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

[HockeyBjj]

He didn't ram in to the violent rioters. GPS records showed he was moving at the pace of a riding lawn mower.

The Wisconsin parade attack was going about 6mph for the later victims and he killed them. That’s still very deadly if you get knocked under or dragged by the vehicle.

Also do you realize how often you move goal posts? You first said this shouldn’t have gone to trial. Got proven wrong. Then said pardons board approved it so all was fine, and then got shown how they’re appointed by the governor and the governor’s public comments clearly influenced them. Then you said he didn’t ram the crowd. And now you’re saying well he did ram them, but he was going slow.

 

[HockeyBjj]

And if someone raises a gun at you while a mob is trying to detain you, shooting them to end the threat is the proper course of action.

No, a criminal can’t legally shoot the person who’s using their own open carry stand your ground right.

This would be like arguing a shopper points a gun at an armed robber, and the armed robber shooting the armed shopper being legal because the shopper pointed his gun first.

 

[sanguinius]

No, a criminal can’t legally shoot the person who’s using their own open carry stand your ground right.

This would be like arguing a shopper points a gun at an armed robber, and the armed robber shooting the armed shopper being legal because the shopper pointed his gun first.

It’s more like saying that shooting a violent terrorist that’s attacking you with a gun shouldn’t be punished because the left lacks accountability. A lot more like.

 

[Loiosh]

Man: *drives his car INTO a crowd
Chuds: They swarmed him!

Look at the guys defending Perry.

When they saw his post about "hoping to kill a black protestor", they knew he was their man. They're probably disappointed the victim was white, but consider the fact he was engaged to marry a black woman a bonus.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Look at the guys defending Perry.

When they saw his post about "hoping to kill a black protestor", they knew he was their man. They're probably disappointed the victim was white, but consider the fact he was engaged to marry a black woman a bonus.

And if he was a Democrat hanging out with klansman you would be defending him.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Look at the guys defending Perry.

When they saw his post about "hoping to kill a black protestor", they knew he was their man. They're probably disappointed the victim was white, but consider the fact he was engaged to marry a black woman a bonus.

Well once the letters "BLM" get attached they are going to move heaven and Earth to sort of compartmentalize the situation rhetorically. Like, "BLM" itself is a pejorative that denotes the person as being less entitled to power, especially violence, so Perry's actions were going to be more justified regardless of what actually happened. Another example would be the poster just above that called the victim a "violent terrorist"; terrorist is definitionally going to be at the bottom of the ladder in terms of being defensible on anything, so even if Perry was wrong, the dead man was going to be more wrong. You know, by virtue of being a "terrorist".

 

[HockeyBjj]

It’s more like saying that shooting a violent terrorist that’s attacking you with a gun shouldn’t be punished because the left lacks accountability. A lot more like.

But the guy driving the car was the first attacker. That was the violent terrorist. The guy with the rifle was defending from that.

 

[HockeyBjj]

And if someone raises a gun at you while a mob is trying to detain you, shooting them to end the threat is the proper course of action. Sorry your buddy thought waving a rifle around and tough talking made him invincible, but he found out the hard way that not everybody they try to swarm is a "pussy who won't do shit".

You are correct, you can't instigate a violent encounter by swarming a stranger's car in the middle of a riot and cry self defense when they don't obey your authoritau. The ginger who got shot trying to play warlord wasn't the only rioter with a gun either, another of them shot at the car as it drove off. The guy isn't going to roll the dice and hope the armed rioters swarming his car are bluffing.

But the violent encounter was instigated by him driving into the crowd. Why do you keep acting like he was parked in his car and surrounded, or just minding his own business and they came out of nowhere?

Raising a gun to defend yourself and others from a vehicle attack is exactly what open carrying is for. Also because it makes you a clear target to the attacker, it’s why I only conceal carry but Texas is very open very friendly so I suppose it’s more normal there.

 

[Fergelmince]

The Wisconsin parade attack was going about 6mph for the later victims and he killed them. That’s still very deadly if you get knocked under or dragged by the vehicle.

Also do you realize how often you move goal posts? You first said this shouldn’t have gone to trial. Got proven wrong. Then said pardons board approved it so all was fine, and then got shown how they’re appointed by the governor and the governor’s public comments clearly influenced them. Then you said he didn’t ram the crowd. And now you’re saying well he did ram them, but he was going slow.

I hope you're high AF, because NONE OF THAT IS TRUE, LMAO. Comparing the Wisconsin murderer who targeted pedestrians for death to Daniel Perry who successfully defended his life is the best reply on sherdog this year

 

[sanguinius]

But the guy driving the car was the first attacker. That was the violent terrorist. The guy with the rifle was defending from that.

The guy that was driving slowly in the road, surrounded by rioters? Ass backwards logic. Luckily, the travesty of him being arrested at all was righted.

 

[nostradumbass]

No, a criminal can’t legally shoot the person who’s using their own open carry stand your ground right.

This would be like arguing a shopper points a gun at an armed robber, and the armed robber shooting the armed shopper being legal because the shopper pointed his gun first.

