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

[forkup]

I’ve already stated my position.., multiple times.

I don't care what your position is. I care that the position is in line with the law as exists, or at least defensible as a principle if it's not. Something that you would be willing to defend regardless of circumstances. I highly doubt you can, because I think it would make self-defense a principle so broad it would make the charge of murder impossible to pursue in most cases.

I can't do that, if you insist that this pardon is in line with the law as it exists. My point is that you have to choose. You defend the pardon on the principle of Abbott rectifying an injustice based on existing law. Or you defend it on a principle of self-defense based on your opinion on what the law should be. This because I challenge that either you or Abbott is following Texas law as it exists.

 

[forkup]

I can SEE THE BUTTSTOCK OF THE WEAPON!

Can you? I can't. In fact, I doubt anyone does. But just for the sake of argument let's assume it does. Congratulations. Just 3 assumptions left. And then you can work on trying to invalidate the testimony of several witnesses and his own original interrogation.

Good luck.

 

[Missourian]

Can you? I can't. In fact, I doubt anyone does. But just for the sake of argument let's assume it does. Congratulations. Just 3 assumptions left. And then you can work on trying to invalidate the testimony of several witnesses and his own original testimony.

Good luck.

I only need the one.

Gun pointed at me illegally , I cannot retreat without injuring people who are not threatening me.

Clear cut self defense.

 

[forkup]

I only need the one.

Gun pointed at me illegally , I cannot retreat without injuring people who are not threatening me.

Clear cut self defense.

What do you mean "illegally?" If you recognize self-defense as a right. What's illegal about pointing a gun or even firing at a car driving into a crowd?

 

[SavannahMann]

I can see it for myself.

Surrounded and a gun pointed...

View attachment 951480

Now quit yer lyin'.

Perry didn’t say that. Perry said he was afraid that Foster would aim the weapon at him. Not that he was aiming at him.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I don't care what your position is. I care that the position is in line with the law as exists, or at least defensible as a principle if it's not. Something that you would be willing to defend regardless of circumstances. I highly doubt you can, because I think it would make self-defense a principle so broad it would make the charge of murder impossible to pursue in most cases.

I can't do that, if you insist that this pardon is in line with the law as it exists. My point is that you have to choose. You defend the pardon on the principle of Abbott rectifying an injustice based on existing law. Or you defend it on a principle of self-defense based on your opinion on what the law should be. This because I challenge that either you or Abbott is following Texas law as it exists.

See Texas Law on pardons. Your interpretation has been noted over and over.

 

[Missourian]

What do you mean "illegally?" If you recognize self-defense as a right. What's illegal about pointing a gun or even firing at a car driving into a crowd?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Self defense is ONLY applicable in cases where the threat is DEATH and/or GRIEVOUS bodily harm is immanent...like when someone is pointing a firearm at you. A car driving 3 mph fits NEITHER of those requirements.

In fact...pointing a firearm at the driver puts the crowd in MORE danger...not less.

 

[forkup]

See Texas Law on pardons. Your interpretation has been noted over and over.

So your position is that you don't have to actually choose a position because you can hide behind the pardon power.

Ok then. Not unexpected... and precisely what a coward does. Or at least someone intellectual dishonest enough to realize that his argument isn't defensible.

 

[forkup]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Self defense is ONLY applicable in cases where the threat is DEATH and/or GRIEVOUS bodily harm is immanent...like when someone is pointing a firearm at you. A car driving 3 mph fits NEITHER of those requirements.

In fact...pointing a firearm at the driver puts the crowd in MORE danger...not less.

You don't think a car driving into a crowd doesn't mean death or grievous bodily harm is imminent? Remember the picture is just a picture. It could be that it's taken AS Perry was driving into the crowd. See the problem here?

 

[Missourian]

You don't think a car driving into a crow doesn't mean death or grievous bodily harm is imminent? Remember the picture is just a picture. It could be that it's taken AS Perry was driving into the crowd. See the problem here?

