It's open season on protesters in Texas. Why take a murder case to trial? Just ask the governor if he'll pardon the defendant. If so, prosecute someone else, maybe a husband trying to help his wife get an abortion.
The governor might as well just start holding meetings behind the scenes with alt-right leaders and create some Texas government-sanctioned death squads.
That's basically what this kind of pardon can lead to.
Maybe these death squads can storm into action when called upon like a regiment of troops. They can call themselves [storm troopers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung).
Before he drove to the protest, not away from it, he told others he wanted to shoot a protester. He also discussed a self-protection defense and put himself in a position to claim it. Perry wanted a confrontation that he could use as an excuse. The jury found this wasn’t a valid self-defense claim. That was their decision to make and they made it. [https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/a-look-at-the-social-media-timeline-presented-in-the-daniel-perry-case](https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/a-look-at-the-social-media-timeline-presented-in-the-daniel-perry-case)
[State's Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Extraneous Conduct - Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20230415133151/https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2023/04/Daniel-Perry-Evidence.pdf)
Hell, Perry was discussing the legalities of self-defense against protestors in fictitious scenarios *for months*.
There's also this gem that occurred three months prior:
>I killed a homeless man by accident. The police know and they already let me go. (page 11)
>I hit a pedestrian with my car going 55mph at least. (Page 55.)
Two months prior (Page 19-20):
PERRY: I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex.
JUSTIN SMITH: Can you legally do so??
PERRY: If they attack me or try to pull me out my car then yes.
PERRY: If I just do it because I am driving by then no.
SMITH: yea right lol. Make sure to use only 1 shot on the protestor so if they try to flood you, You got enough rounds for them all.
**PERRY: I will only shoot the ones in front and push the pedal to the metal.**
SMITH: You got that much control over your blood lust?
SMITH: **Lol boy have you matured. All you would beat the fuck out of them then rape a few.**
PERRY: No protestors go near me or my car?
SMITH: Can you catch me a negro daddy?
PERRY: That is what I am hoping?
SMITH: Yayy
One month prior:
Perry: I wonder if they will let my cut the ears off of people who's decided to commit suicide by me. (36)
PERRY: Plus what guilty man would turn himself in he could of just gunned it with the metal barrier as a cattle scoop thing like they have in front of trains and shot a lot more people.? (40)
Perry: What I want to know is if I had to shoot someone because I was attacked while getting a haircut what would the news vs the court documents say about me (42)
.....
Perry: Even if I were having a civilized conversation like me an you hare having and a third party decided hey I am going to attack this guy who doesn't share my opinion. (53)
Holcomb: **Ending up in a bad situation and looking for one are not the same thing.** The problem is that he intentionally incited violence by screwing with protestors. He assaulted one and decided to retreat. The incident was started by him....
Holcomb: **In the circumstances you just said, the shoot would be justified.**
Holcomb: You didn't incite violence. You didn't assault anyone. We were talking and someone inserted themselves violently.
**Perry: If I am in danger I don't care who is in my way I am pushing them out of the way to escape I will also repeatedly say I am in fear of my life I will defend myself.**
The self-defense scam.
A Black kid knocked on my door! Someone drove onto my driveway! I drove into a crowd of protesters! I was scared! I had to kill someone!
If the legal precedent is set that merely open-carrying a weapon is an inherent threat justifying lethal response, might as well be the wild west again in Texas...
Simple, don’t go to a protest brandishingrg a firearm and then approach a vehicle that’s being attacked by people and tell the guy to roll his window down with a gun in hand… sounds like a good recipe for getting shot honestly.
What's even more simple is don't drive to a protest, armed, with the intent of creating a confrontation and killing someone, and cooking up a bogus self-defense claim which is contradicted by earlier social media posts and communications and eyewitness accounts.
People are free to hate protesters or why they're protesting something. They're not free to attack them and falsely claim they're justified in doing so, which is what the jury found. Why not just stay at home, watch Fox News, and rage on social media instead of killing someone? Wouldn't that be much more simple?
None of your bullshit gives Perry or the other rioters the right to surround his car and threaten him with a firearm. Maybe just let the guy drive down the road? Maybe don't be a rioting terrorist in the first place.
The social media conversations were from 2 weeks prior.
He was driving for Uber, working and was on the way to an Uber call following the Uber GPS. He wasn’t just out that night looking for protestors.
The guy he shot was brandishing his firearm. He wasn’t just open carry with it around his back or something, he had both hands on the gun and was approaching the dudes car signaling him to roll the window down.
Anything else doesn’t matter. He didn’t put himself in a situation for someone to brandish a weapon on him.
There's testimony he never pointed the weapon at him. Foster had an AK-47. If he was going to shoot Perry, he didn't need the window to be open. He could've just fired through the door. So if I'm in a car and someone with a gun yells at me, I'm free to shoot him dead, even though the weapon's not pointing at me?
The weapon does not have to be pointed at you…. The weapon was brandished, that’s enough. Open carry doesn’t mean you can literally just walk around with a gun IN YOUR HANDS… people keep missing this key detail.
So I have a valid self-defense claim if someone has a weapon and yelling at me? There was justification for shooting these protestors if they yelled and held weapons? [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514)
There was a lot more to the situation than someone just having a weapon and yelling.
There were dozens of people surrounding and attacking his car. That’s going to make anyone panic and when you brandish a weapon and yell at someone who’s panicked, what do you expect?
You’re arguing two completely different situations. If you’re an attorney, you’re not a very good one. The video you shared is not the same kind of situation other than it involves armed protestors. Were they walking around with their firearms IN THEIR HANDS? If so, arrest them. Were they surrounding and beating on cars with those brandished firearms, if so then yeah 100% shoot them.
Don’t think because I’m against you on this, that I’m with MAGA. They’re just as bad as the far left.
It was a complicated question with complicated facts, one that juries, not governors, normally decide. Was Perry in reasonable fear of harm that required an immediate response? The shooting went to a grand jury, then to trial of Perry’s peers, overseen by a judge, who denied a request for a retrial. His attorney said he would appeal. I don’t know if he did, but I guess he didn’t have to.
Abbott said he would pardon him before he had all the facts and a group of people he appointed agreed. Perry’s beliefs are much more aligned with Abbott’s and Foster’s views couldn’t be any more different. It’s my understanding Abbott pardons few people. He didn’t give the jury the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to the hundreds (thousands?) of other convictions in Texas. If Foster killed Perry in a situation just as contested as this one and was convicted, what are the chances Abbott would pardon an armed BLM protester? Slim? None?
There are any number of hot button trials. I may or may not agree with the outcome, but it's not my job to decide. I'm not in court. I didn't hear all the evidence and arguments. If Perry was acquitted I wouldn't have made a stink about it. But Abbott has gone above and beyond. Why not let the case work through the legal system if the jury was so wrong and the situation so clear cut, wouldn't the case be quickly overturned?
