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

[SakurabasEar]

page 19 of these documents filed by travis county prosecutors
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/po...ry-messages-violent-racist-posts-17896036.php

Thanks, if this last part is real it changes my perspective. It just seemed a little too over the top

 

[panamaican]

You're comparing breaking into someone's home to an incident on a public street. Entirely different environments and expectations .



You're doing the same exact thing Pete is doing, disengeniualy framing the opposing opinions people have, even going so far as to say "everyone" is saying something I literally havent seen a single person say.

I can't account for every single post in the thread, but I don't see people saying the people on the street have no right to feel threatened. But thay doesn't mean they can't react in a way that would make the driver feel the same way, or even escalate it to another level of fear for the driver.

I've already said there's some important questions that we don't have a concrete answer for. I never once said the guy "deserved" to be shot and that's the exact kind of straw man arguments you're propping up for "everyone" on the other side. Your analogies are biased and your interpretation of the opposing arguments are remarkably disengenius.

No, I'm not comparing breaking into someone's home to an incident on a public street. I'm comparing how people react to a potentially hostile threat, using 2 different environments to demonstrate the similarity between the responses.

I'm not disingenously framing other people's opinion, for example, I never said you said he deserved to be shot. What I've done is categorize the tone of the opinion. If someone says something directly to me I'm direct in my response. You disagreed with my post to someone else by saying that it was not a good analogy, to which I responded in the context of the general thread, not about you individually. But I can narrow it down to your specific opinion. Allow me to be direct:

Is it unreasonable for the protesters to think that the driver is hostile, given that the driver turned into them, that other protesters have been killed by antagonistic drivers, etc.? Is it unreasonable for them to think that this driver might be hostile?

 

[AWilder]

Thanks, if this last part is real it changes my perspective. It just seemed a little too over the top

Why does it seem too over the top? Have you seen how unhinged right wing dorks have been the last decade?

 

[AWilder]

There's literally hundreds of videos with antifa and BLM talking about killing people. There's dozens if not hundreds of videos of people getting pulled out of their cars by those protestors and beaten near to death, with the police force not reacting or nowhere to be seen and the perpetrators getting no punishment or a slap on the wrist. Peaceful protests during the summer of love anyone?

There are millions of people in US and Europe, who are aware of above and "radicalize" because of it. It's a self defense mechanism. The event itself should be judged by the way it occurred, did he have reasons to be afraid for his life or his property being destroyed? Yes, definitely. Case closed.

Lmao, good thing the courts make more sense than this shit post. Do you not realize how dumb you sound? We can't judge him based on his written desire to murder protestors prior to murdering protestors because... BLM protestors exist. Jesus Christ, go reevaluate your life.

 

[SakurabasEar]

Why does it seem too over the top? Have you seen how unhinged right wing dorks have been the last decade?

I've seen plenty of unhinged people on both sides. It doesn't mean I'm going to assume someone is a lunatic from the get go, just based off their politics

 

[Islam Imamate]

I've seen plenty of unhinged people on both sides. It doesn't mean I'm going to assume someone is a lunatic from the get go, just based off their politics

How about based off their own texts?

 

[SakurabasEar]

How about based off their own texts?

I didn't see his texts until they were posted here. Which is why I stated the texts changed my perspective earlier in this thread

 

[panamaican]

I am definitely not wanting to hand wave away the second amendment. I take that one very seriously. What I saying is that the threat presented did not warrant pointing a gun at someone. Idiot driver runs a red light and ALMOST hits pedestrians, but DOES NOT, and STOPS. So now you are claiming stand your ground allows you to aim a deadly weapon at a motorist for a traffic infraction and an almost collision.


If foster had fired on Perry, I wonder if they would have charged him with murder. That da, garza, is a shitbag progressive and he would really struggle with locking up a blm soldier.

This is where I'm saying that perspective is intentionally disingenuous. This is not someone who ran a red light, almost hits a pedestrian and stops. This is a full blown marching protest with hundreds of people walking down a street. There is simply no credible explanation by which this guy turning into a marching protest group can be handwaved away, like he turned on an otherwise empty street.

And you know better. You're a former cop. I'm 90% sure you've had to deal with protesting groups in the past. Either training or assigned duty or something. You know quite well that these groups are massive and extremely obvious to drivers. That's the element that I keep bringing attention to. The completely absurd notion that we can treat the driver's actions as accidental. When anyone who has been near a protest knows otherwise. And once you know that, I don't see how people can continue to suggest that the crowd shouldn't perceive the driver as hostile.

LEt me ask: Have you ever seen a protest in real life? If yes, is it something that you don't notice until the last minute?

 

[Bob Gray]

No, I'm not comparing breaking into someone's home to an incident on a public street. I'm comparing how people react to a potentially hostile threat, using 2 different environments to demonstrate the similarity between the responses.

