow rioters bashing out a window of a barricaded door and her climbing through it.

 

[HockeyBjj]

That's Grand Jury stuff tho, prosecution doesn't have to let defense speak at all there. They just get to present their one sided evidence to decide if it's possible a crime occurred.

That's the norm for grand jurys in my understanding. And then the potentially exculpatory information must be shared for the actual trial. Did you have anything to show that this was withheld from the actual trial?

 

[Fergelmince]

That's Grand Jury stuff tho, prosecution doesn't have to let defense speak at all there. They just get to present their one sided evidence to decide if it's possible a crime occurred.

That's the norm for grand jurys in my understanding. And then the potentially exculpatory information must be shared for the actual trial. Did you have anything to show that this was withheld from the actual trial?

IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO TRIAL.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm sure you can prove that Foster had his finger on the trigger. There is video of Ashli with her fellow rioters bashing out a window of a barricaded door and her climbing through it.

 

[HockeyBjj]

IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO TRIAL.

Lol. Why? Grand jury felt it should.

And once there in trial the actual jury felt he was clearly guilty of deliberately creating a situation with intent to kill someone thinking self defense could be his alibi.

 

[LMP]

You can see through her head?

 

[HockeyBjj]

Is that picture not a guy open carrying and defending himself from someone who attacked others with his car?

Wether he pointed threateningly or not is a moot point, it was shown in court the deceased guy was the one using his gun in self defense.

 

[LMP]

Is that picture not a guy open carrying and defending himself from someone who attacked others with his car?

Wether he pointed threateningly or not is a moot point, it was shown in court the deceased guy was the one using his gun in self defense.

He claims that picture clearly shows Foster's finger on the trigger of the gun.

 

[Fergelmince]

Lol. Why? Grand jury felt it should.

And once there in trial the actual jury felt he was clearly guilty of deliberately creating a situation with intent to kill someone thinking self defense could be his alibi.

the previous DA, who saw the evidence, felt it should not have.

 

[nostradumbass]

Is that picture not a guy open carrying and defending himself from someone who attacked others with his car?

Wether he pointed threateningly or not is a moot point, it was shown in court the deceased guy was the one using his gun in self defense.

No. WTF are you looking at? He's on the side of the car, and cars in the US don't drive laterally.