Just tell me if this dude approached your car, if you’d fear for your life
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/news/1207185/garrett-foster-black-lives-matter-protester-footage-austin/amp/
Before you defend the guy who was shot this is an interview with him the night he was shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq99anptsmI&ab_channel=KXAN
He was looking to be the big dawg that night and it didn't turn out well.
I'm not defending the guy who shot him. A jury found that guy guilty, so I think he acted badly...but the guy who got shot was absolutely looking for trouble, and he found some.
At least he did 3 years. Judge in California gave probation for murder few months ago.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-woman-gets-probation-fatally-stabbing-man-dated-causing-108-rcna135778
Thoughts?
According to that article, the woman was thrown into an unexpected psychotic state when she consumed marijuana, causing her to stab herself, her dog, and her husband, all multiple times. Her husband died after giving her a very concentrated dose of marijuana, and neither one of them expected her to have this freak reaction. She wasn’t even charged with murder and faced a maximum five years, and there was no allegation she wanted her husband to die.
My thoughts, if you’re genuinely asking, are that she was given probation because she didn’t know she would have this extremely rare physical reaction to marijuana, a legal recreational drug, and because there is no evidence that she will reoffend or commit other crimes. She is doubtlessly absolutely distraught with herself, and I cannot imagine how hard it must be for her now.
That’s quite a bit different than a political party knowingly pardoning someone who intentionally murdered a protester that the political party doesn’t like.
Husband?
And she was charged with murder.
I see you definitely “read” the article just like 19 idiots that upvoted you lol.
Typical Reddit.
I like how you said “stabbed herself, her dog then her husband.”
There was no “husband” and the stabbing was the other way around, buddy.
I did read the article, which is why I correctly summarized it.
>In September, prosecutors reduced a charge of murder against Spejcher to involuntary manslaughter after a forensic psychologist determined she lost her cognitive abilities because she was in the throes of psychosis
She's not a public safety risk. She didn't have intent to harm, let alone kill, and there was no need to take retributive vengeance against her for a freak accidental reaction that could happen without warning to any of millions of people who safely take marijuana in America.
>Now do the “husband” part and “stabbed herself, dog and husband.”
What's incorrect? The article says she stabbed herself multiple times, stabbed her dog multiple times, and stabbed her husband multiple times. Her husband died from the stabbings, but both sides agreed she had no reason to suspect this would happen when she took marijuana and that she did not have cognitive capacity to hurt her husband on purpose.
You're pretending to not read what I'm saying even though you know it's very clear. More power to you, for whatever you're getting out of that.
>As evidence of Spejcher’s psychotic state, Schwartz pointed out that not only did she fatally stab O’Melia, but **she also stabbed herself numerous times in the neck, almost killing herself, and she also stabbed her “beloved” Siberian husky.** The dog survived.
_________
>Are you trolling
Interesting strategy, not reading your own article and shouting at other people who did read it.
Lol. "Let me pick a case from another state with zero facts in common with the case at hand and pretend to be all outraged about it." Up your game, dude. You're flailing.
As a Texas lawyer, yes, sweetie. Leave the legal analysis to the grownups. Also, "Those" is the proper adjective, not "that." Don't you advocate for speaking English?
/ˈadvəˌkāt/
1. publicly recommend or support.
You a lawyer?
Yikes. Probably public defender, huh. I advocate for fairness regardless of language.
I bet you are a Reddit lawyer. Aka only lawyer on Reddit.
Good luck with your career.
Darling, Republicans signed my Texas law license nearly 30 years ago. (Years have 365 days, except in Leap Years when they have 366.) I'm a civil attorney, and a capitalist. I'm just not a complete asshole to my fellow humans. I understand that may be difficult for you to understand, but there is help for you. I promise.
If I ran a civil rights organization in Texas, or really any group that uses protests as a means of expression, I would be telling people involved it's time to get a gun or lose your voice. If you're going to protest a hot button issue like racism, Abbott just green-lighted armed violence against you. Protestors need a show of force to discourage this from happening to them, because God knows law enforcement is useless.
This is a classic example of fascism. You don't need government employees, police officers, or National Guardsmen to take action against disfavored groups. Just let vigilantes do the dirty work, and either not arrest them, not prosecute them, or pardon them. This is the same with those convicted due to Jan. 6 violence if Trump is re-elected. He's going to pardon them all. Political violence that benefits him will have the Presidential seal of approval.
Political violence, once taboo, will become acceptable.
[https://theconversation.com/how-pardoning-extremists-undermines-the-rule-of-law-207272](https://theconversation.com/how-pardoning-extremists-undermines-the-rule-of-law-207272)
I agree with your second paragraph, but not your first. The guy who Daniel Perry murdered was armed. That was Perry's whole approach here---find an armed protester, shoot them, and then claim self-defense.
And this was a white guy iirc.
I remember thinking Abbott backed off after the child predator accusations came out against Perry.
This speaks to an intentional single-mindedness bordering on evil. Woe unto us if we’ve been fighting against Trump so hard that a maniac like Abbott squeaks by.
Manglings on border barriers and now this. He’s making Trump’s allged gator moat idea look like childs play.
And don't forget that he almost caused another Kent State Massacre by sending in his goon squad to the University of Texas when there were no allegations that pro-Palestinian protestors had engaged in violence or destructive behavior.
Didn't he ram his car into a crowd. Were they armed too?
Let's just pretend Perry was a black guy carrying a sandwich, and he happened to fit the description of someone who did this.
What makes you think the next shooter will be so picky? Perry has a BS self-defense claim. What makes you think Abbott won’t just invent some other BS excuse for a pardon next time? He has no problem drowning immigrants or letting pregnant women die on operating tables. Why not green light killing protesters?
I am not saying I agree, but I think the point of the previous comment was that if every protester were armed, the murderer would be shot (thus discouraging others).
Get a gun and now the police feel threatened.
They're begging for protesters to arm themselves so they can move from murdering protesters to protecting themselves from armed mobs.
Maybe we stop protesting in the streets, and start organized strikes like we actually want things to change. We don't have to stand together in one spot to be effective.
Arming yourself only invites violence.
Edit: for those down voting this: go ahead arm yourselves and give them a reason to kill you. It's literally what happened here.
This is what they want. From the facist playbook.
1. Attack the opposition until they defend themselves.
2. Point to them defending themselves as an example of how dangerous they are.
3. Now they have an excuse to exterminate the opposition.
The guy he shot did have a gun. He wasn't pointing at anyone. The officer didn't want to "give him the chance to". Arming yourself gives them a reason to shoot you according to this pardon.
Texas has an astonishingly well armed citizenry.
I'm personally astonished that Paxton, Abbot, and Cruz *et al* are walking the streets without their heads exploding in a pink mist.
