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

[Mac-7]

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

Perry could not know and certainly should not assume that Foster was bluffing and therefore harmless

 

[SavannahMann]

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

I also see a sling.

 

[Missourian]

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

Don't care.

Without x-ray vision that is irrelevant.

Driving a car on the road is the purpose of the road.

Going 3 mph doesn't pose an immanent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

I can see that with my eyes.

Pointing a gun has a purpose as well.

Without x-ray vision there is outward indication whether the gun is loaded.

Monday morning quarterbacking is irrelevant.

If someone runs up and points an AK47 at you, are you going to ask them if it is loaded? Good luck with that.

 

[Mac-7]

I also see a sling.

Your half-truth amounts to a lie

The weapon was in ready-to-fire position

 

[forkup]

Don't care.

Without x-ray vision that is irrelevant.

Driving a car on the road is the purpose of the road.

Going 3 mph doesn't pose an immanent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

I can see that with my eyes.

Pointing a gun has a purpose as well.

Without x-ray vision there is outward indication whether the gun is loaded.

Monday morning quarterbacking is irrelevant.

If someone runs up and points an AK47 at you, are you going to ask them if it is loaded? Good luck with that.

Going 3 mph doesn't pose an immanent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

You had a speedometer? Since my x-ray vision is important? I know how I determine the state of his weapon. How do you determine his speed?

As for your other question. If someone drives his car at a crowd, a crowd that includes you and your girlfriend who's in a weelchair, running a red light to do so. Are you going to ask his intentions? I'm guessing... no.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Opinions vary.

 

[Missourian]

You had a speedometer? Since my x-ray vision is important? I know how I determine the state of his weapon. How do you determine his speed?

By the distinct lack of screaming bodies flying through the air.

You didn't determine the state of his weapon. It was determined for you months later.

Here is my personal CCW weapon.

Please determine if it is loaded with a round chambered and if the safety is engaged.

I'll wait.

 

[forkup]

Opinions vary.

Sure, they do. I'm only asking you to clearly define the principle on which you base your opinion.

I don't mind the idea that different people have different ideas on guns and self-defense. I mind the idea that different people change their ideas on guns and self-defense depending on circumstances.

I fundamentally disagree with the position of guns and self-defense in Texas. I can site clear reasons and principles for that. What you do, and what I have a problem with is refusing to root your ideas in a fundamental principle, at least one I can discern. Instead doing this little dance. Why? I suspect it's because if nothing else, you realize you can't defend your position on existing laws in Texas. So if you don't pin yourself down, I can't challenge you. That's where the coward comment comes from.

 

[forkup]

By the distinct lack of screaming bodies flying through the air.

You didn't determine the state of his weapon. It was determined for you months later.

Here is my personal CCW weapon.

View attachment 951528


Please determine if it is loaded with a round chambered and if the safety is engaged.

I'll wait.

Well, I kill you. I retrieve the weapon. And the state of your weapon is easily ascertained is it not?

 

[Missourian]

Well, I kill you. I retrieve the weapon. And the state of your weapon is easily ascertained is it not.

So you are not using that information as a basis of your decision, are you.

That's the point.

That's what makes it irrelevant.

 

[forkup]

So you are not using that information as a basis of your decision, are you.

That's the point.

That's what makes it irreverent.

Of course I wouldn't . But you are basing your opinion of the inherent threat of the car, on the end result of that car driving into the crowd. That's my point.

Or you base the nature of a threat on the perception of its POTENTIAL danger. Or you base it on its ACTUAL danger.

In your case you're saying that the danger of the gun is that it's POTENTIALY ready to fire. But the danger of the car should be determined in whether or not it actually hit somebody.

Choose one position. You can't do both.

 

[Missourian]

P.s. forkup

Still patiently waiting for you to address this...

"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?"

 

[Missourian]

Of course I wouldn't . But you are basing your opinion of the inherent threat of the car, on the end result of that car driving into the crowd. That's my point.

Or you base the nature of a threat on the perception of its POTENTIAL danger. Or you base it on its ACTUAL danger.

In your case you're saying that the danger of the gun is that it's POTENTIALY ready to fire. But the danger of the car should be determined in whether or not it actually hit somebody.

Choose one position. You can't do both.

True. But the car is on the road, where it belongs. Potential threats are NOT immanent threats.

A car on the road isn't an immanent threat. A car inching through a crowd IS NOT an immanent threat. Especially when the car is supposed to be there and the people legally are not.

No justification.

On the other hand, someone pointing a rifle at you IS an immanent threat. Maybe the most immanent threat a person will ever face.

The two are not even remotely equivalent.

 

[Missourian]

Everyone walking in New York City should have their AKs at the ready.

Potentially they could be run down at any moment!

 

[forkup]

P.s. forkup

Still patiently waiting for you to address this...

"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?"

