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

[Mac-7]

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

Speaking of ignoring questions I asked you if you would bring an AK47 to a street protest and you failed to answer

 

[SavannahMann]

Speaking of ignoring questions I asked you if you would bring an AK47 to a street protest and you failed to answer

Would I? No. Was it a crime? No. Was it inherently a threat? No.

 

[Mac-7]

Would I? No. Was it a crime? No. Was it inherently a threat? No.

Brandishing a weapon at the protest was not a crime

But neither was Perry driving his car on a public street

 

[forkup]

Speaking of ignoring questions I asked you if you would bring an AK47 to a street protest and you failed to answer

Not really.

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.

As for your question. No, I wouldn't. The fastest way to get shot is to brandish a gun. I would move my car. The video showed he had the enough room. If I couldn't, I would talk. My reaction to a threat is to try to deescalate, not to bluster.

Of course I wouldn't be in that position in the first place. I see no reason to go in the vicinity of a protest. And I don't own a gun.

Mind you this is just in this OP. There are plenty more in which I decry the lunacy of open carry in general and that of long guns in particular. Rittenhouse comes to mind.

The reason I didn't answer you personally this time because it's just another red herring meant to deflect from my questions to you. My feelings on guns aren't relevant to the law in Texas. Under which law Perry was deemed to be a murderer.

One of the advantages of intellectual honesty. An honesty that includes actually engaging a premise when directly asked a question is that I don't have to think of what the best response would be to "win" the argument. I can just tell what I think is true. Sure that involves something having to say those dreaded words "I'm wrong" but at least I can make a consistent argument.

 

[Mac-7]

Not really.

Of course you wouldnt

And the death of Foster is one of several reasons why it was a bad idea

 

[Mac-7]

Not really.




Mind you this is just in this OP. There are plenty more in which I decry the lunacy of open carry in general and that of long guns in particular. Rittenhouse comes to mind.

The reason I didn't answer you personally this time because it's just another red herring meant to deflect from my questions to you. My feelings on guns aren't relevant to the law in Texas. Under which law Perry was deemed to be a murderer.

One of the advantages of intellectual honesty. An honesty that includes actually engaging a premise when directly asked a question is that I don't have to think of what the best response would be to "win" the argument. I can just tell what I think is true. Sure that involves something having to say those dreaded words "I'm wrong" but at least I can make a consistent argument.

We seem to agree that bringing gun to the protest was a bad idea

And so was Perry choosing to exercise his right to drive his car on a public street

In his place that night I would not have done it

But Perry nevertheless had a right to defend himself when Foster approached him with the rifle

 

[forkup]

Of course you wouldnt

And the death of Foster is one of several reasons why it was a bad idea

That doesn't absolve Perry from the consequences of his deeds or his guilt. The only thing it does is make the State of Texas. The very very Republican led State of Texas complicit in allowing this tragedy to happen.

As I also said before in this OP. It's the height of recklessness that in a state that gleefully makes both possession and reckless behavior with guns, a cornerstone of a political platform. That the same governor that allows for this behavior, is also a governor that would pardon a person that ran afoul of one of the few protections the state allows.

 

[Mac-7]

That doesn't absolve Perry from the consequences of his deeds or his guilt. The only thing it does is make the State of Texas. The very very Republican led State of Texas complicit in allowing this tragedy to happen.

As I also said before in this OP. It's the height of recklessness that in a state that gleefully makes both possession and reckless behavior with guns, a cornerstone of a political platform. That the same governor that allows for this behavior, is also a governor that would pardon a person that ran afoul of one of the few protections the state allows.

The AK47 Foster was carrying was a deadly weapon in very tense situation

Perry feared for his life

 

[forkup]

We seem to agree that bringing gun to the protest was a bad idea

And so was Perry choosing to exercise his right to drive his car on a public street

In his place that night I would not have done it

But Perry nevertheless had a right to defend himself when Foster approached him with the rifle

And here we go again. Round and round.

It is Texas that allows for open carry of long rifles. It doesn't say ANYTHING, nothing at all about a person being a threat if he walks armed to another person in ANY circumstances. Unless he's openly threatening. Noone not even Perry said he was UNTIL the trial. Nor do you have the right to "defend" yourself from a situation YOU started. Which Perry did by PURPOSELY driving into a crowd. This whole "he was exercising his right to drive in a public road" is asinine.


I have the right to drive on a public road too. However if it can be established that I used that right to drive into another person. I don't care if he was pissing in the middle of the road stark naked I would still be charged.

