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

spamking said:
I'm confused. You seemed to support people blocking a roadway earlier didn't you?
Click to expand...
I stated that protesters have more of a right to protest in the streets than anyone has to drive. I've acknowledged time/place/manner laws.
 
LMP said:
Perry's own statement to police says that Foster didnt point the gun at him and Perry wasn't going to give him a chance. Apparently in your mind open carry means weapon at the ready. Foster's gun was found with the safety on and no rounds in the chamber.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant if the safety was on, or the gun was chambered. You can get blasted for brandishing a toy gun if someone thinks it real and feels threatened by it. All that matters is the perception of a threat, which is up for debate, but not settled by any means. You had conflicting DA's looking at the incident from wildly different perspectives, a conviction and then a pardon. It's clearly not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.
 
HereticBD said:
It's irrelevant if the safety was on, or the gun was chambered. You can get blasted for brandishing a toy gun if someone thinks it real and feels threatened by it. All that matters is the perception of a threat, which is up for debate, but not settled by any means. You had conflicting DA's looking at the incident from wildly different perspectives, a conviction and then a pardon. It's clearly not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.
Click to expand...
Sure if you ignore everything Perry said about what he wanted to do and him planning it out.

We have seen where a guy drives a car into a protest and the protesters reached into his car so he was justified in self defense. That's not what happened in this case.

Evidence of intent is very important.
 
LMP said:
I stated that protesters have more of a right to protest in the streets than anyone has to drive. I've acknowledged time/place/manner laws.
Click to expand...
That was it . . . sure, people can protest in any number of "public forums". Simply because a permitted protest is allowed to happen on a roadway doesn't indicate that a protestor has more of a right to use the roadway instead of drivers using it for what it was designed/intended to be used for . . . Protestors can't march in the streets and block traffic without a permit. Permitted protests often have a police presence and roadway barriers in place for safety. Protestors who think they're free to initiate an unpermitted impromptu march on a major roadway and be free from pushback are pretty bold and are exactly the type of protestors who need shut down. I understand those types of protests happen in direct response to recent news or some type of event, but those folks are also supposed to let drivers and pedestrians pass through when directed to do so by police.

Restrictions for a public protest in the name of traffic control or public safety (i.e. limiting the roadways and routes used) don't violate anyone's 1st Amendment rights.
 
LMP said:
Should a person get pissed off when funeral procession blocks traffic? Should the push their way through because their path of travel is blocked? Surely your answer is no they shouldn't try to push their way through because traffic is blocked.
Click to expand...
I missed replying to this . . .

The fact that you're comparing a protest blocking the roadway to a funeral procession is pretty pathetic. Nice strawman.
 
spamking said:
That was it . . . sure, people can protest in any number of "public forums". Simply because a permitted protest is allowed to happen on a roadway doesn't indicate that a protestor has more of a right to use the roadway instead of drivers using it for what it was designed/intended to be used for . . . Protestors can't march in the streets and block traffic without a permit. Permitted protests often have a police presence and roadway barriers in place for safety. Protestors who think they're free to initiate an unpermitted impromptu march on a major roadway and be free from pushback are pretty bold and are exactly the type of protestors who need shut down. I understand those types of protests happen in direct response to recent news or some type of event, but those folks are also supposed to let drivers and pedestrians pass through when directed to do so by police.

Restrictions for a public protest in the name of traffic control or public safety (i.e. limiting the roadways and routes used) don't violate anyone's 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
Your missing a step though. It is the responsibility of the event organizer to pull a permit. If you were to say invite people out to a party where you are playing loud music and the crowd of people is large enough the city could require a permit for the event. It is not the responsibility of the people you invite to the party to know if you pulled the permit. The fine and penalty would go to you as the organizer of the event It's the same in construction the fine for not pulling work goes to the contractor not the workers. The city can shut it down, but that doesn't make the people who have no responsibility for the permit responsible.

This is why it would be very hard for the city to fight such thing in court. The police can shut down the protest or ask them to move, then arrest anyone that refuses to comply, but those are tough battles to win in court. If the city doesn't shut down an event because the permit wasn't pulled the people that had no responsibility for the permit would still not be at fault and well with in their right to attend.
 
Last edited:
spamking said:
I missed replying to this . . .

The fact that you're comparing a protest blocking the roadway to a funeral procession is pretty pathetic. Nice strawman.
Click to expand...
LOL the fact you want to carry water for a guy that planned to kill protesters is more pathetic.
 
LMP said:
Sure if you ignore everything Perry said about what he wanted to do and him planning it out.
Click to expand...
And what were his words?

