Gov. Abbott Pardons Sgt. Perry After Killing BLMer with an AK-47

[Mac-7]

You keep on repeating that like it will all of a sudden become valid. If you run a red light, so you can ride into a group of people, almost hitting one of them, those people will NOT look upon you kindly. That is called a provocation.

If I drive a car on a street and aiming for pedestrians, the fact that I'm allowed on the street doesn't all of a sudden negates my purpose for being on that street.

Perry was not driving on the sidewalk

Which is where pedestrians are supposed to be

 

[forkup]

Get out of a car when a cop stops you holding an AK pointed at the ground and see if the cop shoots you or thinks its ok because you're not pointing it at him.

Ask that black guy who opened the door for a cop holding a handgun pointed at the ground if that cop didn't think he was a threat and immediately shoot him. And he was in his own home. This guy was in a rabid mob on a public street at night surrounding this guys car. TOTALLY different.

Actually, that cop will order you to drop the weapon. If it is determined he simply opened fire without any verbal commands he will be in a load of trouble. Texas allows for open carry of long guns. Stupid as that might be. That means a cop isn't allowed to simply fire because somebody is carrying it.

 

[forkup]

Perry was not driving on the sidewalk

Which is where pedestrians are supposed to be

No, these pedestrians were on the street. Like HE KNEW they would be, when he turned into them. Jaywalking does not allow for a lethal response.

 

[forkup]

Are you really this fucking stupid? You can't be. Whose sock are you? Craponus, is that you? There is only one poster here as stupid as you, you have to be his sock. That's gotta be you. Man, you almost had me fooled into thinking TWO liberals could be as stupid as you. Good to know, it's just you as a sock.

Where is the proof he "ran a red light?" and WTF does that have to do with the shooting of an armed guy crowding his car?

No based on Perry's initial statements.

Gonzalez reminded jurors that Perry initially told police that he ran a red light into the group; that he lied by later telling them that he’d been texting on his phone and pulled into the group by mistake; and that he lied again when he later claimed that the light had been yellow when he rounded the corner.

 

[Mac-7]

No, these pedestrians were on the street. Like HE KNEW they would be when he turned into them. Jaywalking does not allow for a lethal response.

Perry did not run over any protester illegally blocking traffic

 

[airplanemechanic]

Actually, that cop will order you to drop the weapon. If it is determined he simply opened fire without any verbal commands he will be in a load of trouble. Texas allows for open carry of long guns. Stupid as that might be. That means a cop isn't allowed to simply fire because somebody is carrying it.

The officer MIGHT order you to do that. He does NOT have to.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Ok, he then later said he didn't really do that.

So whats your point?

 

[forkup]

Perry did not run over any protester illegally blocking traffic

No he simply almost did. Thereby provoking those protesters... purposefully. It was NOT an accident he was there. How many times are you planning to make this circle?

If you concede he meant to be in that street because he wanted to fuck with those protesters. He loses the right to invoke self-defense.

 

[forkup]

The officer MIGHT order you to do that. He does NOT have to.

He very much does have to.

 

[Mac-7]

Thereby provoking those protesters...

The protesters provoked him and everyone else by illegally blocking traffic

 

[airplanemechanic]

He very much does have to.

Nope.

Doesn't have to. Prove he does. They CAN, but they don't have to. If you get out of a car with a gun they can shoot you no questions asked. Assuming of course the stop is legal.

And a citizen in a private vehicle on a public road doesn't have to do ANYTHING a cop would have to do in the same situation.

 

[forkup]

Ok, he then later said he didn't really do that.

So whats your point?

My point is that this allows the jury to determine what version of events they believe. The version right after the event, when not having consulted with a lawyer about the applicable law. Or the version he told in court. When being fully apprised of the implications of his statement. There's a reason cops read a person their Miranda rights. He changed his statements from on time to another, the prosecution could prove the statement in court was a lie in at least one respect, so they determined that he lied in the other to.

 

[forkup]

The protesters provoked him and everyone else by illegally blocking traffic

Not really. They didn't make any move towards him until AFTER he drove into them.

A protest is not a provocation.

 

[forkup]

Nope.

Doesn't have to. Prove he does. They CAN, but they don't have to. If you get out of a car with a gun they can shoot you no questions asked. Assuming of course the stop is legal.

And a citizen in a private vehicle on a public road doesn't have to do ANYTHING a cop would have to do in the same situation.

Understanding the Peace Officer Right to Disarm under Texas License to Carry Laws

Delve into Texas Article 14.03(h), highlighting when and why peace officers can disarm individuals, striking a balance between public safety and rights.

carry-texas.com

Scrutinizing 14.03(h-1): Peace Officer's Discretion and Reasons to Disarm​

Before we delve further into the role of peace officers, it's worthwhile to consider the reasons and situations in which an officer might find it necessary to disarm an individual, as dictated by 14.03(h-1). This part of the article provides the officer with a significant amount of discretion, which is exercised based on the officer's training, experience, and the specific circumstances of the situation.