I'm not disingenously framing other people's opinion, for example, I never said you said he deserved to be shot. What I've done is categorize the tone of the opinion. If someone says something directly to me I'm direct in my response. You disagreed with my post to someone else by saying that it was not a good analogy, to which I responded in the context of the general thread, not about you individually. But I can narrow it down to your specific opinion. Allow me to be direct:

Is it unreasonable for the protesters to think that the driver is hostile, given that the driver turned into them, that other protesters have been killed by antagonistic drivers, etc.? Is it unreasonable for them to think that this driver might be hostile?

Like I said, I think your framing of other people's opinions, as a group or not, is incredibly disengenous if not dishonest. But we aren't gonna come to an agreement in that or the analogy so let's just move one to your direct question.

Hindsight is 20/20, obviously, and in the moment you can forgive some people's reactions to certain things. If you're asking me if they can think a driver is hostile for turning the red, then yes. However, the car stops before coming into contact with anyone. Every moment that the car is stopped, the decision to rush the car and bang on it and yell at the driver becomes less defensible. And this is where your double standard come in. You're saying the crowd is more likely to react as if the driver was hostile due to other incidents from drivers, but the driver can't react to something that's been more hostile and lethal during this time period, which is large groups of protesters.

But back on point. Can they think hes a threat when he turns the light? Yes. When he stops his car before his car comes into contact with anyone and doesn't move? Thats much harder to accept, and like many have already pointed out its also hard to accept that the crowd reacted as if they saw the car as a mortal threat.

A car that comes to a stop before hitting anyone, even if it breaks a traffic law or does something stupid, is far less of a threat than a car that's moving. We can agree he was stupid and reckless, but if he had wanted to harm anyone with the car it would have been incredibly easy to do so and he chose to avoid doing it.

 

[panamaican]

Like I said, I think your framing of other people's opinions, as a group or not, is incredibly disengenous if not dishonest. But we aren't gonna come to an agreement in that or the analogy so let's just move one to your direct question.

Hindsight is 20/20, obviously, and in the moment you can forgive some people's reactions to certain things. If you're asking me if they can think a driver is hostile for turning the red, then yes. However, the car stops before coming into contact with anyone. Every moment that the car is stopped, the decision to rush the car and bang on it and yell at the driver becomes less defensible. And this is where your double standard come in. You're saying the crowd is more likely to react as if the driver was hostile due to other incidents from drivers, but the driver can't react to something that's been more hostile and lethal during this time period, which is large groups of protesters.

But back on point. Can they think hes a threat when he turns the light? Yes. When he stops his car before his car comes into contact with anyone and doesn't move? Thats much harder to accept, and like many have already pointed out its also hard to accept that the crowd reacted as if they saw the car as a mortal threat.

A car that comes to a stop before hitting anyone, even if it breaks a traffic law or does something stupid, is far less of a threat than a car that's moving. We can agree he was stupid and reckless, but if he had wanted to harm anyone with the car it would have been incredibly easy to do so and he chose to avoid doing it.

Ok, we can agree that the protesters can reasonably think the driver is hostile when he turns into their crowd.

If the protesters think the driver is hostile, can they be sure of his intentions just because he has stopped his car? Can they, at that point in time, be sure that he won't start it again? That he doesn't have a weapon and won't get out of his car to attack them? Essentially, can the protesters be 100% sure that the threat of hostility is over?

 

[Andy Capp]

like the Rittenhouse thread, we have seen an inordinate amount of dishonesty here, and an unwillingness to acknowledge simple facts/truths simply because it contradicts your initial belief.

the true mark of a simpleton, a troglodyte.

lol cry some more

The simple fact/truth that needs to be acknowledged here is a jury came to a guilty verdict. The governor wants to vacate that verdict because of an opinion, not due to some defect in the trial--other than what has been rumored but not supported with evidence of any kind, that is.

If your opinion is the jury was wrong, fine, you're entitled to that. If you're the shooter's lawyer you're entitled to argue that in front of an appellate judge and see if he agrees with you. It's still stupid and ridiculous to whine that there's anything dishonest in accepting the verdict until new information comes to light.

I'm tired of repeating this. When you're ready to be honest yourself I'll be around.

 

[BIKES!]

You keep saying he drove into a crowd of people like he was doing 50. He wasnt. You say they were "investingating". What methods were they using exactly? Holding someone at gunpoint is now totally cool for crowds who want to investigate things?

I'm gonna a say no. The right guy won this shootout.

