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

[Mac-7]

Let me list all the assumptions you are making. First you assume that a statistical probability of 3 is actually an unlucky 1, while it can just as easily be 5. Then you assume that one is not an actual Republican but a Democrat in disguise. Lastly you assume that ALL 12 would choose not to judge the actual facts, but let the verdict be ruled to allegiance to BLM/Democrats.

Let me give you a much more likely explanation. Perry was found guilty because after careful consideration of all the fact, what he did was murder.

Assumptions my foot

The motto for the city is “Keep Austin Weird” and it fits

Austin is the weirdest city in Texas

 

[forkup]

I’ve acknowledged the political factor. The fact remains that a protester carrying a gun approached the car. Why? Was he trying to help Perry get turned around safely to go away from the protest?? There are plenty of protests from 2020 where a car and driver inadvertently turned into a protest in the streets, and the car and driver were assaulted; and, in one case, the driver was pulled from the vehicle and beaten to death.

Now, I want you to honestly say that if you turned into a protest, a protester with a gun was approaching your car without any verbal communication backed by a mob of people and you have access to a gun, that you are going to not even consider using the gun to save your life or that you would not feel threatened.

If Perry drove up to a BLM protest where everyone was assembled peacefully and Perry got out of the car and shot the protestor carrying the gun, I would agree with your position and consider the pardon unethical.

You "acknowledge the political factor." You are saying it was justified because of "the political factor" this self-defense claim defies credulity. Not for nothing. It wasn't inadvertent. HE RAN A RED LIGHT TO MAKE THE TURN. Simply approaching someone with a gun is no reason to be shot. I posted a whole SLEW of his social media posts in post 74 and a link for more. He himself said he wasn't being aimed at, multiple witnesses said he wasn't. The weapon was on safety and didn't have a round chambered.

You are simply giving a narrative of the events not supported by available evidence and claim it's true.

Daniel Perry's police interview after Garrett Foster's death revealed to jury

Perry is accused of shooting and killing Black Lives Matter Protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

www.fox7austin.com

One thing Perry kept mentioning throughout the videos and recordings is that he was texting a woman and driving. He adds he was not paying attention and that is one of the reasons he accidentally drove into the crowd of protesters.

The state presented those messages between him and the woman. The woman was a passenger he picked up working for Uber earlier in the night. She asked him for $200 for the hangout to which he declined.

Pamela Mazak, an APD crime analyst, was called to the stand to break down her analysis of Perry’s Uber and cell phone location records from the night of July 25, 2020. She said the last text Perry received or sent out was two minutes before he entered the intersection with the protesters.

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.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You "acknowledge the political factor." You are saying it was justified because of "the political factor" this self-defense claim defies credulity. Not for nothing. It wasn't inadvertent. HE RAN A RED LIGHT TO MAKE THE TURN. Simply approaching someone with a gun is no reason to be shot. I posted a whole SLEW of his social media posts in post 74 and a link for more. He himself said he wasn't being aimed at, multiple witnesses said he wasn't. The weapon was on safety and didn't have a round chambered.

You are simply giving a narrative of the events not supported by available evidence and claim it's true.

Daniel Perry's police interview after Garrett Foster's death revealed to jury

Perry is accused of shooting and killing Black Lives Matter Protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

www.fox7austin.com

One thing Perry kept mentioning throughout the videos and recordings is that he was texting a woman and driving. He adds he was not paying attention and that is one of the reasons he accidentally drove into the crowd of protesters.

The state presented those messages between him and the woman. The woman was a passenger he picked up working for Uber earlier in the night. She asked him for $200 for the hangout to which he declined.

Pamela Mazak, an APD crime analyst, was called to the stand to break down her analysis of Perry’s Uber and cell phone location records from the night of July 25, 2020. She said the last text Perry received or sent out was two minutes before he entered the intersection with the protesters.

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.

I don’t plan to be caught on a protest with a gun either. But, “simply approaching someone with a gun is no reason to be shot”??? Seriously? How about not approaching someone while holding a gun!! Why aren’t you asking that question? I don’t think Perry shot Foster for political reasons.

 

[MarcATL]

 

[forkup]

I don’t plan to be caught on a protest with a gun either. But, “simply approaching someone with a gun is no reason to be shot”??? Seriously? How about not approaching someone while holding a gun!! Why aren’t you asking that question? I don’t think Perry shot Foster for political reasons.

drove into the crowd of protesters.

Kind of hard to not approach someone when he DRIVES INTO YOU.

As for what you think. The jury disagreed, and with good reason. On account of what I showed in post 74, and his actions of the day. Not only does he sound as some of the more extreme members of this board, only MORE openly belligerent, he obviously DROVE INTO A CROWD and lied about why.