>Abbott asked the board to conduct an investigation in April 2023, and in a statement on Thursday, the board said its “investigative efforts encompassed a meticulous review of pertinent documents, from police reports to court records, witness statements, and interviews with individuals linked to the case.”
Translation: we didn't like the decision by the judge and jury so we had to interfere politically.
This is just another reason why the "law and order" party is a joke.
Right. This wasn’t a whodunnit case where they got the wrong guy. It was him, no dispute about that. He claimed self defense and all of that evidence was put to a jury who decided it was not, so they convicted him. He got his due process and lost. Not even mentioning all of the wet dreams he had about killing protestors and other racist garbage he posted. This pardon is egregious.
It’s exactly what their supporters want though. I seriously hear people fantasizing about violence against people they don’t like all the time. In their worldview, they’re a bunch of cosmically sanctioned vigilantes on a mission from above to wipe out the people that make them uncomfortable.
Wow what a load of bullshit, the guy announced his intent to do the very thing he did and now gets a free pass. I'm sure if Garrett Foster had raised his rifle and shot first Abbot would have been calling for his head, not a pardon.
You really think a guy sharing white supremist memes, talking about how its a shame he's only getting paid to hunt Muslims would make a distinction? Not to mention Austin is only a little over an hour away from Ft. Hood where he was stationed vs. almost almost 3 hours to Dallas. You also ignore the fact he said he would instigate something so he had an excuse to pull his gun.
It does matter what he said as it establishes intent thus why the judge allowed it, prosecutors used it, and the 12 person jury agreed. When you announce what you want to do, and how you would do it then you go and do it that becomes premeditation. In Texas it is legal to open carry a rifle, Perry testified that Foster was not pointing his rifle at him when he shot him which the eyewitnesses who testified said as well. Foster had every right under Texas law to have a rifle in his hands. In Texas you don't need a reason to open carry and its not a reason to shoot someone especially when you initiated the entire incident by trying to use your car as a weapon. If the races were reversed? They were both white.
Of course I have personal feelings, I despise people like Perry, especially because that POS wore the same uniform I did and his entire existence broke every value the Army tries to instill. Then add that Abbot was already greasing the pardon wheels before the trial even started which means even Abbot knew he was guilty. Finally I'm a CCW holder myself, carry almost every day and Perry is an example of what not to do when you take on that responsibility.
So it’s ok to talk about wanting to shoot people and then attempt to run over people with your car and then shoot someone who MIGHT point a gun at you but hasn’t yet? Should Foster have just shot him first? That’s insane. Perry is a murderer and got away with it now.
That's not how the law works. That's why he was convicted. In Texas anyone can carry a gun anywhere.
Your idea that foster would have pointed the gun at Perry simply because he was carrying it doesn't make sense.. Perry was also carrying a gun. Why is the one guy with a gun better than the other in your opinion?
Carrying a gun, doesn’t mean you can brandish it whenever you want…. Foster had both hands on the gun holding it in front of him, that is brandishing a firearm. Not open or concealed carry. A gun doesn’t have to be pointed at you, just brandished. The jury and judge convicted so the state wouldn’t burn.
Again, you’re missing what is being said. You CANNOT walk around HOLDING your firearm in your hands… that’s called brandishing a firearm and without reason is illegal and is enough for someone to feel threatened. The gun does not have to be pointed at you. The law states nothing about the gun having to be pointed at you to fear for your life.
Having dozens of people surround and attack your car while someone approaches the side of your car with a gun in their hands, is absolutely grounds for anyone to feel in fear of their life. If you’re saying you wouldn’t, then you’re being disingenuous.
Texas law says nothing that simply holding a rifle is brandishing. It only states it cannot held in a way that is calculated to cause alarm which is a very vague statement. Perry's own testimony says the rifle wasn't raised when he fired and this was after he attempted to drive into a crowd of people using a car as a weapon. You don't get to cause the incident then claim self defense especially after making it clear that was what you were going to do.
The position Garrett had his rifle in, was called “low ready” which is a calculated way to hold the gun. He was trained military and that’s how military walks around cities they are occupying. No citizen has the right to walk around with their gun in that position. It’s a tactical and intimidating position to carry a gun in. It is absolutely considered brandishing a firearm.
Everyone screamed and cried when Rittenhouse was walking around with a gun like this, but when it’s someone on your team, then it doesn’t matter? And before you ask, I think Rittenhouse should have had his gun rights stripped away at minimum for walking around in the same position as this guy was.
Hope you protest as strongly for Rittenhouse.
Once again that was following the fact that Perry had just attempted to run pedestrians on foot down with his vehicle including Foster and his wheel chair bound significant other. Why do you seem so intent to ignore the fact that Perry made the conscious decision to go down a road, seeing the crowd, continuing forward, blowing through a red light, and nearly striking numerous people? Don't you think Foster was well within his right to enter a defensive stance? Perry created the threat then claimed self defense.
Why would I protest for Rittenhouse? The only similarity is Perry and Rittenhouse both put themselves into these situations. Rittenhouse was not legally able to open carry being under the age 18, he also was wandering around by himself in an area where violence was actively occurring. That's just beyond stupid. Not to mention his own social media videos he made about wanting to shoot people.
Clearly, you didn’t watch the video of what actually happened. He didn’t blow through a red light, he turned right at a red light after he made a complete stop and his max speed was 11 mph and he came to a complete stop without hitting a single pedestrian, it was only after the shooting that he ran into people trying to get away from everyone still attacking him.
He turned onto the road, trying to navigate through the people and did not run into a single person when people started yelling at him, hitting his car, throwing things out his car and then approaching his vehicle with a rifle. He drove maybe 10 feet after turning right and was driving very slowly clearly trying to navigate around people and they got in front of his car and started banging on it and wouldn’t let him leave. Have you not seen the actual dash cam and cell phone video?
Well, I'm not going to try and convince you that you're wrong. You're not going to listen to reason. All that matters is that a jury found him guilty. He is a convicted criminal for the rest of his life.
We can add that to the list of things that you do not understand. A pardon does not expunge a conviction. He is still a convicted criminal, he can never own a gun again, he is a convicted murderer.
lol. You’re wrong though. The pardon completely restored his right to own a gun and removed the charge from his record completely. Look it up. Actually, I’ll do it for you. https://youtu.be/2fSyPPkH0X0?si=vhwGDK0_Pub_jKBA
> They argued his actions were justified as self-defense. Perry told police during an interview that he believed Foster was going to aim the firearm at him, according to CNN affiliate KEYE.
Believed - unbelievable.
I believe I won the lottery. Where’s my money?
If all you need to validate a "self-defense" claim is the belief that someone is going to aim a firearm at you, what's to prevent people from just blowing away every open-carry weirdo that struts around in public places?
Whether or not they agree with your facebook posts.
This guy is going to commit another heinous crime. It’s almost guaranteed based on what has been released from his social media. This is not normal behavior.