I will just address the question. If they point the gun at me, as I'm simply driving towards an abortion clinic and they point a gun at me, and I happened to be armed, they are a clear danger and I can claim self-defense. It doesn't even matter if the gun is ready to fire.

The problem is that you didn't "tweak the circumstance slightly", you tweaked them fundamentally.

If you want to change the nature of the protest from BLM to anti-abortion this would be the premise.

Instead of simply "driving towards the abortion clinic", the person doing the driving would rail against anti-abortion protests. He would talk to his friends about how he could run them over or shoot them without being charged. He would fantasize about doing both. All prior to the event, instead of simply driving to an abortion clinic he would intentionally drive into a crowd of anti-abortion protesters, running a red light to do so. And finally, he would shoot the armed anti-abortion protester as he was urged to move on by the guy.

 

[Missourian]

I will just address the question. If they point the gun at me, as I'm simply driving towards an abortion clinic and they point a gun at me, and I happened to be armed, they are a clear danger and I can claim self-defense. It doesn't even matter if the gun is ready to fire.

The problem is that you didn't "tweak the circumstance slightly", you tweaked them fundamentally.

If you want to change the nature of the protest from BLM to anti-abortion this would be the premise.

Instead of simply "driving towards the abortion clinic", the person doing the driving would rail against anti-abortion protests. He would talk to his friends about how he could run them over or shoot them without being charged. He would fantasize about doing both. All prior to the event, instead of simply driving to an abortion clinic he would intentionally drive into a crowd of anti-abortion protesters, running a red light to do so. And finally, he would shoot the armed anti-abortion protester as he was urged to move on by the guy.

Sorry, but none of that matters.

The situations are 100% equal.

If you are justified, so is Perry.

Thanks for being honest. I mean that sincerely.

 

[forkup]

True. But the car is on the road, where it belongs. Potential threats are NOT immanent threats.

A car on the road isn't an immanent threat. A car inching through a crowd IS NOT an immanent threat. Especially when the car is supposed to be there and the people legally are not.

No justification.

On the other hand, someone pointing a rifle at you IS an immanent threat. Maybe the most immanent threat a person will ever face.

The two are not even remotely equivalent.

Potential threats are NOT immanent threats.

Aren't they? The gun was on safety and had no round chambered. Meaning it would take 4 separate actions to become dangerous. Chamber a round, take the safety off, aim, fire. The car takes one. Step on the gas. Neither in the case of the gun nor the car there's any foolproof way to determine danger.

You are trying to change the argument now too "a car has a function besides harming people, so it isn't an actual danger while a gun has none." And feel free to correct me when I misrepresent your position. The problem with that argument is that Texas doesn't look at guns that way. To Texas a gun poses no inherent danger or threat. So an inherently threatening action needs to be taken. Pointing a gun would qualify but ONLY if that pointing is not in response to any provocation. A car driving at people is a provocation. It doesn't make the distinction you make.

 

[Missourian]

Aren't they? The gun was on safety and had no round chambered. Meaning it would take 4 separate actions to become dangerous. Chamber a round, take the safety off, aim, fire. The car takes one. Step on the gas. Neither in the case of the gun nor the car there's any foolproof way to determine danger.

You are trying to change the argument now too "a car has a function besides harming people, so it isn't an actual danger while a gun has none." And feel free to correct me when I misrepresent your position. The problem with that argument is that the Texas doesn't look at guns that way. To Texas a gun poses no inherent danger or threat. So an inherently threatening action needs to be taken. Pointing a gun would qualify but ONLY if that pointing is not in response to any provocation. A car driving at people is a provocation. It doesn't make the distinction you make.

This isn't true.

Point a gun AT someone, it is a threat.

It can be a BB gun or a fake gun.


Those are facts.

Here is an actual case where a fake gun holder was shot in self defense in Houston.

"The Houston Restaurant Self-Defense Shooting: Neutralizing a Threat v. Killing a Criminal"

I'm delighted to pass along this item from T. Markus Funk, author of Rethinking Self-Defence: The 'Ancient Right's' Rationale Disentangled…

reason.com

You could do a million different actions and that gun would NEVER be lethal.

Doesn't matter.

The only issue in that case is the fake gun holder was leaving and the discussion is whether he was still an immanent threat.

 

[forkup]

Sorry, but none of that matters.

The situations are 100% equal.

If you are justified, so is Perry.

Thanks for being honest. I mean that sincerely.

Texas Self-defense Laws – When Is Use Of Force Permissible?

These are the conditions.

• only use the minimum amount of force necessary for self-defense,
• reasonably believe that force was necessary to stop someone else’s use of unlawful force,
• did not provoke the attack, and
• were not engaged in a crime.

Texas wholeheartedly disagrees.

 

[Missourian]

Texas wholeheartedly disagrees.

Link?