Crime TX man murders BLM protestor. Abbot vows to pardon murderer ASAP

[LMP]

Being trapped with a guy come at him aggressively with an AK isn't putting his life in danger?

Again, I don't care what happened before he became boxed in. I don't care why he went down there. Its not relevant. America is a free country. I mentioned earlier people change their minds about serious shit all the time (suicides). We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You dont care because that's the most important part and completely disproves your self defense claims. Putting yourself in that situation intentionally then changing your mind, but still murdering someone, still makes a person responsible.

 

[HereticBD]

If Perry hadn't made his desires to do what he did known, he would have had a much better case.

I don't think it's all that relevant. Many people make various tough talk threats on the internet, and I doubt the situation lined up perfectly to what he was describing.

I'm sure there could be a case out there where a guy talked about running protesters over with their car. If it happens to go down, but wasn't clearly intentional, is it just assumed it was purposeful because of his internet tough talk? Don't think so. Not good for the case, but I don't think it should be a deciding factor.

 

[Mr Holmes]

I don't see this situation as anything close to what happened with Rittenhouse. He was supposedly there to help "guard" locations and assist with clean-up. He didn't hop in his car and drive directly into a protest.

I guess I don't think its really important why he was there. When I was younger I was personally harassed by the neighboring suburb's police just because I lived in Chicago and they felt I shouldn't be there. Its un-American IMO.

 

[Mr Holmes]

You dont care because that's the most important part and completely disproves your self defense claims. Putting yourself in that situation intentionally then changing your mind, but still murdering someone, still makes a person responsible.

Here's the definiton:

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 unlawful force.”

Can you help find the part where its says "unless you put yourself there willingly".

 

[LMP]

I guess I don't think its really important why he was there. When I was younger I was personally harassed by the neighboring suburb's police just because I lived in Chicago and they felt I shouldn't be there. Its un-American IMO.

No one said he didn't have a right to be there, thats not even in the ball park of what we are talking about. He didn't have a right to plan and execute a person at a protest, because he didn't like the protest. Hell he doesn't even have a right to drive that car on the roads at all. Even still he has a responsibility as the driver of that car not to drive into a crowd, even if they are protesters blocking the road. Him being inconvenienced doesn't create justification for driving into the crowd.

Yet he said he wanted to kill protesters and had a plan to do it. He created the events that took place. Foster had a right to open carry. That doesn't make him a threat. Perry can't prove at any point he was in immediate danger.

Come on, you can't sit here and claim it was self defense, and support the right to open carry. Did Fosters rights disappear? Of course not, did Foster point the gun at Perry? Every bit of evidence we have says no. So explain again how this is self defense and don't skip evidence simply because it blows up your narrative.

 

[LMP]

Here's the definiton:


Can you help find the part where its says "unless you put yourself there willingly".

Prove he believed it was immediately necessary for his defense, and not his intent.

 

[Loiosh]

I guess I don't think its really important why he was there. When I was younger I was personally harassed by the neighboring suburb's police just because I lived in Chicago and they felt I shouldn't be there. Its un-American IMO.

Why he was there was pretty important considering what he said. I know you don't think it's important but motive is one of the most important elements in any trial.

You know I'm not partisan when it comes to shootings, I said Rittenhouse was innocent from the first night. I rarely talk about them because often we know very little from initial reports. I know Rittenhouse said and did some dodgy stuff before that incident but I still don't care because he was very obviously attacked and had not defended himself would likely be dead.

This incident looks very different. It doesn't look like his life was in danger and didn't he himself say the rifle was never aimed at him?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Why he was there was pretty important considering what he said. I know you don't think it's important but motive is one of the most important elements in any trial.

You know I'm not partisan when it comes to shootings, I said Rittenhouse was innocent from the first night. I rarely talk about them because often we know very little from initial reports. I know Rittenhouse said and did some dodgy stuff before that incident but I still don't care because he was very obviously attacked and had not defended himself would likely be dead.

This incident looks very different. It doesn't look like his life was in danger and didn't he himself say the rifle was never aimed at him?

Premeditation, how does it even work lol must be crazy liberal nonsense

 

[Mr Holmes]

No one said he didn't have a right to be there, thats not even in the ball park of what we are talking about. He didn't have a right to plan and execute a person at a protest, because he didn't like the protest. Hell he doesn't even have a right to drive that car on the roads at all. Even still he has a responsibility as the driver of that car not to drive into a crowd, even if they are protesters blocking the road. Him being inconvenienced doesn't create justification for driving into the crowd.

And what if he changes his mind after he's surrounded? Just be lynched or go to prison? Those are the only 2 options acceptable to you?

Come on, you can't sit here and claim it was self defense, and support the right to open carry.

I'm not sure I do support open carry. Most of those people doing it suffer from little man complex. Regardless I think Foster crossed a line when he aggressively engaged in mob activity. At that point he was no longer just exercising his rights.

So explain again how this is self defense and don't skip evidence simply because it blows up your narrative.