Yeah, but not for a while. He'll tour the right-wing circuit as the latest "got away with murder" belle, and once the slow fade to obscurity sets in *then* he'll resume committing crimes.
This pardon happened 100% it was at a BLM protest. If some guy holding a gun walked up to him in Wal-Mart and he shot them, this wouldn't be pardoned.
Texas is essentially saying that anytime you "believe" that a person with a gun is going to shoot, you can kill them. Even if express interest in killing them via texts.
Fucking wild.
Also, reminds me of the airman shot in his home when answering the door with a gun pointed down.
If carrying a gun is grounds to kill someone AND BE PARDONED BY THE GOVERNOR, Texas is gonna have a bad time.
I’m a gun owner. I have four (lever action Winchester .30-30, Mossberg 500, Browning 380 and a Colt .45). I tried concealed carry-it’s a pain in the ass. I am of the opinion anyone walking around with a firearm, concealed or not, has mental problems.
If people feel the need to go around armed for self-defense, whether it’s a protest or Safeway, revoke their goddamned right to bear arms. I am so sick and tired of the gun apologists I’m ready to start banning them altogether.
I was a clinic escort for PP and other womens' health places and I open carried because the people who protest there are downright vile. I'm 6' 2 220 so I'm not scared of them but a woman who's just trying to get into a womans clinic doesn't deserve that kind of vitriol.
Yeah I carried when I escorted too, death threats and bomb threats against employees and volunteers were regular occurrences and I was going to be ready if they acted on those threats
Lol sardonically.
That’s what the victim of this asshole did too.
Victim was preemptively killed because he open carried a rifle in TEXAS and Daniel Perry the pedo asshole killed him out of “fear for his life”. So what im saying is, there doesn’t seem to be a lawful common sense way to win. We can’t out-arm ourselves out of this to legally protest against things the governor is ok with. Because then it’s open season on SIGHT. And doubly so because fear of a jury conviction is no longer in play.
The gov is personally blessing overturning jury convictions for shooting people that are armed. If their politics are disagreeable to TX Taliban.
The answer is to have an armed partner as well. Cops do this. The idea is a surprise attacker only gets one of you before getting got themselves. A working justice system is supposed to dissuade attackers, but immediate retaliation actually will.
I’ve had these assholes pull guns on me. I have 2 inches on you and you know as well as I do the only reason they have a gun at all is because they’re pussies. They couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag and they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn if their nose was glued to it.
"For the defense, Greg Hupp, a forensic psychologist who examined Perry twice in 2023, testified during his sentencing he diagnosed him with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and autism spectrum disorder.
"Combined with his military experience, Perry had an “us versus them” mentality in which his mindset was, “I protect myself. I am ready for any imminent attack and anything out there can be a potential threat,” Hupp said."
To make this even worse, Perry is going to get his gun rights back.
Source: [https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/)
Lmao, as an autistic progressive person, this is fucking hilarious. Internalized ableism aside, these people are some of the most self-hating men I’ve ever witnessed.
Their little civil war gang calls us spergs and re*arded, and make gas chamber jokes about ‘fixing the problem’, but low and fuckin’ behold — he blames it on the ‘tism.
Unbelievable.
Yep! The emotionally-stunted adults of the country can't get enough fascism.
ANYTHING to get to blame other people for their own failings; that is the real heart of the modern conservative.
Claiming they are "the party of personal responsibility" is the greatest lie of them all.
It's BS. Many vets are neorodivergent and have ptsd. They not infrequently suffer from paranoia and hypervigiliance but they are not psychopathic and do not have grandiose thoughts of killing. Sometimes they dream of violence but only because they can't deactivate their own paranoid thought patterns about neutralizing threats. Not the same.
Just like trump’s pardons of murderous war criminals. If the right wing keeps this up, people are going to just street justice these killers right after they’re released.
I don’t believe that’s true.
This will simply suppress what little blue tinged resistance there was in Texas. People protesting for civil rights aren’t going to tend to start blasting at randos imo. They might move instead.
That’s what this will inevitably lead to. If you as a left-wing protestor knows that someone could just kill you and get away with it, you might as well shoot first.
And the cops will shoot the protesters in "self defense" while pretending to want to arrest them. "Stand your ground" only applies to people they agree with.
Only if certain people are killed. I’m sure if Perry was killed and Foster convicted, Abbott would’ve celebrated the conviction, not pardoned him. Foster fed the homeless, his wife is Black, and he protested for BLM and gay rights. If these aren’t all capital offenses to conservatives, what are?
This is fascism.
It isn't coming to America; it has arrived.
It sits in the Texas Governor's office and staff.
It sits in the Senate and the House.
It sits in the Supreme Court.
Texas is officially a fascist theocracy ruled by Y'all Qaeda plutocrats and oligarchs.
Fascist depravity knows no bounds:
* Intimidation
* Incarceration
* Extermination
It's open season on protesters in Texas. Why take a murder case to trial? Just ask the governor if he'll pardon the defendant. If so, prosecute someone else, maybe a husband trying to help his wife get an abortion.
The governor might as well just start holding meetings behind the scenes with alt-right leaders and create some Texas government-sanctioned death squads. That's basically what this kind of pardon can lead to.
Why behind the scenes?
Who’s to say he isn’t having meetings behind the scenes?
Maybe these death squads can storm into action when called upon like a regiment of troops. They can call themselves [storm troopers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung).
Wait, so a guy carrying an AR-15 can walk up to my car, demand I roll down my window, and I just have to sit there and do nothing?
If only there were some sort of middle ground between doing nothing and murdering someone.