Perry drove through a red light, into a crowd and demonstrably LIED about the circumstances. Not to mention his statements prior to the event. That's more than enough for any reasonable juror to establish intent.

 

[forkup]

The AK47 Foster was carrying was a deadly weapon in very tense situation

Perry feared for his life

I. Don't. Care. That. He.Claimed.That.

Texas says carrying a deadly weapon isn't an inherent threat.

Texas says you can't claim self-defense when you provoke a fight.

 

[SavannahMann]

Brandishing a weapon at the protest was not a crime

But neither was Perry driving his car on a public street

Perry bumping people with his car was a crime. Perry sexting with a sixteen year old girl online was a crime. This guy isn’t the poster child you want for your agenda. Imagine how you all are going to react when he’s busted with child porn in a couple years. Of course then he will be a LW plant to make you all look bad.

Court filing in Daniel Perry case - PDFCOFFEE.COM

Filed in the District Court Of Travis County, TexasD-1-DC-21-900007 THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. DANIEL PERRY§ § § § §03...

pdfcoffee.com

 

[Mac-7]

I. Don't. Care. That. He.Claimed.That.

Texas says carrying a deadly weapon isn't an inherent threat.

Texas says you can't claim self-defense when you provoke a fight.

You seem to think Perry had no right to drive his car on that street

But he did

 

[Mac-7]

Perry bumping people with his car was a crime.

I dont know if he did bump anyone

But if he did it was someone who was illegally blocking the road

 

[forkup]

You seem to think Perry had no right to drive his car on that street

But he did

Mac truly, at some point obstinance goes too far.

I have the right to drive on a public road too. However if it can be established that I used that right to drive into another person. I don't care if he was pissing in the middle of the road stark naked I would still be charged.

I DO NOT DENY HE HAD THE RIGHT TO DRIVE ANYWHERE.

I DENY THE RIGHT TO DRIVE ALLOWS FOR PURPOSEFULLY DRIVING INTO PEOPLE. I DENY THE RIGHT TO DRIVE ALLOWS FOR RUNNING LIGHTS. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY I DENY THAT THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR CAN BE USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR DOING SO, SO YOU CAN PROVOKE A FIGHT, SHOOT SOMEBODY, AND USE SELF-DEFENSE AS AN EXCUSE.

You can't claim the right to drive as an excuse for those actions anymore then you could use it to do a hit and run or use a car as a getaway vehicle. It's the intent in driving not the actual act of driving.

 

[Mac-7]

Mac truly, at some point obstinance goes too far.

You want to have it your own way

But I wont let you

 

[forkup]

You want to have it your own way

But I wont let you

It's not my way. It's the way the law works. As established by Texas or anywhere for that matter. For some reason you keep on insisting that the right to drive is so absolute that it completely precludes any determination of law as to the purpose of that driving. Something that doesn't work in any logical way.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Nothing lawless about it, everything was done by the book.

.

 

[Mac-7]

It's not my way. It's the LEGAL way. As established by Texas.

Its you who claims that Perry had no right to drive down that street

 

[forkup]

Its you who claims that Perry had no right to drive down that street

Look I can only put a certain amount of emphasis on what I say. I used punctuation per word for emphasis, I used caps, and I bolded. I guess I could change the font but there really isn't a point.

If you just insist on using a strawman to present my position, simply so you can refuse to answer a simple premise, I can't stop you. What I can do is recognize the futility of continuing to pretend that you are in any way a good faith actor. And simply consider you like Westwall simply a troll whose idea of fun is to frustrate the opposition into giving up.

So, I'll give it one last chance by posing you a simple yes or no question. Depending on how evasive you are, we continue or I stop.

If Foster, seeing Perry running the light and coming towards the protesters would have opened fire. Would you have agreed he had a right to defend himself? Yes or no suffices.

 

[Mac-7]

Look I can only put a certain amount of emphasis on what I say. I used punctuation per word for emphasis, I used caps, and I bolded. I guess I could change the font but there really isn't a point.

If you just insist on using a strawman to present my position, simply so you can refuse to answer a simple premise, I can't stop you. What I can do is recognize the futility of continue to pretend to you are in any way a good faith actor. And simply consider you like Westwall simply a troll whose idea of fun is to frustrate the opposition into giving up.

So, I'll give it one last chance by posing you a simple yes or no question. Depending on how evasive you are, we continue or I stop.

If Foster seeing Perry running the light and coming towards the protesters would have opened fire. Would you have agreed he had a right to defend himself? Yes or no suffices.

We dont agree because you refuse to assign any responsibility to the protesters for what happened