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

[forkup]

Was it murder? Did the guy get out of his car, walk up and shoot the armed protester unprovoked or not threatened? If he did, then I would call it murder. But, the reality is that there is a lot of conflicting testimony and interpretation as to whether the victim provoked the driver.

The BLM armed protestor had every right to be armed but how he engaged the shooter must have been threatening to the point the shooter felt engaging in fire was best for self defense.

That conflicting testimony and interpretation was resolved when the jury said guilty. This while being provided by with all relevant evidence. So I ask again. Does your opinion of the unlawfulness of their actions justify murder?

 

[DBA]

How does one know the gun does or does not have a chambered round when pointed at them?

I have always been taught to treat a gun as if it is loaded and ready to fire and not to point it at someone unless you have the intention to potentially fire.

 

[forkup]

How does one know the gun does or does not have a chambered round when pointed at them?

You don't. And it wasn't aimed at him. Don't take my word for it. Take Perry's in post 57.

What the fact does is question the credibility of the actual threat. It is used in conjunction with other evidence. Like eyewitness testimony, past behavior of the defendant and previous statements of the defendant. It's used to create a consistent story for the jury to overcome the beyond reasonable doubt requirement in a criminal trial.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Many people" have decided that partisanship allows them to simply ignore some pretty basic rights.

That doesn't give you the right to stop others from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Blocking travel on tax payer funded avenues is not a right.

 

[forkup]

That doesn't give you the right to stop others from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Blocking travel on tax payer funded avenues is not a right.

You are right. Only the video did show traffic could still move. And only ONE person was deprived of life. It wasn't Perry.

 

[Godboy]

Why is it that a conviction that the right doesn't like is always done out of partisanship and not because the accused is, you know... guilty?

Yeah, we should just assume that Soros's handpicked progressive prosecutors are all on the up and up. Those guys are NEVER partisan.

 

[Godboy]

And only ONE person was deprived of life. It wasn't Perry.

Thank goodness!!! I love a happy ending.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, we should just assume that Soros's handpicked progressive prosecutors are all on the up and up. Those guys are NEVER partisan.

You should assume that a criminal trial. A trial with all the advantages a criminal defendant has. Including being judged by a jury of its peers and all the possibility of appealing a verdict. In Texas no less. Is more than enough to accept the outcome.

 

[LeftofLeft]

That conflicting testimony and interpretation was resolved when the jury said guilty. This while being provided by with all relevant evidence. So I ask again. Does your opinion of the unlawfulness of their actions justify murder?

The victim approached the vehicle driven by the shooter with a gun himself. How lawful is that? You can keep calling it murder and the verdict was murder but the Governor had enough evidence and factors to consider in his pardon. Pardons are lawful. The most heinous crimes can be pardoned; yet to do so would come with political fallout. That is not the case here as this case is very controversial and will have a pretty equal division down the line whether the pardon was lawful.

 

[forkup]

The victim approached the vehicle driven by the shooter with a gun himself. How lawful is that? You can keep calling it murder and the verdict was murder but the Governor had enough evidence and factors to consider in his pardon. Pardons are lawful. The most heinous crimes can be pardoned; yet to do so would come with political fallout. That is not the case here as this case is very controversial and will have a pretty equal division down the line whether the pardon was lawful.

I'm NOT the one arguing for open carry. In fact, if I would have my way, nobody should have any guns without a thorough background check, limited in type, and only in a person's home, or for hunting. That is, however, NOT what either Texas or for that matter the Supreme Court thinks. They think I'm worse than the devil for even suggesting limitations on guns. So not only is it lawful. It's wholeheartedly supported by as far as I can tell, most people on the right.

As for the lawfulness of pardons. They are. And if done for the right reasons even good. This however is a governor of a state openly stating that his OPINION overrides a jury verdict because he didn't like that verdict. So no, I don't think the division is about lawful. It's about ethical. And in my book about the precedent.