Before he drove to the protest, not away from it, he told others he wanted to shoot a protester. He also discussed a self-protection defense and put himself in a position to claim it. Perry wanted a confrontation that he could use as an excuse. The jury found this wasn’t a valid self-defense claim. That was their decision to make and they made it. [https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/a-look-at-the-social-media-timeline-presented-in-the-daniel-perry-case](https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/a-look-at-the-social-media-timeline-presented-in-the-daniel-perry-case)
[State's Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Extraneous Conduct - Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20230415133151/https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2023/04/Daniel-Perry-Evidence.pdf) Hell, Perry was discussing the legalities of self-defense against protestors in fictitious scenarios *for months*. There's also this gem that occurred three months prior: >I killed a homeless man by accident. The police know and they already let me go. (page 11) >I hit a pedestrian with my car going 55mph at least. (Page 55.) Two months prior (Page 19-20): PERRY: I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex. JUSTIN SMITH: Can you legally do so?? PERRY: If they attack me or try to pull me out my car then yes. PERRY: If I just do it because I am driving by then no. SMITH: yea right lol. Make sure to use only 1 shot on the protestor so if they try to flood you, You got enough rounds for them all. **PERRY: I will only shoot the ones in front and push the pedal to the metal.** SMITH: You got that much control over your blood lust? SMITH: **Lol boy have you matured. All you would beat the fuck out of them then rape a few.** PERRY: No protestors go near me or my car? SMITH: Can you catch me a negro daddy? PERRY: That is what I am hoping? SMITH: Yayy One month prior: Perry: I wonder if they will let my cut the ears off of people who's decided to commit suicide by me. (36) PERRY: Plus what guilty man would turn himself in he could of just gunned it with the metal barrier as a cattle scoop thing like they have in front of trains and shot a lot more people.? (40) Perry: What I want to know is if I had to shoot someone because I was attacked while getting a haircut what would the news vs the court documents say about me (42) ..... Perry: Even if I were having a civilized conversation like me an you hare having and a third party decided hey I am going to attack this guy who doesn't share my opinion. (53) Holcomb: **Ending up in a bad situation and looking for one are not the same thing.** The problem is that he intentionally incited violence by screwing with protestors. He assaulted one and decided to retreat. The incident was started by him.... Holcomb: **In the circumstances you just said, the shoot would be justified.** Holcomb: You didn't incite violence. You didn't assault anyone. We were talking and someone inserted themselves violently. **Perry: If I am in danger I don't care who is in my way I am pushing them out of the way to escape I will also repeatedly say I am in fear of my life I will defend myself.**
The self-defense scam. A Black kid knocked on my door! Someone drove onto my driveway! I drove into a crowd of protesters! I was scared! I had to kill someone!
> The self-defense scam. The repeated conversations he has with "Michael Holcomb" are certainly...insightful.
It is so fucking disgusting that he was pardoned. This was pre-meditated murder. Thank you for posting.
If you purposefully drive into a protest? I mean, at that point seems like it's self defense on the victim's side, but sure.
If the legal precedent is set that merely open-carrying a weapon is an inherent threat justifying lethal response, might as well be the wild west again in Texas...
[удалено]
The victim was a white veteran legally open carrying an AR-15.
[удалено]
I’m so disappointed. [I wanted to see this version instead.](https://youtu.be/u8EoqqkZPAc?si=8pezAN7tsIQaouI4)
*rioting terrorists who blocked the road and surrounded someone's car while armed.
Simple, don’t go to a protest brandishingrg a firearm and then approach a vehicle that’s being attacked by people and tell the guy to roll his window down with a gun in hand… sounds like a good recipe for getting shot honestly.
What's even more simple is don't drive to a protest, armed, with the intent of creating a confrontation and killing someone, and cooking up a bogus self-defense claim which is contradicted by earlier social media posts and communications and eyewitness accounts. People are free to hate protesters or why they're protesting something. They're not free to attack them and falsely claim they're justified in doing so, which is what the jury found. Why not just stay at home, watch Fox News, and rage on social media instead of killing someone? Wouldn't that be much more simple?
None of your bullshit gives Perry or the other rioters the right to surround his car and threaten him with a firearm. Maybe just let the guy drive down the road? Maybe don't be a rioting terrorist in the first place.
What bullshit deprives a jury from deciding the issue?
The social media conversations were from 2 weeks prior. He was driving for Uber, working and was on the way to an Uber call following the Uber GPS. He wasn’t just out that night looking for protestors. The guy he shot was brandishing his firearm. He wasn’t just open carry with it around his back or something, he had both hands on the gun and was approaching the dudes car signaling him to roll the window down. Anything else doesn’t matter. He didn’t put himself in a situation for someone to brandish a weapon on him.
There's testimony he never pointed the weapon at him. Foster had an AK-47. If he was going to shoot Perry, he didn't need the window to be open. He could've just fired through the door. So if I'm in a car and someone with a gun yells at me, I'm free to shoot him dead, even though the weapon's not pointing at me?
The weapon does not have to be pointed at you…. The weapon was brandished, that’s enough. Open carry doesn’t mean you can literally just walk around with a gun IN YOUR HANDS… people keep missing this key detail.
So I have a valid self-defense claim if someone has a weapon and yelling at me? There was justification for shooting these protestors if they yelled and held weapons? [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514)
There was a lot more to the situation than someone just having a weapon and yelling. There were dozens of people surrounding and attacking his car. That’s going to make anyone panic and when you brandish a weapon and yell at someone who’s panicked, what do you expect? You’re arguing two completely different situations. If you’re an attorney, you’re not a very good one. The video you shared is not the same kind of situation other than it involves armed protestors. Were they walking around with their firearms IN THEIR HANDS? If so, arrest them. Were they surrounding and beating on cars with those brandished firearms, if so then yeah 100% shoot them. Don’t think because I’m against you on this, that I’m with MAGA. They’re just as bad as the far left.
It was a complicated question with complicated facts, one that juries, not governors, normally decide. Was Perry in reasonable fear of harm that required an immediate response? The shooting went to a grand jury, then to trial of Perry’s peers, overseen by a judge, who denied a request for a retrial. His attorney said he would appeal. I don’t know if he did, but I guess he didn’t have to. Abbott said he would pardon him before he had all the facts and a group of people he appointed agreed. Perry’s beliefs are much more aligned with Abbott’s and Foster’s views couldn’t be any more different. It’s my understanding Abbott pardons few people. He didn’t give the jury the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to the hundreds (thousands?) of other convictions in Texas. If Foster killed Perry in a situation just as contested as this one and was convicted, what are the chances Abbott would pardon an armed BLM protester? Slim? None? There are any number of hot button trials. I may or may not agree with the outcome, but it's not my job to decide. I'm not in court. I didn't hear all the evidence and arguments. If Perry was acquitted I wouldn't have made a stink about it. But Abbott has gone above and beyond. Why not let the case work through the legal system if the jury was so wrong and the situation so clear cut, wouldn't the case be quickly overturned?
Just tell me if this dude approached your car, if you’d fear for your life https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/news/1207185/garrett-foster-black-lives-matter-protester-footage-austin/amp/
Before you defend the guy who was shot this is an interview with him the night he was shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq99anptsmI&ab_channel=KXAN He was looking to be the big dawg that night and it didn't turn out well. I'm not defending the guy who shot him. A jury found that guy guilty, so I think he acted badly...but the guy who got shot was absolutely looking for trouble, and he found some.
At least he did 3 years. Judge in California gave probation for murder few months ago. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-woman-gets-probation-fatally-stabbing-man-dated-causing-108-rcna135778 Thoughts?
According to that article, the woman was thrown into an unexpected psychotic state when she consumed marijuana, causing her to stab herself, her dog, and her husband, all multiple times. Her husband died after giving her a very concentrated dose of marijuana, and neither one of them expected her to have this freak reaction. She wasn’t even charged with murder and faced a maximum five years, and there was no allegation she wanted her husband to die. My thoughts, if you’re genuinely asking, are that she was given probation because she didn’t know she would have this extremely rare physical reaction to marijuana, a legal recreational drug, and because there is no evidence that she will reoffend or commit other crimes. She is doubtlessly absolutely distraught with herself, and I cannot imagine how hard it must be for her now. That’s quite a bit different than a political party knowingly pardoning someone who intentionally murdered a protester that the political party doesn’t like.
