Here's the latest from Texas. During the summer of 2020 an Army sergeant named Daniel Perry was upset about a nearby BLM protest. He wrote to a friend on social media that he might “kill a few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex.”
The friend, naturally, asked, “Can you legally do so?” Perry said he could: “If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes.”
Perry proceeded to put this plan into action. He drove his car into the BLM march and a group of protesters approached him. One of them was in front of the car carrying a rifle, and Perry told police: "I believe he was going to aim it at me....I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know." So he shot the guy five times with a revolver and then drove away.
On Friday a jury convicted him of murder.
On Saturday Gov. Greg Abbott announced that he would pardon Perry just as soon as he possibly could:
I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry. pic.twitter.com/HydwdzneMU
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 8, 2023
In summary, in Texas you can (a) announce that you'd like to gun down a BLM protester, (b) set out to deliberately provoke a confrontation with a BLM protester by driving into a crowd, (c) gun down a BLM protester, and (d) get pardoned by the governor, who says the killing was self-defense.
The BLM protester who got gunned down and is now being used as a political prop by Gov. Abbott is named Garrett Foster. He was a frequent participant in BLM protests.
Confirmation that it's perfectly acceptable to deliberately ram your car into human beings & pump multiple bullets into someone who only might have aimed a gun at you. IMO, "stand u oi r gtound" laws are not actual self-defense laws.
NOW may we return Tejas to its rightful owner - Mexico?
Neither the Texas governor nor its attorney general have any respect for actual laws.
Mexico already has enough problems.
Yes, but they could handle our outlaws better than we seem to be able to do.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
Gov. Abbot: "Black lives don't matter to me or my supporters."
Texas under Abbott:
You can legally carry a gun.
You can legally kill anyone carrying a gun (if you claim self-defense).
This seems like a sure-fire way to solve the problem of too many Texans.
>> You can legally kill anyone carrying a gun (if you claim self-defense).<<<
I am positive this isn’t true. If the armed BLM guy had killed Perry I’m quite sure Abbott would be demanding the death penalty. This is just an extreme example of Wilhoit’s Law.
Well,, of course, Foster couldn't have killed Perry for similar reasons as Blacks can't open-carry but whites can. What guys like Abbott practice and preach are not the same.
Foster was white, though he committed the sin of marrying a black woman.
I didn't say Foster was Black, and didn't mean to imply that.
I was making the point that the law is not blind under Abbott. As an example, Blacks and whites are not treated equally when it comes to open carry. Likewise, the rights of a BLM protester (white or Black) are not protected as those of a vigilante.
ETA:
I believe his fiancee was Black. Not sure they were married.
Just FYI: According to this article, the BLM protester who was killed, Garrett Foster, was a white libertarian.
https://reason.com/2020/07/27/the-libertarian-party-mourns-garrett-foster-activist-killed-at-a-black-lives-matter-protest/
I know he was white. Didn't mean to imply he was not.
My thought too. This just sets lie to the right’s schtick about more guns are needed to make us safe. Everybody should carry guns and anyone threatened by everybody else carrying guns should blast away. Safety first.
But perhaps we should all revisit the right’s other favorite argument surrounding the 2nd amendment; the one about overthrowing a tyrannical government. If a governor overreaches his authority and overrules the justice system by pardoning premeditated murderers for shits and giggles, how do I “register” my lack of faith in public safety with the governor and the parole board?
"Everybody should carry guns and anyone threatened by everybody else carrying guns should blast away."
That's it in a nutshell. No need for law enforcement. Everyone enforces the law as they conceive it. Everyone is their own militia. And if someone is unfortunate to be convicted of murder, red-state governors will get you out of jail if you killed the right kind of person(s).
"You can legally kill anyone carrying a gun (if you claim self-defense)."
Well, I think it depends who you kill.
Hey wait a tic, this ain't Fifth Avenue!?
In America murder is slowly becoming legal and allowable if the shooter is white and feels “threatened,” real or imagined, even if he creates the threat.
Another two cops were shot yesterday and five people dead in Kentucky today. And our Supreme Court who made it all possible is afraid that picketers near their homes might be carrying a gun.
And the rest of us?
In America murder is slowly becoming legal and allowable if the shooter is white and feels “threatened,” real or imagined, even if he creates the threat.
"If the shooter is white" is the key phrase there. Obviously Foster was open carrying because *he* felt threatened by the possibility of right-wing cooks like Perry showing up to attack protesters, but that doesn't count, of course. As someone once said, "Conservatism consists of the proposition that there are those whom the law protects, but does not bind, and those whom the law binds, but does not protect." A clearer example of this we do not have than Abbot's despicable abuse of power to unilaterally overturn a perfectly legitimate jury verdict just to demonstrate what a massive asshole he can be for his white supremacist voter base.
Foster was also white.
Foster wasn’t the shooter.
I'm all for self defense but it sounds like this might be a stretch. I guess it all comes down to, did the protestor threaten the driver with the gun? If he did, the driver should have a right to defend himself regardless of his prior comments. He was driving on a public road and the protestors surrounded his car and began banging on it. Any reasonable person would feel threatened at that point. If one of them had a rifle and pointed at the driver, he would certainly be in fear of his life. But because of his prior comments, it it would have to be indisputable that the protestor threatened him with the gun.
You're conveniently omitting the fact that he rammed his car into the crowd FIRST.
Indeed. Foster had greater justification to shoot Perry than Perry had to shoot Foster.
