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

He was indicted, and judged by a jury of his peers.

Another clear abuse abuse of the pardon power for politically motivated reasons.

File that away for future events.
Squeals the asshole cheering on the lawfare being perpetrated against Trump.

Yes, file it away, asshole.
 
Nope. A person walking armed BY ITSELF is not a threat. A threatening move needs to be made. Since open carry of long guns IS allowed.

Texas law is specific in this. You have to be able to assert that the assumption of threat was reasonable, AND you can't be the instigator.

In this case, Perry instigated by running a red light with his car turning spinning his wheels and honking into a group of protesters. He admitted that the other guy had his gun pointed at the ground and wasn't aiming at him. On top of the fact that he fantasized online on doing exactly what he did PRIOR him doing it, and the fact that the other guy's weapon wasn't ready to fire in the first place.

Your version of self-defense would basically make it impossible to prosecute anybody who shoots an armed person in Texas since you don't think it necessary that an actual threat needs to be established. Just carrying the gun is enough. Hell: you define threat so loosely that self-defense can be invoked with all shootings.

By the way. Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 people. Something I see you defended. The first person wasn't armed at all. He had a plastic bag. That's it. So even being armed isn't something you feel necessary for self-defense. You don't care he put himself in that position with the express purpose of confronting protesters armed with a long gun. Why is that?
You ignore the mob of people behind Foster. You ignore the accounts of them being in the road (violates your pull from the Constitution on protests). You ignore accounts of the mob pounding on Perry’s car. That all adds up to a threat.

Regarding Rittenhouse, all three victims were determined to have threatened him.

Your definition of threat is too strict. Not sure what it takes for you to consider a threat.
 
This 👇


You may think Perry is an asshole, and that’s fine, but I promise you don’t want to establish the precedent that an armed and mentally unstable street protestor specifically out to confront you, block your movement, and intimidate you has to be pointing their weapon STRAIGHT at you before you can defend yourself from them.

If you establish that precedent you’re gonna have a bad time.




 
You ignore the mob of people behind Foster. You ignore the accounts of them being in the road (violates your pull from the Constitution on protests). You ignore accounts of the mob pounding on Perry’s car. That all adds up to a threat.

Regarding Rittenhouse, all three victims were determined to have threatened him.

Your definition of threat is too strict. Not sure what it takes for you to consider a threat.
I think I made it clear. A WEAPON AIMED AT A PERSON. Or a direct "I'm going to shoot you."

When is something not a threat to you? At the moment we have established a gun isn't even necessary so what? When is an armed civilian NOT able to invoke self-defense?
 
I think I made it clear. A WEAPON AIMED AT A PERSON. Or a direct "I'm going to shoot you."

When is something not a threat to you? At the moment we have established a gun isn't even necessary so what? When is an armed civilian NOT able to invoke self-defense?
Its difficult not to see a mob of masked protestors surrounding your car as peace loving non threats

And if one of them is approaching you with an ak47 thats really threatening
 
I think I made it clear. A WEAPON AIMED AT A PERSON. Or a direct "I'm going to shoot you."

When is something not a threat to you? At the moment we have established a gun isn't even necessary so what? When is an armed civilian NOT able to invoke self-defense?
I’ve already answered your questions and given my position.
 
I’ve already answered your questions and given my position.
Oh really? Mind doing it again. When can self defense NOT be invoked?

What's there to prevent you for instance killing me when I'm walking towards you while open carrying?

What's there to prevent me from killing you during a discussion of the only thing I need to claim is that I felt threatened.


You have described self defense as a nearly universal excuse for murder. I want to know if you think there are limitations?
 
Last edited:
Its difficult not to see a mob of masked protestors surrounding your car as peace loving non threats

And if one of them is approaching you with an ak47 thats really threatening
You mean the mob HE drove into? Running a red light and turning to do so..That mob?
 
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.

lol overruling rigged juries by Democrats should be the norm, especially in Travis County.
 
Redress he GOVERNMENT, not preventing your fellow citizens from lawfully using roadways for their own purposes.

Given their penchant for violence it should be legal to run over them at high speed. Aiming for the freaks carrying AK's should be given a public service award. Damages to vehicles should come out of the pockets of the protestors and whatever Democrat front group treasury they're representing.

Mobs swarming cars while carrying weapons is not 'peaceful assembly'.
 
Last edited:
Only if you believe what Black LIES Matter tells you, but I dont

If they had not been blocking the streets the driver would not have been forced to stop
I believe the statements IN COURT. Among other people by Perry himself. Who said the reason he turned in there was because he wasn't paying attention because he was texting. Something the prosecution exposed as a lie because they pulled his cell phone data.
 
Only if you believe what Black LIES Matter tells you, but I dont

If they had not been blocking the streets the driver would not have been forced to stop
Thats the part they always ignore. They just look the other way at who created the situation by playing in fucking traffic.

Burn Loot and Murder can rot in hell for all I care. They use threats of force and even MURDER in their protest.

SYMPATHY DOESNT EXIST FOR THIS DEAD BLM CLOWN.

He went out looking for trouble. He found it.

Darwin WON
 
I believe the statements IN COURT. Among other people by Perry himself. Who said the reason he turned in there was because he wasn't paying attention because he was texting. Something the prosecution exposed as a lie because they pulled his cell phone data.
However he got there it was a public street that the protesters were blocking
 
If they werent in the road, How would he drive up on them.

How about the dumb asses not playing in the road
If he drives into a crowd on purpose he isn't accidentally surrounded. He made the choice to be there and provoke a crowd.

That's 1 of 2 reasons the jury didn't buy the self-defense claim. HE INSTIGATED the conflict. Invalidating any self-defense claim under Texas law.
 
If he drives into a crowd on purpose he isn't accidentally surrounded. He made the choice to be there and provoke a crowd.

That's 1 of 2 reasons the jury didn't buy the self-defense claim. HE INSTIGATED the conflict. Invalidating any self-defense claim under Texas law.
Oh BS. BLM BLOCKED ROADS and used intimidation tactics.

Stay out of the dang road..OR WIN STUPID PRIZES.

NO SMPATHY HERE. NONE
 

Forum List

Back
Top