And its funny how you keep on asking me to consider the wisdom of approaching someone with a gun while that person WAS SHOT by another guy with a gun. As I see it, there's only ONE party supporting the proliferation of guns, any guns, in any context, in few states more gleefully than Texas. At the same time expanding the concept of self-defense to the point that you can put yourself into dangerous situations purposefully and not be held accountable if you can make the case that you FELT openly threatened. Yet here you are defending a person who despite the lunacy of those policies still manages to run afoul of those broad rights and is convicted of murder by a freaking jury.

And you're asking ME why I don't consider the wisdom of approaching somebody with a gun?

I not only question the wisdom, I have questioned, and openly opposed the concept of having most guns LOOOOONG before this. All the while the party YOU support has advocated for more guns with less restrictions on both its possession and more freedom to use them in a reckless fashion. Do you get the irony here?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Where can I read about that fact?

Open carry has nothing to do with the topic

 

[eagle1462010]

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

Your Burn Loot and Murder Clowns threatened the wrong person.

Guy who got dead was carrying an AK47 as they blocked this guy from moving.

All he was doing was trying to make a living.

Too bad the GUARD WASNT OUT with orders to shoot LOOTERS.

 

[eagle1462010]

Assumptions my foot

The motto for the city is “Keep Austin Weird” and it fits

Austin is the weirdest city in Texas

Its the liberal Mecca escape from other places destroyed by the left. Spreading their insanity as they move.

 

[LeftofLeft]

drove into the crowd of protesters.

Kind of hard to not approach someone when he DRIVES INTO YOU.

As for what you think. The jury disagreed, and with good reason. On account of what I showed in post 74, and his actions of the day. Not only does he sound as some of the more extreme members of this board, only MORE openly belligerent, he obviously DROVE INTO A CROWD and lied about why.

And its funny how you keep on asking me to consider the wisdom of approaching someone with a gun while that person WAS SHOT by another guy with a gun. As I see it, there's only ONE party supporting the proliferation of guns, any guns, in any context, in few states more gleefully than Texas. At the same time expanding the concept of self-defense to the point that you can put yourself into dangerous situations purposefully and not be held accountable if you can make the case that you FELT openly threatened. Yet here you are defending a person who despite the lunacy of those policies still manages to run afoul of those broad rights and is convicted of murder by a freaking jury.

And you're asking ME why I don't consider the wisdom of approaching somebody with a gun?

I not only question the wisdom, I have questioned, and openly opposed the concept of having most guns LOOOOONG before this. All the while the party YOU support has advocated for more guns with less restrictions on both its possession and more freedom to use them in a reckless fashion. Do you get the irony here?

You keep making this about yourself and your own position on guns. Put that aside and analyze human behavior. If someone approaches the driver with a gun backed by a mob of protesters, how does the driver not feel threatened? How do they not feel that their life is in danger? Your position on guns is preventing you from seeing this.

 

[westwall]

U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Many people" have decided that partisanship allows them to simply ignore some pretty basic rights.

That's great. Carry your rifle slung. Point it at a person and you are no longer protesting, so expect a response.

 

[westwall]

Court Documents, there was no video of the shooting. And testimony of the witnesses said that the victim didn’t point his weapon at anyone. So, where is this information I couldn’t find?

All of those witnesses were the dead guys friends.

Not credible.

 

[westwall]

Nor does being blocked from passing allows for murdering those blocking you. One of these things has pretty permanent consequences. On account of being dead.

As for your claim the victim pointed the weapon at him. This was denied by witnesses. And I'm still very much waiting for ANYONE to provide a video proving otherwise. I've looked and I sure as hell can't find it.

What I could find was Perry literally saying he might kill some protesters on Twitter.

Yes, it does. Preventing people from traveling is akin to false imprisonment. You surround a car, and try to prevent it leaving is not peaceful protest.

Expect to get your ass run over.

 

[westwall]

Nor does being blocked from passing allows for murdering those blocking you. One of these things has pretty permanent consequences. On account of being dead.

As for your claim the victim pointed the weapon at him. This was denied by witnesses. And I'm still very much waiting for ANYONE to provide a video proving otherwise. I've looked and I sure as hell can't find it.

What I could find was Perry literally saying he might kill some protesters on Twitter.

The same for your dear asshole. He wanted to confront anyone from the conservative side.

 

[eagle1462010]

You "acknowledge the political factor." You are saying it was justified because of "the political factor" this self-defense claim defies credulity. Not for nothing. It wasn't inadvertent. HE RAN A RED LIGHT TO MAKE THE TURN. Simply approaching someone with a gun is no reason to be shot. I posted a whole SLEW of his social media posts in post 74 and a link for more. He himself said he wasn't being aimed at, multiple witnesses said he wasn't. The weapon was on safety and didn't have a round chambered.

You are simply giving a narrative of the events not supported by available evidence and claim it's true.