In this case a precedent that is so rawly political it's disgusting and an ABUSE of that power.

 

[Godboy]

You should assume that a criminal trial. A trial with all the advantages a criminal defendant has. Including being judged by a jury of its peers and all the possibility of appealing a verdict. In Texas no less. Is more than enough to accept the outcome.

No one assumes jack shit with your crazy fucking prosecutors anymore. You can fuck off with that "give them the benefit of doubt" horseshit. That bridge was burned LONG ago.

 

[tahuyaman]

Republicans love lawlessness, that's why they do not deserve to be in power.

Liberals post dumb comments.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'm NOT the one arguing for open carry. In fact, if I would have my way, nobody should have any guns without a thorough background check, limited in type, and only in a person's home, or for hunting. That is, however, NOT what either Texas or for that matter the Supreme Court thinks. They think I'm worse than the devil for even suggesting limitations on guns. So not only is it lawful. It's wholeheartedly supported by as far as I can tell, most people on the right.

As for the lawfulness of pardons. They are. And if done for the right reasons even good. This however is a governor of a state openly stating that his OPINION overrides a jury verdict because he didn't like that verdict. So no, I don't think the division is about lawful. It's about ethical. And in my book about the precedent.

In this case a precedent that is so rawly political it's disgusting and an ABUSE of that power.

I appreciate your position on guns and the case. But, if you look at every pardon done by a President or Governor involving a person found guilty of a crime in the judicial process, a pardon is just that…. An override of the jury verdict.

 

[Mac-7]

Only it wasn't "a legal excuse" it was an illegal one. As demonstrated by the guilty verdict. A guilty verdict overturned by a governor who claimed it was partisan in nature. Without evidence.

He was being assaulted and in fear of his life

If it hadnt happened in Austin he would have been ok

 

[theHawk]

This sets a bad precedent. The Gov is telling the people of his state that the juries cannot be trusted and that he alone knows better than the jury that sat through the trial and saw all the evidence.

Yea because the Justice system never fails, right?



.

 

[theHawk]

Most of them yes, for sure all the Presidential ones.

If new evidence comes to light and there is an actual reason behind the pardon, I can support that use of the power.

But that was not the case here, the pardon happened because the Gov supported the action of the accused. It was 100% political and not based on any legal issues.

In Texas the Governor cannot just pardon on his own. The state correctional board has to recommend it first. They did.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Anyone carrying a weapon is now threatening enough to justify shooting?

Nope. Some leftist wackjob pointing a gun at you is.

 

[theHawk]

This sets a bad precedent

It’s bad precedent to allow leftwingers on juries. They are completely blinded by their emotions and politics and rarely can look at only the facts. Democrats should be banned from jury pools.

 

[theHawk]

past behavior of the defendant and previous statements of the defendant

In other words you want him convicted and jailed his whole life because of his political views and belief in the right to defend oneself.

 

[theHawk]

I'm NOT the one arguing for open carry. In fact, if I would have my way, nobody should have any guns without a thorough background check, limited in type, and only in a person's home, or for hunting. That is, however, NOT what either Texas or for that matter the Supreme Court thinks. They think I'm worse than the devil for even suggesting limitations on guns. So not only is it lawful. It's wholeheartedly supported by as far as I can tell, most people on the right.

As for the lawfulness of pardons. They are. And if done for the right reasons even good. This however is a governor of a state openly stating that his OPINION overrides a jury verdict because he didn't like that verdict. So no, I don't think the division is about lawful. It's about ethical. And in my book about the precedent.

In this case a precedent that is so rawly political it's disgusting and an ABUSE of that power.

The state board recommended the pardon, the governor cannot do it on his own.


Funny how BJ Clinton can pardon all his criminal buddies and that isn’t an abuse of power.

It’s laughable to see you lefties act like you care about abuse of power. Biden is the most corrupt piece of shit to ever occupy the White House. His whole family is rich because they receive bribes from China and Ukraine.