Consider a situation where an officer has been called to a heated dispute at a private residence. Upon arrival, the officer encounters an individual who has a License to Carry and is currently armed. If the individual is agitated, non-compliant, or the officer perceives that the situation could escalate, the officer might find it necessary to disarm the individual to protect all parties involved. The officer would then be obliged to return the firearm before leaving the scene, provided the individual has not committed an arrestable offense and is not considered a threat.

In another scenario, suppose an individual with a License to Carry enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, such as a police station or county sheriff's office. The presence of an armed individual in these sensitive areas might pose an undue risk to officers and civilians alike. In this instance, 14.03(h-1) permits the officer to temporarily disarm the individual, storing the firearm securely until the individual is ready to depart.

These situations exemplify the rationale behind 14.03(h-1) – it serves to mitigate potential threats without infringing upon an individual's lawful right to carry.

Nowhere does it say anything about simply opening fire.

 

[Mac-7]

Not really. They didn't make any move towards him until AFTER he drove into them.

A protest is not a provocation.

They were blocking traffic as a deliberate provocation over the death of george floyd

The public was meant to be in inconvenienced and angry as a way of calling attention to the protesters cause

 

[forkup]

They were blocking traffic as a deliberate provocation over the death of george floyd

The public was meant to be in inconvenienced and angry as a way of calling attention to the protesters cause

How does that work exactly? Because a protest inconveniences people they can feel aggrieved and now have the right to simply start shooting, claiming self-defense as a get out of jail free card?

By the way, a provocation is something you do directly to elicit a negative response from a specific group of people. In this case the government NOT the public. And sure, as hell NOT Perry specifically. While Perry's actions was specifically, and directly aimed at that group of people.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Understanding the Peace Officer Right to Disarm under Texas License to Carry Laws

Delve into Texas Article 14.03(h), highlighting when and why peace officers can disarm individuals, striking a balance between public safety and rights.

carry-texas.com

Scrutinizing 14.03(h-1): Peace Officer's Discretion and Reasons to Disarm​

Before we delve further into the role of peace officers, it's worthwhile to consider the reasons and situations in which an officer might find it necessary to disarm an individual, as dictated by 14.03(h-1). This part of the article provides the officer with a significant amount of discretion, which is exercised based on the officer's training, experience, and the specific circumstances of the situation.

Consider a situation where an officer has been called to a heated dispute at a private residence. Upon arrival, the officer encounters an individual who has a License to Carry and is currently armed. If the individual is agitated, non-compliant, or the officer perceives that the situation could escalate, the officer might find it necessary to disarm the individual to protect all parties involved. The officer would then be obliged to return the firearm before leaving the scene, provided the individual has not committed an arrestable offense and is not considered a threat.

In another scenario, suppose an individual with a License to Carry enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, such as a police station or county sheriff's office. The presence of an armed individual in these sensitive areas might pose an undue risk to officers and civilians alike. In this instance, 14.03(h-1) permits the officer to temporarily disarm the individual, storing the firearm securely until the individual is ready to depart.

These situations exemplify the rationale behind 14.03(h-1) – it serves to mitigate potential threats without infringing upon an individual's lawful right to carry.

Nowhere does it say anything about simply opening fire.

Your proof that cops must yell "drop the gun" is the law stating that they don't?

Nowhere in there does it say anything about having to yell "Drop the gun."

Thank you for proving me right. You are your own worst enemy when it comes to proving your stupidity.

 

[Mac-7]

How does that work exactly? Because a protest inconveniences people they can feel aggrieved and now have the right to simply start shooting, claiming self-defense as a get out of jail free card?

You are talking in circles

You blame Perry for “provoking” the protestors by driving on a public street where he had a right to be and the protesters didn't

And he didnt “simply start shooting” as you well know

The Black LIES Matter crazies surrounded his car and one of them menaced him with an AK47

 

[forkup]

Your proof that cops must yell "drop the gun" is the law stating that they don't?

Nowhere in there does it say anything about having to yell "Drop the gun."

Thank you for proving me right. You are your own worst enemy when it comes to proving your stupidity.

B. De-Escalation 1. An employee shall allow an individual time and opportunity to submit to verbal commands before force is used.

https://www.arlingtontx.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18327175

 

[forkup]

You are talking in circles

You blame Perry for “provoking” the protestors by driving on a public street where he had a right to be and the protesters didn't

And he didnt “simply start shooting” as you well know

The Black LIES Matter crazies surrounded his car and one of them menaced him with an AK47

I blame Perry FOR WANTING to provoke the protesters. The moment you can claim that the protesters wanted to piss of Perry specifically you would have a point. They DID NOT. While Perry specifically wanted to piss of the people he drove into. I don't care he had a right to drive. I care why he wanted to drive there specifically.