Unless they were "I plan to slowly approach a group with my car which will cause a scene, and then wait for a guy with an assault rifle to run up on me with his gun in the ready position, and shoot him. Then I claim self defense", it's irrelevant to the actual scene of the incident.
 
HereticBD said:
And what were his words?

Unless they were "I plan to slowly approach a group with my car which will cause a scene, and then wait for a guy with an assault rifle to run up on me with his gun in the ready position, and shoot him. Then I claim self defense", it's irrelevant to the actual scene of the incident.
Click to expand...
Why don't you ask his friend that testified against that he told Perry he can't drive into a group of protesters to get a reaction from them to claim self defense.
 
LMP said:
Your missing a step though. It is the responsibility of the event organizer to pull a permit. If you were to say invite people out to a party where you are playing loud music and the crowd of people is large enough the city could require a permit for the event. It is not the responsibility of the people you invite to the party to know if you pulled the permit. The fine and penalty would go to you as the organizer of the event It's the same in construction the fine for not pulling work goes to the contractor not the workers. The city can shut it down, but that doesn't make the people who have no responsibility for the permit responsible.

This is why it would be very hard for the city to fight such thing in court. The police can shut down the protest or ask them to move, then arrest anyone that refuses to comply, but those are tough battles to win in court. If the city doesn't shut down an event because the permit wasn't pulled the people that had no responsibility for the permit would still not be at fault and well with in their right to attend.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what part of my comment this is in response to or what you're trying to point out. It doesn't refute or address what I've said at all.
 
spamking said:
Look you ignorant tool . . . I didn't post anything in support of what this guy did. So stop lying.

@Strychnine and @Andy Capp can both suck it for liking that lie too.
Click to expand...
Sure thing bud, this whole thing is about a guy planning a way to get the protesters to react to him, and you are just here to talk about how awful it is for the protesters to "block" the road, even though other drivers were able to navigate the protest. I have shown time and time again that it is legal to protest in the streets, regardless of people not liking it. There is no justification for a person, that had no right to drive on those roads to drive into them to get a reaction. Sitting here trying to pretend the protesters in this case were more wrong than the guy that shot Foster is ridiculous.

You seem to think each protester is responsible for pulling their own permit. Not pulling the permit is the responsibility of the organizer of the event. The protesters themselves are still legally exercising their rights until the police inform them that they need to move on. It is the responsibility of the city and the police to try and enforce the need for the permit. If that doesn't happen calling the protesters "illegal" is the biggest strawman in the thread.

The "protest was illegal" is the dehumanizing tactic used for justifying violence against the protesters. The same people outraged that protesting in the street is part of the first amendment, also want laws to protect people that drive their vehicles into protesters. It's a threat of violence to stop people from voicing opinions they don't like.


Using the Funeral procession as a way to demonstrate that there is a double standard when roads are blocked for other reasons, yet still want to be able to drive there vehicles is a fine analogy. You can not just drive your vehicle in to the crowd simply because you are inconvenienced. This is another excuse for the shooter. If the police decide to not block off intersection for the protest, with or without the permit, that still doesn't give someone a right to drive into them.

So unless you have any other argument to justify why you think these protesters weren't within their rights, you crying about an "illegal" protest "blocking" the road is pretty mute in this thread.
 
LMP said:
Sure thing bud, this whole thing is about a guy planning a way to get the protesters to react to him, and you are just here to talk about how awful it is for the protesters to "block" the road, even though other drivers were able to navigate the protest. I have shown time and time again that it is legal to protest in the streets, regardless of people not liking it. There is no justification for a person, that had no right to drive on those roads to drive into them to get a reaction. Sitting here trying to pretend the protesters in this case were more wrong than the guy that shot Foster is ridiculous.

You seem to think each protester is responsible for pulling their own permit. Not pulling the permit is the responsibility of the organizer of the event. The protesters themselves are still legally exercising their rights until the police inform them that they need to move on. It is the responsibility of the city and the police to try and enforce the need for the permit. If that doesn't happen calling the protesters "illegal" is the biggest strawman in the thread.

The "protest was illegal" is the dehumanizing tactic used for justifying violence against the protesters. The same people outraged that protesting in the street is part of the first amendment, also want laws to protect people that drive their vehicles into protesters. It's a threat of violence to stop people from voicing opinions they don't like.


