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

[forkup]

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.

Point a gun AT someone, it is a threat.

Sure it is. It still wouldn't give you the right to claim self-defense by definition. For the reasons I stated when I cited the self-defense laws in Texas.

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.

 

[forkup]

Link?

I gave you the link. Both in general and in this case in particular.

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

In Texas, self-defense is defined by Texas Penal Code 9.31. This section states that “a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of...

www.shouselaw.com

 

[Missourian]

I gave you the link. Both in general and in this case in particular.

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

In Texas, self-defense is defined by Texas Penal Code 9.31. This section states that “a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of...

www.shouselaw.com

Having a gun pointed at you is covered by #2...

2. When can someone legally defend themselves?​

Texas’ self-defense law allows people to defend themselves when faced with unlawful force. However, the person has to reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary.

Whether that belief was reasonable is a crucial aspect of the defense.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

At this point, you are dancing with yourself.

 

[forkup]

Having a gun pointed at you is covered by #2...

2. When can someone legally defend themselves?​

Texas’ self-defense law allows people to defend themselves when faced with unlawful force. However, the person has to reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary.

Whether that belief was reasonable is a crucial aspect of the defense.

when faced with unlawful force

Self-defense isn't unlawful force.

Point three is even more damning. You can't provoke the fight.

Purposefully driving into people is both provocative and would allow for lawful force in self-defense. Mind you, only one condition needs to apply.

 

[forkup]

At this point, you are dancing with yourself.

I'm not the one refusing to tie a principle behind my opinion. I haven't dodged a single question either by you or anyone, at least not on purpose. I've now tried to get you to answer 1 in 3 consecutive posts.

 

[Missourian]

Self-defense isn't unlawful force.

Point three is even more damning. You can't provoke the fight.

Purposefully driving into people is both provocative and would allow for lawful force in self-defense. Mind you, only one condition needs to apply.

Driving on the road isn't provoking a fight here any more than it would be in anti-abortion scenario.

If one isn't provoking, neither is the other.

 

[forkup]

Driving on the road isn't provoking a fight here any more than it would be in anti-abortion scenario.

If one isn't provoking, neither is the other.

You are right in this case.

Can they point guns at anyone attempting to drive to the abortion clinic?

You are wrong in this case.

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.

This is why I said that you changed the premise fundamentally.

 

[Missourian]

You are right in this case.

You are wrong in this case.

This is why I said that you changed the premise fundamentally.

But...it doesn't.

Driving through a protest is driving though a protest.

Pointing guns is pointing guns.

This is you again Monday morning quarterbacking.

At the moment this happened, no one in either scenario would have any inkling of the others motivation.

That's why it is irrelevant.

Only the actions are relevant.

For all AK47 dude knew, Perry was going to his mother house because she was violently ill.

For all the anti-abortion protestor knows, you're a pro-abortionist looking for trouble.

See how that works?

 

[forkup]

But...it doesn't.

Driving through a protest is driving though a protest.

Pointing guns is pointing guns.

This is you again Monday morning quarterbacking.

At the moment this happened, no one in either scenario would have any inkling of the others motivation.

That's why it is irrelevant.

Only the actions are relevant.

For all AK47 dude knew, Perry was going to his mother house because she was violently ill.

For all the anti-abortion protestor knows, you're a pro-abortionist looking for trouble.

See how that works?

He wasn't driving "through" a protest. He was driving "at" the protesters. Purposefully. This could be determined by both circumstantial and direct evidence. His social media post determined that he was actively contemplating driving AT the protesters and actually firing. He actually did drive AT the protesters and fired. He ran a red light and lied about it. AND it was determined by the simple expediency of getting his cell phone data that the reason he stated for being there, (him being distracted by texting) was a lie on account of him not texting at the time. The AK 74 dude saw him almost hitting his girlfriend in a wheelchair as he did see him almost hitting several other people. (As was testified too by MULTIPLE people). He was honking and squealing his tires (again going by testimony). Those are ALL actions PERRY not Foster took. The only action Foster took going by testimony was knock on his window and tell him to move.

What you have is a grainy picture without a timestamp, that causes you to claim that all that testimony, including that of Perry himself when he was first interrogated is wrong.