Daniel Perry's police interview after Garrett Foster's death revealed to jury

Perry is accused of shooting and killing Black Lives Matter Protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

www.fox7austin.com

One thing Perry kept mentioning throughout the videos and recordings is that he was texting a woman and driving. He adds he was not paying attention and that is one of the reasons he accidentally drove into the crowd of protesters.

The state presented those messages between him and the woman. The woman was a passenger he picked up working for Uber earlier in the night. She asked him for $200 for the hangout to which he declined.

Pamela Mazak, an APD crime analyst, was called to the stand to break down her analysis of Perry’s Uber and cell phone location records from the night of July 25, 2020. She said the last text Perry received or sent out was two minutes before he entered the intersection with the protesters.

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.

Im out trying to just do a job to make a living and a mob comes toward me pushing fear and intimidation.....one has an AK47...

IM GONNA ASSUME that guy might be ready to kill me and Im going to shoot him also.

After the fact SAFETY ON AND NOT CHAMBERED.

NO DAMN WAY TO KNOW THAT.

Novel idea. How about Burn Loot and Murder stop using terror tactics and violating other civil rights by blocking roads

 

[eagle1462010]

Denver lets off man who shot an unarmed man point blank in chest.

Dual Justice in Dem Run cities.

BLM trash let off after murder.

 

[LeftofLeft]

U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Blocking the road and protesting with a gun….. does that meet the criteria you posted from the Constitution? Do you really think that was peaceful assembly that day?

If there were conservatives carrying guns and blocking the roads protesting stricter gun laws would you still think the Constitution’s definition of peaceful assembly apply?

You keep calling out everyone else’s political and partisan bias on this. How about your own?

 

[SavannahMann]

All of those witnesses were the dead guys friends.

Not credible.

Interesting. So the claims from early in this thread that video showed that it was self defense and witnesses proved it. Now that we get into the details, we find that it doesn’t really matter. The absence of video means we have nothing but eyewitness testimony. We don’t like the story they tell and declare them not credible. Because we want to believe our hero did the right thing, the outcome is what matters, not the sequence of events.

So the evidence is. Well what we say it is.

Now. For the record. Let me say this. As far as I am concerned the man was Pardoned. That ends it in my mind unless the victim wants to sue. This is the system we have, and until something better is proposed I will support it.

I noticed one thing though. There was no talk of appeals. No claim of misconduct by the prosecution. Nothing like that. It was always a political effort. The demand of a pardon. From when the good Sergeant was charged. From that moment they demanded a Pardon.

 

[westwall]

Interesting. So the claims from early in this thread that video showed that it was self defense and witnesses proved it. Now that we get into the details, we find that it doesn’t really matter. The absence of video means we have nothing but eyewitness testimony. We don’t like the story they tell and declare them not credible. Because we want to believe our hero did the right thing, the outcome is what matters, not the sequence of events.

So the evidence is. Well what we say it is.

Now. For the record. Let me say this. As far as I am concerned the man was Pardoned. That ends it in my mind unless the victim wants to sue. This is the system we have, and until something better is proposed I will support it.

I noticed one thing though. There was no talk of appeals. No claim of misconduct by the prosecution. Nothing like that. It was always a political effort. The demand of a pardon. From when the good Sergeant was charged. From that moment they demanded a Pardon.

As has been stated, I do not believe there was video of the shooting. However, there was video, early in the evening where Mr. AK threatened to attack any right wingers he came across.

So, no peaceful protest, he attacked an Uber driver, and got aired out for it.

The Uber driver defended himself from a looney.

 

[forkup]

You keep making this about yourself and your own position on guns. Put that aside and analyze human behavior. If someone approaches the driver with a gun backed by a mob of protesters, how does the driver not feel threatened? How do they not feel that their life is in danger? Your position on guns is preventing you from seeing this.

My position on guns isn't relevant. The reason it keeps on being brought up is because YOU are asking for my position.

-It is Texas, not me, that allows for people to walk in the streets carrying weapons typically found on battlefields.
-It is Texas, not me, that states that at person carrying a gun has no responsibility to deescalate a situation when confronted by another person with a gun.
-It is Texas, not me, that determines the law and says when a person can shoot another person in self-defense.
-It is Texas, not me, that as its only concession to public safety, says that a weapon has to be actually aimed at a person to claim self-defense.

It is you, that states that this isn't sufficiently idiotic and states that self-defense can be invoked if an armed person simply walks to another armed person. A position that even Wyatt Earp would have had a problem with. But of course only when the person walking is a leftist. When it's a guy DRIVING himself into a crowd everybody needs to be sensible.

 

[Mac-7]

As has been stated, I do not believe there was video of the shooting. However, there was video, early in the evening where Mr. AK threatened to attack any right wingers he came across.

So, no peaceful protest, he attacked an Uber driver, and got aired out for it.

The Uber driver defended himself from a looney.

Do you have a link to that video?