An armed robber would be the one who pulls his gun first, which is Foster in this case. This would be more like someone put a snickers bar in their shopping cart, and some random ginger accuses them of shoplifting and pulls an AK-47 on them and gets shot himself. If you think Perry had a moving violation, the police enforce those by giving traffic tickets, if he hit somebody with his car, press charges for it, but we know he didn't. Some retarded ginger trying to play tough guy because doesn't know the person he's menacing with his rifle is also armed is a failure of his parents who apparently didn't teach him not to play in traffic and not to pull guns on strangers.

 

[HockeyBjj]

An armed robber would be the one who pulls his gun first, which is Foster in this case. This would be more like someone put a snickers bar in their shopping cart, and some random ginger accuses them of shoplifting and pulls an AK-47 on them and gets shot himself. If you think Perry had a moving violation, the police enforce those by giving traffic tickets, not some retarded ginger trying to play tough guy because doesn't know the person he's menacing with his rifle is also armed.

It was shown in court he intentionally drove into the crowd to cause harm and planned it all. We’ve all seen the damage those can cause. How does a guy open carrying know that it’s a bait to elicit a defensive action?

Lol at calling it a moving violation.

 

[Mr Holmes]

It was shown in court he intentionally drove into the crowd to cause harm and planned it all. We’ve all seen the damage those can cause. How does a guy open carrying know that it’s a bait to elicit a defensive action?

Lol at calling it a moving violation.

Are you referring the to witness statements that were inconsistent and didn't match video footage?

 

[Loiosh]

Well once the letters "BLM" get attached they are going to move heaven and Earth to sort of compartmentalize the situation rhetorically. Like, "BLM" itself is a pejorative that denotes the person as being less entitled to power, especially violence, so Perry's actions were going to be more justified regardless of what actually happened. Another example would be the poster just above that called the victim a "violent terrorist"; terrorist is definitionally going to be at the bottom of the ladder in terms of being defensible on anything, so even if Perry was wrong, the dead man was going to be more wrong. You know, by virtue of being a "terrorist".

They're programmed lemmings, Mutual of Omaha kicked them right off that cliff.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Lol at calling it a moving violation.

"it was a moving violation, the cops should have written a ticket" vs "They were walking in the street, instant death penalty"

 

[nostradumbass]

It was shown in court he intentionally drove into the crowd to cause harm and planned it all. We’ve all seen the damage those can cause. How does a guy open carrying know that it’s a bait to elicit a defensive action?

Lol at calling it a moving violation.

Cool, so how many people did he hit? How fast was the car going when captain retardo decided to play tough guy and pull his rifle on him? I didn't call it a moving violation, there wasn't one. There was no moving violation, nobody hit, and It was some dork who just said an hour before that he can't menace the cops with his gun because they might shoot him, but civilians are "pussies who won't do shit", and it turns out that in some crazy scheme to turn a profit, the gun companies actually made more than 1 and the person he was threatening had one too.

 

[Loiosh]

And if he was a Democrat hanging out with klansman you would be defending him.

Like all the times I got tweet bombed on Twitter for declaring the innocence of Rittenhouse to liberals?

As we have already established, you're the partisan hack who defends incredibly shitty people. You're the one clinging to pathetic gotchas. You're a conservative foot soldier, you say what they tell you to say. You aren't the brains of the operation.

I have no idea why Hilary was close to that man, and I asked you if you thought she was racist. I asked you if you had more of a case to make and you didn't. Trump says a thing, you support it. That's your range, you have no gift for improv.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Like all the times I got tweet bombed on Twitter for declaring the innocence of Rittenhouse to liberals?

As we have already established, you're the partisan hack who defends incredibly shitty people. You're the one clinging to pathetic gotchas. You're a conservative foot soldier, you say what they tell you to say. You aren't the brains of the operation.

I have no idea why Hilary was close to that man, and I asked you if you thought she was racist. I asked you if you had more of a case to make and you didn't. Trump says a thing, you support it. That's your range, you have no gift for improv.

Save it. The only thing I'm siding with is a world not gone insane. And for the record I sided with that cop that shot the J6 protester. Most hyper partisans, like yourself and a few others I could name, have a hard time understanding disagreement doesn't make me or anyone else far right.

As for Hillary, yeah she probably is a racist. I know for sure I would defend her or anyone else buddying up with a klansman.

 

[Loiosh]

Save it. The only thing I'm siding with is a world not gone insane. And for the record I sided with that cop that shot the J6 protester. Most hyper partisans, like yourself and a few others I could name, have a hard time understanding disagreement doesn't make me or anyone else far right.

As for Hillary, yeah she probably is a racist. I know for sure I would defend her or anyone else buddying up with a klansman.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

You of all people calling me hyper partisan is imbecilic. The fact you think THIS is proof of the world not going insane is all the evidence anyone needs to consider you far right.

 

[Mr Holmes]

*cough* bullshit *cough*

You of all people calling me hyper partisan is imbecilic. The fact you think THIS is proof of the world not going insane is all the evidence anyone needs to consider you far right.

And we have our hyper partisan.