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

[Mac-7]

Nah he was the cool kid that KILLED a guy because he didn't like his politics.

Wrong

Perry shot someone who was threatening him with a deadly weapon

 

[forkup]

Wrong

Perry shot someone who was threatening him with a deadly weapon

Says exactly NOBODY besides Perry. But only at the trial. Not when he was initially interrogated. Those are facts. Facts you keep on ignoring.

 

[Mac-7]

Says exactly NOBODY besides Perry. But only at the trial. Not when he was initially interrogated. Those are facts. Facts you keep on ignoring.

Sez everyone who testified

Foster approached the car with an ak47

 

[forkup]

Sez everyone who testified

Foster approached the car with an ak47

Oh really? Find me one who said he threatened Perry, just one. Walking towards a car with a gun in safe position isn't a threat. Hence Perry's changing of story from his interrogation to trial.

 

[SavannahMann]

Perry didnt hit anyone with is car

Witnesses said he did. He bumped them to get them to move. Including a veteran in a wheelchair.

 

[Mac-7]

Witnesses said he did. He bumped them to get them to move. Including a veteran in a wheelchair.

“Witnesses” being Black LIES Matter wackos who were running wild in the street

 

[SavannahMann]

“Witnesses” being Black LIES Matter wackos who were running wild in the street

I wonder how long they had to discuss their “lies” to get on the same sheet of music when they made statements to the police and in court. Curiously only one witness changed his story. And that was Perry.

 

[Mac-7]

I wonder how long they had to discuss their “lies” to get on the same sheet of music when they made statements to the police and in court. Curiously only one witness changed his story. And that was Perry.

With enough coaching from the George Soros appointed DA it wouldnt be too difficult

 

[westwall]

I wonder how long they had to discuss their “lies” to get on the same sheet of music when they made statements to the police and in court. Curiously only one witness changed his story. And that was Perry.

Well, they had several hours to all get on the same page.

 

[forkup]

With enough coaching from the George Soros appointed DA it wouldnt be too difficult

Nor would it be if God whispered in their ear. On the other hand, you have an equal amount of evidence of either hypothesis. None whatsoever. So, what you're left with is a completely ad hoc explanation for the facts as they are. An explanation that is completely contradictory to the principle of Occam's Razor.

 

[forkup]

“Witnesses” being Black LIES Matter wackos who were running wild in the street

Which is it? The witnesses lied, or the witnesses confirmed that Perry was threatened?

 

[westwall]

Nor would it be if God whispered in their ear. On the other hand, you have an equal amount of evidence of either hypothesis. None whatsoever. So, what you're left with is a completely ad hoc explanation for the facts as they are. An explanation that is completely contradictory to the principle of Occam's Razor.

Wrong, we have fosters own remarks saying he was going to stir up some shit.

 

[westwall]

Which is it? The witnesses lied, or the witnesses confirmed that Perry was threatened?

The burn loot murder witnesses all lied and claimed foster wasn't threatening Perry.

 

[Mac-7]

Which is it? The witnesses lied, or the witnesses confirmed that Perry was threatened?

The witnesses never conceded that in their opinion Perry was threatened

But they did confirm that Foster was armed with an ak47

And that was a threat

 

[SavannahMann]

With enough coaching from the George Soros appointed DA it wouldnt be too difficult

But how did they manage to coach the people when it happened? Cops showed up. Got statements. Detectives interviewed the witnesses.

I want you to take a moment. Imagine the races were reversed. Imagine what you would say if someone on here was claiming that a dozen White Witnesses were lying and only the single black guy was telling the truth.

 

[forkup]

The witnesses never conceded that in their opinion Perry was threatened

But they did confirm that Foster was armed with an ak47

And that was a threat

So, an armed man is by definition a threat? I have to say. You have an odd notion of what it means to open-carry. In your world all the states that allow it would allow for random shootings without anyway to ever convict. You sure you want to defend that principle?

Maybe, all the non-pussies would kill each other off making the world safer for us pussies. Mutual assured destruction of those that think a gun is a fine replacement for their small dicks.

In any case. So, you lied when you said all the witnesses said Perry was threatened? Or is it that you are simply making any argument that you think will get you to the next post? Hoping nobody notices your switching your position more than a couple going through the entire Kama Sutra.

 

[forkup]

But how did they manage to coach the people when it happened? Cops showed up. Got statements. Detectives interviewed the witnesses.

I want you to take a moment. Imagine the races were reversed. Imagine what you would say if someone on here was claiming that a dozen White Witnesses were lying and only the single black guy was telling the truth.

Don't bother. Mac here will simply forget he ever had this conversation.

 

[westwall]

So, an armed man is by definition a threat? I have to say. You have an odd notion of what it means to open-carry. In your world all the states that allow it would allow for random shootings without anyway to ever convict. You sure you want to defend that principle?

Maybe, all the non-pussies would kill each other off making the world safer for us pussies. Mutual assured destruction of those that think a gun is a fine replacement for their small dicks.

In any case. So, you lied when you said all the witnesses said Perry was threatened? Or is it that you are simply making any argument that you think will get you to the next post? Hoping nobody notices your switching your position more than a couple going through the entire Kama Sutra.

If his weapon is neither slung, nor holstered, and pointed in my general direction, yes.

 

[Mac-7]

So, an armed man is by definition a threat?

In that circumstance he was

I would not bring an ak47 to a protest

Would you?

 

[forkup]

If his weapon is neither slung, nor holstered, and pointed in my general direction, yes.

Let me move this along a bit. Several posts.

I will say "Nobody except Perry, and in contradiction to his previous statements said the gun was pointed in his general direction." ( The fact that you keep on adding elements like that to your argument should tell you exactly how dishonest the self-defense argument is.)

You will either ignore that fact and refuse to answer or simply lie about what was said in court.

If you lie, I will ask you to support that lie by asking you to provide evidence for that claim.

You will refuse to answer, or deflect by claiming the witnesses are corrupted.

I will ask you to provide evidence of that claim.

You will not answer, or again deflect to the argument you deflected from the post before.

And on and on we go. You asserting stuff. Me asking you to actually prove those assertions, followed be a deflection or an ad hoc argument. Back to the original assertion.


I'm a patient man. And I don't mind repeating myself, or talking to dishonest and/or obtuse people. If I would mind, I'd given up on this board a long time ago.

For the life of me though I don't know what you get out of it. I get to test the strength of my own arguments. Sometimes get proven wrong and actually learn something. What do you get? Is it the enjoyment of seeing me trying to talk logically to you and getting frustrated by your sheer obstinacy? Is it a sense of duty to protect "your side?" What drives someone to go on a forum and talk to strangers without having the slightest inclination to have an intellectually honest discussion? I'm genuinely curious. Why are you here? What motivates you to talk to me?