We need to acknowledge one more time the most ridiculous post made in this thread. Guys, guys… it’s totally reasonable for armed leftist mobs to stop cars on their road to asses a “lol threat” of Uber drivers using the very roads they are required to by law. Of course the “assessment of the lol threat” is to start pounding and damaging the vehicle and pointing a weapon at the driver. Thank god that person has nothing to do with the law and the race baiting alt leftist never sets foot on the jury floor.

 

[Bob Gray]

Ok, we can agree that the protesters can reasonably think the driver is hostile when he turns into their crowd.

If the protesters think the driver is hostile, can they be sure of his intentions just because he has stopped his car? Can they, at that point in time, be sure that he won't start it again? That he doesn't have a weapon and won't get out of his car to attack them? Essentially, can the protesters be 100% sure that the threat of hostility is over?

I think you keep dismissing the car stopping before hitting anyone. The moving car is an active threat, the stopped car is a potential threat and they're two different things.

Like I said, once the car stops, every moment it's stopped the decision to rush the car to bang on it and scream at the driver becomes exponentially less defensible. In contrast, every moment the crowd acts like an angry mob, the perceived threat to the driver also rises exponentially.

To use an analogy, if the driver has said "He pointed a gun at me, then lowered the gun but was still in front of my car and he could have still raised the gun at me so I shot him", that's not gonna fly.

And, again, I think you can easily argue the crowd didn't behave as if they thought of him as a threat, but as a nuisance.

 

[Staph infection]

I think you keep dismissing the car stopping before hitting anyone. The moving car is an active threat, the stopped car is a potential threat and they're two different things.

Like I said, once the car stops, every moment it's stopped the decision to rush the car to bang on it and scream at the driver becomes exponentially less defensible. In contrast, every moment the crowd acts like an angry mob, the perceived threat to the driver also rises exponentially.

To use an analogy, if the driver has said "He pointed a gun at me, then lowered the gun but was still in front of my car and he could have still raised the gun at me so I shot him", that's not gonna fly.

And, again, I think you can easily argue the crowd didn't behave as if they thought of him as a threat, but as a nuisance.

The car stopped is a potential threat but the guy walking up to and lifting a gun towards the car while you’re surrounded is not a potential threat.

 

[Bob Gray]

The car stopped is a potential threat but the guy walking up to and lifting a gun towards the car while you’re surrounded is not a potential threat.

All in all, it's a fucked up situation. Even as a pro second amendment guy, I feel like the gun made things far worse than they would have been without it being present.

 

[spamking]

it's very reasonable for people in the crowd to be concerned about the intentions of the driver and take steps to protect themselves

Seems odd that in this case moving away from the car (if they're seriously concerned for their safety) wasn't at the top of the list of steps to take to protect themselves.

Situations like this one are completely avoidable, but it seems like we've got folks in our society that really enjoy seeking out and causing conflict.

A couple of things to learn from this are to never purposefully drive down to an area where an active protest is happening and if you're protesting don't surround a vehicle that is in the area.

 

[Rational Poster]

I think you keep dismissing the car stopping before hitting anyone. The moving car is an active threat, the stopped car is a potential threat and they're two different things.

Like I said, once the car stops, every moment it's stopped the decision to rush the car to bang on it and scream at the driver becomes exponentially less defensible. In contrast, every moment the crowd acts like an angry mob, the perceived threat to the driver also rises exponentially.

To use an analogy, if the driver has said "He pointed a gun at me, then lowered the gun but was still in front of my car and he could have still raised the gun at me so I shot him", that's not gonna fly.

And, again, I think you can easily argue the crowd didn't behave as if they thought of him as a threat, but as a nuisance.

This is just wrong. Any motor vehicle that close to you with keys in the ignition and a driver in the seat is a potential threat to your safety and life at that distance.

This is very basic safety stuff. In the warehousing world it's referred to as the HALO rule. It doesn't matter if it's moving or not, it matters that it's powered and being driven.

 

[Bob Gray]

And just to be clear, @panamaican, I don't actually think the crowd felt like the driver was a threat at all. I don't think a single person in that crowd thought "oh, shit, this guy is dangerous". I think they just thought "Oh, this guy is an asshole". Because he was.

I think if they just flipped him off and moved on, and we saw the exact same video footage, we'd all be saying the exact same thing. "What an asshole". Not "He was attempting to harm or kill someone".

 

[Bob Gray]

This is just wrong. Any motor vehicle that close to you with keys in the ignition and a driver in the seat is a potential threat to your safety and life at that distance.

This is very basic safety stuff. In the warehousing world it's referred to as the HALO rule. It doesn't matter if it's moving or not, it matters that it's powered and being driven.

Did you miss the second sentence where I said it was a potential threat?

 

[Rational Poster]

Did you miss the second sentence where I said it was a potential threat?

I know, but what I'm saying is it's not just a potential threat. It is an active threat at that distance.