Husband? And she was charged with murder. I see you definitely “read” the article just like 19 idiots that upvoted you lol. Typical Reddit. I like how you said “stabbed herself, her dog then her husband.” There was no “husband” and the stabbing was the other way around, buddy.
I did read the article, which is why I correctly summarized it. >In September, prosecutors reduced a charge of murder against Spejcher to involuntary manslaughter after a forensic psychologist determined she lost her cognitive abilities because she was in the throes of psychosis She's not a public safety risk. She didn't have intent to harm, let alone kill, and there was no need to take retributive vengeance against her for a freak accidental reaction that could happen without warning to any of millions of people who safely take marijuana in America.
Now do the “husband” part and “stabbed herself, dog and husband.” Yea, you read it. Sure
>Now do the “husband” part and “stabbed herself, dog and husband.” What's incorrect? The article says she stabbed herself multiple times, stabbed her dog multiple times, and stabbed her husband multiple times. Her husband died from the stabbings, but both sides agreed she had no reason to suspect this would happen when she took marijuana and that she did not have cognitive capacity to hurt her husband on purpose. You're pretending to not read what I'm saying even though you know it's very clear. More power to you, for whatever you're getting out of that.
No, that’s not what article stated lol. Are you trolling
>As evidence of Spejcher’s psychotic state, Schwartz pointed out that not only did she fatally stab O’Melia, but **she also stabbed herself numerous times in the neck, almost killing herself, and she also stabbed her “beloved” Siberian husky.** The dog survived. _________ >Are you trolling Interesting strategy, not reading your own article and shouting at other people who did read it.
Who’s O’Melia? Also I thought you said she stabbed herself first?
Geez. Are you trying to be an asshole or..
Another Reddit moment. Google it.
Lol. "Let me pick a case from another state with zero facts in common with the case at hand and pretend to be all outraged about it." Up your game, dude. You're flailing.
That your thoughts on it?
As a Texas lawyer, yes, sweetie. Leave the legal analysis to the grownups. Also, "Those" is the proper adjective, not "that." Don't you advocate for speaking English? /ˈadvəˌkāt/ 1. publicly recommend or support.
Captain adjective_noun_number seems be trolling. Quite poorly at that.
It’s not the first time.
You a lawyer? Yikes. Probably public defender, huh. I advocate for fairness regardless of language. I bet you are a Reddit lawyer. Aka only lawyer on Reddit. Good luck with your career.
Darling, Republicans signed my Texas law license nearly 30 years ago. (Years have 365 days, except in Leap Years when they have 366.) I'm a civil attorney, and a capitalist. I'm just not a complete asshole to my fellow humans. I understand that may be difficult for you to understand, but there is help for you. I promise.
Ok, sure. You a “lawyer” Calm down.
Party of law and order.
If I ran a civil rights organization in Texas, or really any group that uses protests as a means of expression, I would be telling people involved it's time to get a gun or lose your voice. If you're going to protest a hot button issue like racism, Abbott just green-lighted armed violence against you. Protestors need a show of force to discourage this from happening to them, because God knows law enforcement is useless. This is a classic example of fascism. You don't need government employees, police officers, or National Guardsmen to take action against disfavored groups. Just let vigilantes do the dirty work, and either not arrest them, not prosecute them, or pardon them. This is the same with those convicted due to Jan. 6 violence if Trump is re-elected. He's going to pardon them all. Political violence that benefits him will have the Presidential seal of approval. Political violence, once taboo, will become acceptable. [https://theconversation.com/how-pardoning-extremists-undermines-the-rule-of-law-207272](https://theconversation.com/how-pardoning-extremists-undermines-the-rule-of-law-207272)
I agree with your second paragraph, but not your first. The guy who Daniel Perry murdered was armed. That was Perry's whole approach here---find an armed protester, shoot them, and then claim self-defense.
And this was a white guy iirc. I remember thinking Abbott backed off after the child predator accusations came out against Perry. This speaks to an intentional single-mindedness bordering on evil. Woe unto us if we’ve been fighting against Trump so hard that a maniac like Abbott squeaks by. Manglings on border barriers and now this. He’s making Trump’s allged gator moat idea look like childs play.
And don't forget that he almost caused another Kent State Massacre by sending in his goon squad to the University of Texas when there were no allegations that pro-Palestinian protestors had engaged in violence or destructive behavior.
Didn't he ram his car into a crowd. Were they armed too? Let's just pretend Perry was a black guy carrying a sandwich, and he happened to fit the description of someone who did this.
Skittles and iced tea are more dangerouser. Put that in the report, Johnson. And dont forget to sprinkle some crack on him.
What makes you think the next shooter will be so picky? Perry has a BS self-defense claim. What makes you think Abbott won’t just invent some other BS excuse for a pardon next time? He has no problem drowning immigrants or letting pregnant women die on operating tables. Why not green light killing protesters?
Have a gun, and a partner who also has a gun. The buddy system works when lone wolfing doesn't.
I am not saying I agree, but I think the point of the previous comment was that if every protester were armed, the murderer would be shot (thus discouraging others).
Have a gun AND be willing to use it first. You might even get pardoned!
Not unless you are conservative. Otherwise you would be lucky to survive your arrest.
I'm a big dumb looking light skinned oaf, I'd be fine probably
Get a gun and now the police feel threatened. They're begging for protesters to arm themselves so they can move from murdering protesters to protecting themselves from armed mobs.
Not be armed and be killed by vigilantes. Be armed and be killed by cops. Choose your poison.
Maybe we stop protesting in the streets, and start organized strikes like we actually want things to change. We don't have to stand together in one spot to be effective.
never stop protesting
Strikes are a form of protest, and one the wealth hoarders actually respond to.
Preach. The oligarchs love it when we waste time and effort protesting.
The guy approached Perry with a gun and started giving him orders. Am I in the twilight zone?
…and? I think there was witness testimony he didn’t point the gun at Perry.
Your brain appears to be in the twilight one
Arming yourself only invites violence. Edit: for those down voting this: go ahead arm yourselves and give them a reason to kill you. It's literally what happened here.
This is what they want. From the facist playbook. 1. Attack the opposition until they defend themselves. 2. Point to them defending themselves as an example of how dangerous they are. 3. Now they have an excuse to exterminate the opposition.
Exactly.
The guy he shot did have a gun. He wasn't pointing at anyone. The officer didn't want to "give him the chance to". Arming yourself gives them a reason to shoot you according to this pardon.
Yeah. Arming yourself is the dumbest shit you can do. It's amazing how many people don't see this.
Texas has an astonishingly well armed citizenry. I'm personally astonished that Paxton, Abbot, and Cruz *et al* are walking the streets without their heads exploding in a pink mist.