Nope. He's surrounded front and back.

No one even slightly injured.

And he is driving where cars are supposed to travel.



Not even a good try.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So your position is that you don't have to actually choose a position because you can hide behind the pardon power.

Ok then. Not unexpected... and precisely what a coward does. Or at least someone intellectual dishonest enough to realize that his argument isn't defensible.

I already gave you my position. At this point, you’re giving your opinion on my position and have resorted to name calling and personal attacks.

 

[forkup]

Nope. He's surrounded front and back.

No one even slightly injured.

And he is driving where cars are supposed to travel.



Not even a good try.

So what, it's a still? He could have braked hard and what you ASSUME is Foster could be a millisecond away from lowering his weapon. ASSUMPTIONS work both ways.

 

[forkup]

I already gave you my position. At this point, you’re giving your opinion on my position and have resorted to name calling and personal attacks.

It's not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. I asked you to determine the principle on which you base your opinion. Or failing that, at least challenge my assertion. Both are acceptable (and helpful in focusing the discussion), you are making the conscious choice of refusing to do either. Instead choosing to end it by hiding behind a pardon as a legal and therefore unassailable option. This tells me nothing about how YOU defend your position.

 

[Mac-7]

I can’t find anyone who said it was not slung.

Here is Foster with his AK47

Notice his left hand is on the forearm of the weapon and the right hand is on the trigger

Protester approaches car with AK-47 before being shot dead as suspect freed

DRAMATIC footage shows the moment a protester approached a car with his AK-47 seconds before he was shot dead. Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster was pushing his fiancee, Whitney Mitchell,…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Missourian]

So what, it's a still? He could have braked hard and what you ASSUME is Foster could be a millisecond away from lowering his weapon. ASSUMPTIONS work both ways.

Fake News. No one was injured and after dingleberry was shot...still no one was injured. Ergo, there was no immanent threat.

Now allow me to illustrate the failure of your argument.

Let's tweak the circumstances of the encounter slightly.

These protestors aren't BLM...they are anti-abortion protestors.

And they are blocking all the roads to the local abortion clinic.

They are just "exercising their right to assemble" on the road and protest.

Can they point guns at anyone attempting to drive to the abortion clinic? Because that's an immanent threat. And if they continue, it would be self defense to shoot them?

We on the same page?

 

[forkup]

Fake News. No one was injured and after dingleberry was shot...still no one was injured. Ergo, there was no immanent threat.

Now allow me to illustrate the failure of your argument.

Let's tweak the circumstances of the encounter slightly.

These protestors aren't BLM...they are anti-abortion protestors.

And they are blocking all the roads to the local abortion clinic.

They are just "exercising their right to assemble" on the road and protest.

Can they point guns at anyone attempting to drive to the abortion clinic? Because that's an immanent threat. And if they continue, it would be self defense to shoot them?

We on the same page?

His weapon was on safe, and not a round chambered. Perry wasn't shot. No threat right?

 

[Missourian]

His weapon was on safe, and not a round chambered. Perry wasn't shot. No threat right?

Do you have x-ray vision?

I can see a car is going 3 mph.

I can't see into the chamber of a rifle.

 

[Missourian]

His weapon was on safe, and not a round chambered. Perry wasn't shot. No threat right?

Don't think I didn't notice you dodged the rest of the post.

Care to address it?

"Now allow me to illustrate the failure of your argument.

Let's tweak the circumstances of the encounter slightly.

These protestors aren't BLM...they are anti-abortion protestors.

And they are blocking all the roads to the local abortion clinic.

They are just "exercising their right to assemble" on the road and protest.

Can they point guns at anyone attempting to drive to the abortion clinic? Because that's an immanent threat. And if they continue, it would be self defense to shoot them?

We on the same page?"

 

[forkup]

Do you have x-ray vision?

No but the prosecution retrieved Foster's weapon. On safe. Without a chambered round.

 

[westwall]

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

Had it been slung you would be correct. However, it wasn't slung.