PeterPilot
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2023
- 2,891
- 1,946
- 1,938
Republicans love lawlessness, that's why they do not deserve to be in power.
Both wings of the Uniparty love lawlessness. Members of both wings routinely violate their oath of office.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans love lawlessness, that's why they do not deserve to be in power.
You are making zero sense. No one can go kill someone because they "feel" threatened. There has to be a legit reason for concern.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?
I cant say if Perry was looking for trouble as you implySo, a guy purposefully drives into a crowd. So he gets surrounded and then shoots a guy. And it's the crowd who instigated it? Riiiiight... sounds logical.
The jury sure as hell could. On account of Perry running a red light, honking and squealing his tires while turning into them.I cant say if Perry was looking for trouble as you imply
Yet there is no question that was the protesters intention
Which is not to say that they planned to kill of do serious bodily harm to Perry as was the case with Reginald Denny during the LA riots
But the possibility was there
If somebody DRIVES INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE, the car will be surrounded by definition. As for him approaching. He was there already and knocked on Perry's window. Again by Perry's own admission.You are making zero sense. No one can go kill someone because they "feel" threatened. There has to be a legit reason for concern.
A mob of people, surrounding your vehicle, screaming at you, and one approaches with a rifle is a legit fear for your life.
Here's a suggestion.
STOP MOBBING CARS IN THE STREET!
THAT ISN'T PEACEFUL PROTEST!
I see. "I don't think stupid people should have any protections under the law, so I'm for pardoning an idiot who purposefully drove his car into a group of protesters and shot one of them thinking simply claiming self-defense would get him of the hook."Oh BS. BLM BLOCKED ROADS and used intimidation tactics.
Stay out of the dang road..OR WIN STUPID PRIZES.
NO SMPATHY HERE. NONE
Does the DA have video of that?The jury sure as hell could. On account of Perry running a red light, honking and squealing his tires while turning into them.
No based on Perry's initial statements.Does the DA have video of that?
Or is it based on BLM testimony?
A partisan jury you meant to say. Led about by an unethical DA.The jury sure as hell could. On account of Perry running a red light, honking and squealing his tires while turning into them.
This on top of the social media posts I showed you. If you think it's reasonable that was simply all accidental and coincidental I can't help you. Especially because his explanation for his driving was proven to be a lie.
Stupidity is blocking roads..then approaching their cars, shsking the car and threatening the driver and then go....WHY DID HE SHOOT?I see. "I don't think stupid people should have any protections under the law, so I'm for pardoning an idiot who purposefully drove his car into a group of protesters and shot one of them thinking simply claiming self-defense would get him of the hook."
Stupidity works both ways, if you want to look at protesting as stupid.
Stupidity is blocking roads..then approaching their cars, shsking the car and threatening the driver and then go....WHY DID HE SHOOT?
Rigged court rigged city. Why the murderer in Denver got off scott free. Shot an unarmed man for BLM.Because he's a murderer. As established BY A JURY.
I will concede one thingNo 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.
![]()
Closing Arguments Made in the Killing of Austin Black Lives Matter Protester
Daniel Perry is accused of murdering Garrett Fosterwww.austinchronicle.com
One action was unwise. One action was criminal. Again, self-defense is NOT a valid defense when you are determined to have started the action.I will concede one thing
If I were in Perry’s place I would have avoided that street if possible
But if I was Foster I would not be carrying an AK47 to a violent street protest either
Both Perry and Foster had a constitutional right to do what they did
Meaning Foster carrying the AK and Perry driving down a public street
And both were unwise to exercise those rights on that night
You have claimed that Foster had a right to carry the AK47 that nightOn action was unwise. One action was criminal. Again, self-defense is NOT a valid defense when you are determined to have started the action.
I'm glad you conceded what you did. It is still a cop-out. The problem isn't that he didn't avoid that street. The problem is that he wanted to be in that street.
Sure. But that action invalidated his right to self-defense under Texas law. Because the reason for it.You have claimed that Foster had a right to carry the AK47 that night
But Perry had an equal right to drive his car down that public street
So it wasn’t pointed at him and therefore he didnt have grounds to claim he was actually threatened by it.
Sure. But that action invalidated his right to self-defense under Texas law. Because the reason for it.
That's one of the few restrictions that Texas recognizes on self-defense. Namely that you can't provoke a fight and then claim self-defense.
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.Perry did not provoke a fight
he had a legal right to drive on that public street
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.