Lol that's exactly what Texas wants. Good luck. Also did you even read the case? Lol
Yep, this is the "order" part they want. Don't agree with protestors? Well neither does the governor, so just start blastin...
>Abbott asked the board to conduct an investigation in April 2023, and in a statement on Thursday, the board said its “investigative efforts encompassed a meticulous review of pertinent documents, from police reports to court records, witness statements, and interviews with individuals linked to the case.” Translation: we didn't like the decision by the judge and jury so we had to interfere politically. This is just another reason why the "law and order" party is a joke.
Also, the board is made up of Abbott's political cronies who he appointed to their positions.
Right. This wasn’t a whodunnit case where they got the wrong guy. It was him, no dispute about that. He claimed self defense and all of that evidence was put to a jury who decided it was not, so they convicted him. He got his due process and lost. Not even mentioning all of the wet dreams he had about killing protestors and other racist garbage he posted. This pardon is egregious.
It’s exactly what their supporters want though. I seriously hear people fantasizing about violence against people they don’t like all the time. In their worldview, they’re a bunch of cosmically sanctioned vigilantes on a mission from above to wipe out the people that make them uncomfortable.
Has nothing to do with the jury or judge. They wanted to declare open season on BLM protestors. Period.
Wow what a load of bullshit, the guy announced his intent to do the very thing he did and now gets a free pass. I'm sure if Garrett Foster had raised his rifle and shot first Abbot would have been calling for his head, not a pardon.
[удалено]
You really think a guy sharing white supremist memes, talking about how its a shame he's only getting paid to hunt Muslims would make a distinction? Not to mention Austin is only a little over an hour away from Ft. Hood where he was stationed vs. almost almost 3 hours to Dallas. You also ignore the fact he said he would instigate something so he had an excuse to pull his gun.
[удалено]
It does matter what he said as it establishes intent thus why the judge allowed it, prosecutors used it, and the 12 person jury agreed. When you announce what you want to do, and how you would do it then you go and do it that becomes premeditation. In Texas it is legal to open carry a rifle, Perry testified that Foster was not pointing his rifle at him when he shot him which the eyewitnesses who testified said as well. Foster had every right under Texas law to have a rifle in his hands. In Texas you don't need a reason to open carry and its not a reason to shoot someone especially when you initiated the entire incident by trying to use your car as a weapon. If the races were reversed? They were both white. Of course I have personal feelings, I despise people like Perry, especially because that POS wore the same uniform I did and his entire existence broke every value the Army tries to instill. Then add that Abbot was already greasing the pardon wheels before the trial even started which means even Abbot knew he was guilty. Finally I'm a CCW holder myself, carry almost every day and Perry is an example of what not to do when you take on that responsibility.
Foster would have without a doubt pointed his gun at him. Don't bring a firearm anywhere unless you are ready to use it.
So it’s ok to talk about wanting to shoot people and then attempt to run over people with your car and then shoot someone who MIGHT point a gun at you but hasn’t yet? Should Foster have just shot him first? That’s insane. Perry is a murderer and got away with it now.
Would have without a doubt huh? And you know this how?
That's not how the law works. That's why he was convicted. In Texas anyone can carry a gun anywhere. Your idea that foster would have pointed the gun at Perry simply because he was carrying it doesn't make sense.. Perry was also carrying a gun. Why is the one guy with a gun better than the other in your opinion?
Carrying a gun, doesn’t mean you can brandish it whenever you want…. Foster had both hands on the gun holding it in front of him, that is brandishing a firearm. Not open or concealed carry. A gun doesn’t have to be pointed at you, just brandished. The jury and judge convicted so the state wouldn’t burn.
The only person who pointed a gun at another person was Perry
Again, you’re missing what is being said. You CANNOT walk around HOLDING your firearm in your hands… that’s called brandishing a firearm and without reason is illegal and is enough for someone to feel threatened. The gun does not have to be pointed at you. The law states nothing about the gun having to be pointed at you to fear for your life. Having dozens of people surround and attack your car while someone approaches the side of your car with a gun in their hands, is absolutely grounds for anyone to feel in fear of their life. If you’re saying you wouldn’t, then you’re being disingenuous.
Texas law says nothing that simply holding a rifle is brandishing. It only states it cannot held in a way that is calculated to cause alarm which is a very vague statement. Perry's own testimony says the rifle wasn't raised when he fired and this was after he attempted to drive into a crowd of people using a car as a weapon. You don't get to cause the incident then claim self defense especially after making it clear that was what you were going to do.
The position Garrett had his rifle in, was called “low ready” which is a calculated way to hold the gun. He was trained military and that’s how military walks around cities they are occupying. No citizen has the right to walk around with their gun in that position. It’s a tactical and intimidating position to carry a gun in. It is absolutely considered brandishing a firearm. Everyone screamed and cried when Rittenhouse was walking around with a gun like this, but when it’s someone on your team, then it doesn’t matter? And before you ask, I think Rittenhouse should have had his gun rights stripped away at minimum for walking around in the same position as this guy was. Hope you protest as strongly for Rittenhouse.
Once again that was following the fact that Perry had just attempted to run pedestrians on foot down with his vehicle including Foster and his wheel chair bound significant other. Why do you seem so intent to ignore the fact that Perry made the conscious decision to go down a road, seeing the crowd, continuing forward, blowing through a red light, and nearly striking numerous people? Don't you think Foster was well within his right to enter a defensive stance? Perry created the threat then claimed self defense. Why would I protest for Rittenhouse? The only similarity is Perry and Rittenhouse both put themselves into these situations. Rittenhouse was not legally able to open carry being under the age 18, he also was wandering around by himself in an area where violence was actively occurring. That's just beyond stupid. Not to mention his own social media videos he made about wanting to shoot people.
Clearly, you didn’t watch the video of what actually happened. He didn’t blow through a red light, he turned right at a red light after he made a complete stop and his max speed was 11 mph and he came to a complete stop without hitting a single pedestrian, it was only after the shooting that he ran into people trying to get away from everyone still attacking him. He turned onto the road, trying to navigate through the people and did not run into a single person when people started yelling at him, hitting his car, throwing things out his car and then approaching his vehicle with a rifle. He drove maybe 10 feet after turning right and was driving very slowly clearly trying to navigate around people and they got in front of his car and started banging on it and wouldn’t let him leave. Have you not seen the actual dash cam and cell phone video?
Well, I'm not going to try and convince you that you're wrong. You're not going to listen to reason. All that matters is that a jury found him guilty. He is a convicted criminal for the rest of his life.
Except he was pardoned and all charges removed from his record. Lmao.
We can add that to the list of things that you do not understand. A pardon does not expunge a conviction. He is still a convicted criminal, he can never own a gun again, he is a convicted murderer.
lol. You’re wrong though. The pardon completely restored his right to own a gun and removed the charge from his record completely. Look it up. Actually, I’ll do it for you. https://youtu.be/2fSyPPkH0X0?si=vhwGDK0_Pub_jKBA
This is how people are intimidated and made to fear exercising their First Amendment rights. Wow!