 

[Missourian]

He wasn't driving "through" a protest. He was driving "at" the protesters. Purposefully. This could be determined by both circumstantial and direct evidence. His social media post determined that he was actively contemplating driving AT the protesters and actually firing. He actually did drive AT the protesters and fired. He ran a red light and lied about it. AND it was determined by the simple expediency of getting his cell phone data that the reason he stated for being there, (him being distracted by texting) was a lie on account of him not texting at the time. The AK 74 dude saw him almost hitting his girlfriend in a wheelchair as he did see him almost hitting several other people. (As was testified too by MULTIPLE people). He was honking and squealing his tires (again going by testimony). Those are ALL actions PERRY not Foster took. The only action Foster took going by testimony was knock on his window and tell him to move.

What you have is a grainy picture without a timestamp, that you claim that all that testimony, including that of Perry himself when he was first interrogated is wrong.

He was driving through a protest.

Same as you would be in the Anti-abortion protest.

Same-same.

No difference but semantics.

The "why" is irrelevant.

 

[forkup]

He was driving through a protest.

Same as you would be in the Anti-abortion protest.

Same-same.

No difference but semantics.

The "why" is irrelevant.

Those "semantics" make all the difference and the "why" is absolutely determinative in establishing MOST crimes. Buying powdered sugar, legal. Buying powdered sugar from a cop thinking it's coke, illegal. Parking my car outside a bank, legal. Doing so, so it can serve as a getaway vehicle, illegal. Driving on a street, legal. Driving on a street trying to hit people, illegal.

It's funny that you think intent is irrelevant when the law says you can only invoke self-defense if you didn't purposefully initiate the conflict. It seems pretty explicit and ALL about intent.

 

[theHawk]

No he didn't defend himself. The jury saw the documents where he said he want to go kill. But you're fine with that.

Racist SOB.

Such posts by him are irrelevant. No one forced the Antifa faggot to show up with an AK-47 and point it at him.

 

[eagle1462010]

Still not answering my question. What's your reason to believe Perry in court, and disbelieve EVERYBODY else, including Perry when not in court.

And no, I'm not talking about both sides of my mouth. I'm pretty clear on my feelings on public carrying of any type. My feelings though are completely irrelevant. Since we are talking about the application of existing laws in a state. If my feelings on guns were actual law, this discussion would not be happening.

It's funny though. You, unless I'm mistaken (you haven't really clearly stated it here) support gun rights. Yet you keep on insisting that carrying that gun gives a default right to be considered a threat by someone who sees it. Just like you keep on insisting that the right to drive on a public road, gives you the right to run a red light and purposefully drive into a crowd and then claim self-defense when an armed person tells you to move on.

Blocking the road and harrassing anyone who dares approach it is a damn threat with or without a gun

Top it off guy walks at you with an AK47??

Id have shot him too.

 

[SavannahMann]

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?"

Here is the fly in the buttermilk. Perry said that Foster did not point the weapon. He said he was afraid he would point the weapon.

 

[SavannahMann]

Such posts by him are irrelevant. No one forced the Antifa faggot to show up with an AK-47 and point it at him.

So Perry lied when he said that Foster didn’t point the weapon at him?

 

[eagle1462010]

So Perry lied when he said that Foster didn’t point the weapon at him?

Blocking road. Yelling and intimidating like normal Burn Loot and Murder.

See guy then approach AK47 Im gonna shoot your ass.

My rights dont begin where yours end clown.

 

[theHawk]

So Perry lied when he said that Foster didn’t point the weapon at him?

He was moving to point it at him, and he feared for his life. A cop in the same situation would had opened fired.

 

[SavannahMann]

He was moving to point it at him, and he feared for his life. A cop in the same situation would had opened fired.

I love this. It’s gone from pointing at Perry to going to point at him. It’s the outcome you approve of, you don’t care how you get there. Just so long as there are dead leftists.

 

[theHawk]

I love this. It’s gone from pointing at Perry to going to point at him. It’s the outcome you approve of, you don’t care how you get there. Just so long as there are dead leftists.

The photo of it clearly shows up bringing the gun up as to point it at his face. If he shot him before the barrel was pointed at his head, good on him, otherwise SGT Perry would be dead most likely. He had ever right to shoot the lunatic with an AK-47. Funny how you leftwing twats say no one needs a “machine gun” like that. But if it’s an Antifa/BLM twat going after random citizens, then you defend it.