Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 64,751
- 46,991
- 3,565
WrongNah he was the cool kid that KILLED a guy because he didn't like his politics.
Perry shot someone who was threatening him with a deadly weapon
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.
WrongNah he was the cool kid that KILLED a guy because he didn't like his politics.
Says exactly NOBODY besides Perry. But only at the trial. Not when he was initially interrogated. Those are facts. Facts you keep on ignoring.Wrong
Perry shot someone who was threatening him with a deadly weapon
Sez everyone who testifiedSays exactly NOBODY besides Perry. But only at the trial. Not when he was initially interrogated. Those are facts. Facts you keep on ignoring.
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.Sez everyone who testified
Foster approached the car with an ak47
Perry didnt hit anyone with is car
“Witnesses” being Black LIES Matter wackos who were running wild in the streetWitnesses 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
With enough coaching from the George Soros appointed DA it wouldnt be too difficultI 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.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.
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.With enough coaching from the George Soros appointed DA it wouldnt be too difficult
Which is it? The witnesses lied, or the witnesses confirmed that Perry was threatened?“Witnesses” being Black LIES Matter wackos who were running wild in the street
Wrong, we have fosters own remarks saying he was going to stir up some shit.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.
The burn loot murder witnesses all lied and claimed foster wasn't threatening Perry.Which is it? The witnesses lied, or the witnesses confirmed that Perry was threatened?
The witnesses never conceded that in their opinion Perry was threatenedWhich is it? The witnesses lied, or the witnesses confirmed that Perry was threatened?
With enough coaching from the George Soros appointed DA it wouldnt be too difficult
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?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
Don't bother. Mac here will simply forget he ever had this conversation.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.
If his weapon is neither slung, nor holstered, and pointed in my general direction, yes.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.
In that circumstance he wasSo, an armed man is by definition a threat?
Let me move this along a bit. Several posts.If his weapon is neither slung, nor holstered, and pointed in my general direction, yes.