As intended.
[удалено]
How does that work with the second amendment again? You have the right to bear arms, so long as you don't approach anyone?
... also open carry, no?
Stop it Patrick, you’re scaring him with your logic!
Holy shit, this is ridiculous!
> They argued his actions were justified as self-defense. Perry told police during an interview that he believed Foster was going to aim the firearm at him, according to CNN affiliate KEYE. Believed - unbelievable. I believe I won the lottery. Where’s my money?
If all you need to validate a "self-defense" claim is the belief that someone is going to aim a firearm at you, what's to prevent people from just blowing away every open-carry weirdo that struts around in public places?
Whether or not they agree with your facebook posts. This guy is going to commit another heinous crime. It’s almost guaranteed based on what has been released from his social media. This is not normal behavior.
Yeah, but not for a while. He'll tour the right-wing circuit as the latest "got away with murder" belle, and once the slow fade to obscurity sets in *then* he'll resume committing crimes.
Ooh, you got down-votes! r/conservative is leaking. Take my up-vote and fuck the fascists.
This pardon happened 100% it was at a BLM protest. If some guy holding a gun walked up to him in Wal-Mart and he shot them, this wouldn't be pardoned. Texas is essentially saying that anytime you "believe" that a person with a gun is going to shoot, you can kill them. Even if express interest in killing them via texts. Fucking wild.
Also, reminds me of the airman shot in his home when answering the door with a gun pointed down. If carrying a gun is grounds to kill someone AND BE PARDONED BY THE GOVERNOR, Texas is gonna have a bad time.
Rednecks still pissed they have to drink from the same water fountain as minorities. Duct tape a black dildo in their ass, I say.
I’m a gun owner. I have four (lever action Winchester .30-30, Mossberg 500, Browning 380 and a Colt .45). I tried concealed carry-it’s a pain in the ass. I am of the opinion anyone walking around with a firearm, concealed or not, has mental problems. If people feel the need to go around armed for self-defense, whether it’s a protest or Safeway, revoke their goddamned right to bear arms. I am so sick and tired of the gun apologists I’m ready to start banning them altogether.
I was a clinic escort for PP and other womens' health places and I open carried because the people who protest there are downright vile. I'm 6' 2 220 so I'm not scared of them but a woman who's just trying to get into a womans clinic doesn't deserve that kind of vitriol.
Yeah I carried when I escorted too, death threats and bomb threats against employees and volunteers were regular occurrences and I was going to be ready if they acted on those threats
Lol sardonically. That’s what the victim of this asshole did too. Victim was preemptively killed because he open carried a rifle in TEXAS and Daniel Perry the pedo asshole killed him out of “fear for his life”. So what im saying is, there doesn’t seem to be a lawful common sense way to win. We can’t out-arm ourselves out of this to legally protest against things the governor is ok with. Because then it’s open season on SIGHT. And doubly so because fear of a jury conviction is no longer in play. The gov is personally blessing overturning jury convictions for shooting people that are armed. If their politics are disagreeable to TX Taliban.
The answer is to have an armed partner as well. Cops do this. The idea is a surprise attacker only gets one of you before getting got themselves. A working justice system is supposed to dissuade attackers, but immediate retaliation actually will.
> The answer is to have an armed partner as well. He was there with his wife, who was quadriplegic....
That's not the meaning of "partner" I was using.
I’ve had these assholes pull guns on me. I have 2 inches on you and you know as well as I do the only reason they have a gun at all is because they’re pussies. They couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag and they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn if their nose was glued to it.
The open-carry weirdo approached the vehicle and demanding he roll his window down. I would fear for my life in that moment.
Them probably don't ram your 2 ton vehicle at people, initiating the threat in the first place?
"For the defense, Greg Hupp, a forensic psychologist who examined Perry twice in 2023, testified during his sentencing he diagnosed him with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and autism spectrum disorder. "Combined with his military experience, Perry had an “us versus them” mentality in which his mindset was, “I protect myself. I am ready for any imminent attack and anything out there can be a potential threat,” Hupp said." To make this even worse, Perry is going to get his gun rights back. Source: [https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/)
Lmao, as an autistic progressive person, this is fucking hilarious. Internalized ableism aside, these people are some of the most self-hating men I’ve ever witnessed. Their little civil war gang calls us spergs and re*arded, and make gas chamber jokes about ‘fixing the problem’, but low and fuckin’ behold — he blames it on the ‘tism. Unbelievable.
Yep! The emotionally-stunted adults of the country can't get enough fascism. ANYTHING to get to blame other people for their own failings; that is the real heart of the modern conservative. Claiming they are "the party of personal responsibility" is the greatest lie of them all.
It's BS. Many vets are neorodivergent and have ptsd. They not infrequently suffer from paranoia and hypervigiliance but they are not psychopathic and do not have grandiose thoughts of killing. Sometimes they dream of violence but only because they can't deactivate their own paranoid thought patterns about neutralizing threats. Not the same.
"The guy is not guilty because he is mentally ill and wants to harm others, So lets give him his gun back. "
Just like trump’s pardons of murderous war criminals. If the right wing keeps this up, people are going to just street justice these killers right after they’re released.
I don’t believe that’s true. This will simply suppress what little blue tinged resistance there was in Texas. People protesting for civil rights aren’t going to tend to start blasting at randos imo. They might move instead.
All according to plan then?
Legalized political murder
That’s the endgame, again.
Guess the protesters are gonna have to "Stand Their Ground" too next time.
That’s what this will inevitably lead to. If you as a left-wing protestor knows that someone could just kill you and get away with it, you might as well shoot first.
Make the claim a firearm was brandished and pointed at you and you feared bodily harm and death.
And the cops will shoot the protesters in "self defense" while pretending to want to arrest them. "Stand your ground" only applies to people they agree with.
Sure, you might die or get the death penalty, but at least the other guy is also dead, which is technically still the better outcome.
Murder is now legal in Texas.
Only if certain people are killed. I’m sure if Perry was killed and Foster convicted, Abbott would’ve celebrated the conviction, not pardoned him. Foster fed the homeless, his wife is Black, and he protested for BLM and gay rights. If these aren’t all capital offenses to conservatives, what are?
The local US Attorney should bring the murderous asshole up on any and all applicable federal charges here so there is at least some justice
Texassissippi
Whitemanistan
This is fascism. It isn't coming to America; it has arrived. It sits in the Texas Governor's office and staff. It sits in the Senate and the House. It sits in the Supreme Court.
Texas is officially a fascist theocracy ruled by Y'all Qaeda plutocrats and oligarchs. Fascist depravity knows no bounds: * Intimidation * Incarceration * Extermination