I've already explained several times how I believe it was self defensive. I posted the definition of the law which fits the scenario. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[LMP]

And what if he changes his mind after he's surrounded? Just be lynched or go to prison? Those are the only 2 options acceptable to you?

Oh no at the last second, right before he was going to shoot someone, he changed his mind then got scared for his life so he killed someone? You are being ridiculous to carry water for a racist and convicted murder.

I'm not sure I do support open carry. Most of those people doing it suffer from little man complex. Regardless I think Foster crossed a line when he aggressively engaged in mob activity. At that point he was no longer just exercising his rights.

So Foster lost his rights because Perry drove Into the crowd? Foster had rights that don't end simply because the Shooter created the events. Your argument is getting dumber and dumber.

I've already explained several times how I believe it was self defensive. I posted the definition of the law which fits the scenario. I don't know what else to tell you.

Post the definition of what Perry got convicted for lol. He planned then, created the events, but at the last second changed his mind so it was self defense lol. Stop eating lead paint its bad for the brain.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Oh no at the last second, right before he was going to shoot someone, he changed his mind then goy scared for his life so he killed someone? You are being ridiculous to carry water for a racist and convicted murder.

So Foster lost his rights because Perry drove I to the crowd? Foster had rights that don't end simply because the Shooter created the events. Your argument is getting g dumber and dumber.

Post the definition of what Perry got convicted for lol. He planned then, created the events, but at the last second changed his mind so it was self defense lol. Stop eating lead paint his bad for the brain.

Well the truth is these contentious "self-defense-or-murder?" type situations have a nasty habit of being less about what happened, and more about who was involved. I recall people arguing the chuds that chased and killed Ahmed Arbery were acting in self defense lol
There's a socially and politically constructed hierarchy of acceptable violence which weighs on the scales when trying to decide what, if any, should be done when the Perrys of the world pull this shit

 

[Barteh]

Almost as sad at your deflections you have to make about this case.

Wrote out how he wanted to kill Protester and how he thought he could get away with killing them under certain circumstances. Then proceeded to try and create that exact scenario. Then killed a Protester. It just self defense bro.

I don't get why people are so hyper partisan in cases like this. Guy does online, rants about going to a protest to kill people. Goes there, ends up shooting somebody, "well actually it was self defense".

Not sure why you would ever try to twist a clear cut situation like this.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I don't get why people are so hyper partisan in cases like this. Guy does online, rants about going to a protest to kill people. Goes there, ends up shooting somebody, "well actually it was self defense".

Not sure why you would ever try to twist a clear cut situation like this.

Because the letters "BLM" were attached to the situation

 

[Barteh]

Because the letters "BLM" were attached to the situation

I despise BLM and all of their riots/protests but it doesn't turn me into a retard when somebody decides to kill one of these idiots. It's still a pretty clear case of murder.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I despise BLM and all of their riots/protests but it doesn't turn me into a retard when somebody decides to kill one of these idiots. It's still a pretty clear case of murder.

Well you're a better man than many, sir

 

[Mr Holmes]

Oh no at the last second, right before he was going to shoot someone, he changed his mind then got scared for his life so he killed someone? You are being ridiculous to carry water for a racist and convicted murder.

So no answer and more emotional character attacks. You're such a little girl.

So Foster lost his rights because Perry drove Into the crowd? Foster had rights that don't end simply because the Shooter created the events. Your argument is getting g dumber and dumber.

I guess you should be ready to lose your rights when you decide to take away someone else's. In this case Perry's rights to leave.

Post the definition of what Perry got convicted for lol.

He's free man now lol.

 

[LMP]

So no answer and more emotional character attacks. You're such a little girl.


I guess you should be ready to lose your rights when you decide to take away someone else's. In this case Perry's rights to leave.


He's free man now lol.

Lol a guy complaining about character attacks, yet use them himself.


Stop being so soft and emotional, it's the internet.


They didn't take his rights away. You don't have a right to drive a car. You do have a constitutional right to protests, even though many people such as yourself want to restrict that right as much as possible. If a person kills the right type of people they are hailed as a hero and get to escape the consequences. Those people always have people like yourself to carry water for them. It's really amazing watching you twist yourself into knots trying to justify this obvious political pardon of a convicted murder. It doesn't matter if it was planned, it doesn't matter if they did things that created the situation, just as long as they kill the right sort of people.

 

[Poon Goon]

I've already explained several times how I believe it was self defensive. I posted the definition of the law which fits the scenario. I don't know what else to tell you.

Section 9.31 of the penal code lists this as a reason that force wouldn't be justified.

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted useof unlawful force

The guy drove into a crowd of people which sounds like provocation to me.

 

[LMP]

I despise BLM and all of their riots/protests but it doesn't turn me into a retard when somebody decides to kill one of these idiots. It's still a pretty clear case of murder.

Yea it doesn't matter to me what a person is protesting, you don't get to create a situation to kill people simply because you don't like their protest or views.

 

[LMP]

Section 9.31 of the penal code lists this as a reason that force wouldn't be justified.

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted useof unlawful force

The guy drove into a crowd of people which sounds like provocation to me.

He knows, he just has to carry that water no matter how heavy it is.