Multiple witnesses said under oath that Foster never pointed the gun at Perry.
And that’s why a jury of Texans convicted him of murder.
It’s just that the Governor believes murdering a BLM protestor is not a crime.
I guess it all comes down to, did the protestor threaten the driver with the gun?
The prosecution showed clear evidence that Foster was not directly threatening Perry and the jury agreed. Without a single iota of evidence, or knowing anything about the case other than that's it's become a cause celebre in right-wing circles (because why shouldn't you be able to shoot protesters in cold blood? Especially if they're BLM.) , Abbot decides he can nullify the jury's decision. It's an absolutely outrageous abuse of power.
Should be left to a jury to decide, no?
Absolutely. And it sounds like they made the right decision in this case (at least based on the limited amount I’ve read on the case). Seems like Abbott is wrong for pursuing a pardon.
Foster was an Air Force vet, and at the time, Perry was an Uber driver.
First, Perry and Abbott are wrong on so many levels. However, another lesson is that if you are carrying a gun, you will be Target Number One.
Thank you. Good point.
Trespassing during a protest is illegal in America (see J6). Killing trespassers is legal (see Ashley Babbitt). Just playing by your rules, Kevin!
Foster was on a city street in Austin. He was not trespassing.
A thousand or so trespassers at the Capitol were not shot by police. Babbitt was shot because of the particular threat she posed.
You're lucky we don't shoot trespassers around here because that's what you are in this discussion.
He committed the first crime by deliberately driving into peaceful protesters.
Then he deliberately murdered one who hadn't even aimed his own weapon at him.
Two premeditated crimes equate justice in your book?
Was this reply meant for someone else? I'm on Foster's side, not Perry's. Maybe you intended to respond to AverageJoe?
This isn't the first time my response wasn't entered where I expected it, but it seemed to be due to my taking to long to edit a much longer post previously
i remember someone else with a similar issue. Sorry!
Same thing has happened to me. Sometimes but not others, don't know why. And there's no way to delete a post even within the edit window (?). So if you see it pop up in the wrong place there's nothing to do about it.
Were the protesters in the street blocking traffic? I don’t condone intentionally driving into them but I also don’t have much sympathy for protesters who try to shut down streets.
So, you're fine with shooting them if they get in your way?
The fact that your peanut-size brain equates bludgeoned police defending against an armed mob breaking through doors chanting “hang Mike Pence” and a protester being gunned down by a disgruntled FOX News nut in an act of premeditated “killing a few people on my way to work” says all anyone needs to know about your mental acuity.
Jesus, that you even think that equivalence was somehow clever makes your parents weep for having bred such a moron.
👊👊 Don't see him getting up after that.
"In summary, in Texas you can (a) announce that you'd like to gun down a BLM protestor, (b) set out to deliberately provoke a confrontation with a BLM protestor by driving into a crowd, (c) gun down a BLM protestor, and (d) get pardoned by the governor, who says the killing was self-defense."
I just want to add that in addition to all that, he gunned down a BLM protestor for holding a rifle in a state that proudly allows people to openly carry rifles, and shot him because of the fear that the protestor "might" aim the weapon at the killer.
You can't both have laws that allow people to carry guns and also have laws that allow people to shoot anyone carrying guns (or anyone who might be carrying a gun) as a matter of self-defense, or everyone will be able to shoot everyone and call it self-defense.
It's your own fault if you wait for another armed Texan to shoot first.
"In order to consider a pardon for innocence, the Board requires either evidence of actual innocence from at least two trial officials, or the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the district judge indicating actual innocence."
I think Abbott is just posturing for his base. He doesn't want a reverse Willy Horton on his hands and is counting on the Board to not request a pardon.
Morally corrupt man thinks and behaves tribally, saying, "but them's our sons of bitches!"
You've always known Abbott to be this kind of person, haven't you?
Apparently the NRA is ok with people gunning down those bearing arms? Because they’re afraid those arms might be aimed at them?
Oh, my.
Pingback: Murder is accepted by Republicans in Texas if you murder a liberal protester | Later On
Curious if Elon Musk and any of the highly educated engineers he wants to move to Texas have weighed in on this.
I have to admit that I agree with Abbott that gun violence is a mental health issue. Fortunately, mental health in Texas is easily improved. Next election, simply elect whoever Greg is running against for Governor.
Rand says no.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mental-illness-risk-factor-for-gun-violence.html
From your link:
“…homicide risk is elevated among people with certain mental conditions (e.g., schizophrenia) and people with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders,..”
Is "homicide risk" the risk that they will commit homicide or the risk that they will be a victim of homicide?
Republicans are evil.
Just noticed that not all sources bothered to mention that not only did Perry deliberately drive into the protesters - which is of course how/why they surrounded him! - but he had run a red light to do so.
And he was driving his car for a living, this military man.
Abbott is shameless.
I'll just note here that right-wingers shooting BLM protesters is often used as "proof" by other right-wingers that BLM protests are violent affairs.
It's surprising the victim even had to be armed. Rittenhouse got away with shooting people who had no weapons.
That's not correct. Rittenhouse shot people who didn't have GUNS. "Weapons" covers much more ground than "guns". One of the people Rittenhouse shot hit him with a skateboard; the hitting makes the skateboard a weapon.
Rittenhouse started by murdering an unarmed mentally ill man. The man with the skateboard was attempting to neutralize an armed murderer.