Using the Funeral procession as a way to demonstrate that there is a double standard when roads are blocked for other reasons, yet still want to be able to drive there vehicles is a fine analogy. You can not just drive your vehicle in to the crowd simply because you are inconvenienced. This is another excuse for the shooter. If the police decide to not block off intersection for the protest, with or without the permit, that still doesn't give someone a right to drive into them.

So unless you have any other argument to justify why you think these protesters weren't within their rights, you crying about an "illegal" protest "blocking" the road is pretty mute in this thread.
Click to expand...
This is quite a meltdown you're having. You were pretty adamant that protesters should be shot when it was an unarmed 5'2 girl sticking her head through a window, but when it's a mob surrounding someone's car with an AK 47 pointed at him by a guy who just said an hour his plan was to intimidate strangers with it because "they're too big of pussies to do shit about it".

Turns out you do support violence against "the right kind of people", and you just want everybody to fear violence from your "side" and think having a big scary gun means you can take over any city you want and threaten anybody you want because "those pussies won't do shit". Unfortunately for this guy, he learned the hard way that not everybody is going to cooperate with his poor attempt at larping as a warlord and amateur traffic cop.
 
nostradumbass said:
This is quite a meltdown you're having. You were pretty adamant that protesters should be shot when it was an unarmed 5'2 girl sticking her head through a window, but when it's a mob surrounding someone's car with an AK 47 pointed at him by a guy who just said an hour his plan was to intimidate strangers with it because "they're too big of pussies to do shit about it".

Turns out you do support violence against "the right kind of people", and you just want everybody to fear violence from your "side" and think having a big scary gun means you can take over any city you want and threaten anybody you want because "those pussies won't do shit". Unfortunately for this guy, he learned the hard way that not everybody is going to cooperate with his poor attempt at larping as a warlord.
Click to expand...
Yea you think planning out then carrying out those actions make it self defense, when the shooter himself said the gun was pointed at him.

Ashli Babbit was a rioter that was part of bashing out and climbing through a window so she could clear a barricade, so the rest of the rioters could have access to politicians. Rioting is not a expression of free speech and anyone that decides to take part should face legal consequences. Unfortunately for Ashli Babbit she believed the lies that the election was stolen told to her by politicians and media personalities. This cost her life. But yea these two incidents are exactly the same.
<{1-1}>
 
LMP said:
Sure thing bud, this whole thing is about a guy planning a way to get the protesters to react to him, and you are just here to talk about how awful it is for the protesters to "block" the road, even though other drivers were able to navigate the protest. I have shown time and time again that it is legal to protest in the streets, regardless of people not liking it. There is no justification for a person, that had no right to drive on those roads to drive into them to get a reaction. Sitting here trying to pretend the protesters in this case were more wrong than the guy that shot Foster is ridiculous.

You seem to think each protester is responsible for pulling their own permit. Not pulling the permit is the responsibility of the organizer of the event. The protesters themselves are still legally exercising their rights until the police inform them that they need to move on. It is the responsibility of the city and the police to try and enforce the need for the permit. If that doesn't happen calling the protesters "illegal" is the biggest strawman in the thread.

The "protest was illegal" is the dehumanizing tactic used for justifying violence against the protesters. The same people outraged that protesting in the street is part of the first amendment, also want laws to protect people that drive their vehicles into protesters. It's a threat of violence to stop people from voicing opinions they don't like.


Using the Funeral procession as a way to demonstrate that there is a double standard when roads are blocked for other reasons, yet still want to be able to drive there vehicles is a fine analogy. You can not just drive your vehicle in to the crowd simply because you are inconvenienced. This is another excuse for the shooter. If the police decide to not block off intersection for the protest, with or without the permit, that still doesn't give someone a right to drive into them.

So unless you have any other argument to justify why you think these protesters weren't within their rights, you crying about an "illegal" protest "blocking" the road is pretty mute in this thread.
Click to expand...
Holy crap . . . are you okay?

Now you've resorted to making more things up I didn't say to push some narrative you've discussed for pages with others.

If you're not going to respond to what I've said, please just stop responding.
 
Texas is not the place to come to if you want to partake in mob violence
 
spamking said:
Holy crap . . . are you okay?

Now you've resorted to making more things up I didn't say to push some narrative you've discussed for pages with others.

If you're not going to respond to what I've said, please just stop responding.
Click to expand...
The protest was Illegal because the event organizer didnt have a permit you said. I throughly addressed that point. You said i was pathetic for comparing one event blocking a road to another event blocking the road. I addressed that. Now you are just crying calling it all lies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,523
Messages
55,635,437
Members
174,864
Latest member
Cauã masagão

Share this page

Back
Top