• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Abbott Pardons Man Who Intentionally Murdered BLM Protester

Chris_Halkides said:
Radley Balko has a good essay on the case. There is contradictory information; perhaps his story changed with time.
Click to expand...

Thanks, his article is a bit more help but still does a lot of the things this article does. The wording is murky for a reason and I really don't like that from news sources. I am glad he is specific with certain things though. From the wiki - "Perry originally stopped and honked his car horn at the protesters, but later ran a red light and drove his car into the crowd."

What do you envision with that sentence? I thought he literally ran into people from the wording. Same with ran a red light. Without reading into the exact court documents I don't even know if that is accurate as one witness i read said he turned onto the street. Was that a right turn or left? Did he just make right turn without stopping?

Then the description is again murky. From a witness- "While the friend was pushing Whitney near 4th and Congress, she saw a car turning, coming fast towards her and the crowd of protesters. The car jerked to a stop only a few feet away from her." How far from the turn were the protesters, how far is a few feet, how fast is fast? I know this doesn't matter to some but I don't like being told the story in a specific way that doesn't match how an unbiased person would describe it.

From Balko's article - "According to multiple witnesses, protesters then surrounded Perry’s car, some of them kicking and slapping it. Foster stood next to the car, holding his rifle."

Why do most these news story leave out the actual scene of what was happening? I really dislike that stuff.
 
acbytesla said:
Does anyone think that if a Black man killed a white Oathkeep under the opposite circumstances that Abbott would have pardoned the man?
Click to expand...

Trump basically had a man executed by police for shooting one of his right-wing agitators at a protest.
 
I suppose this all boils down to the specific laws in the state regarding stand your ground and how "fear for your life" is interpreted.

It's interesting after the airman/police fatal shooting. Is someone walking up to you openly carrying an assault rifle reasonable justification to shoot them?
 
rdwight said:
Thanks, his article is a bit more help but still does a lot of the things this article does. The wording is murky for a reason and I really don't like that from news sources. I am glad he is specific with certain things though. From the wiki - "Perry originally stopped and honked his car horn at the protesters, but later ran a red light and drove his car into the crowd."

What do you envision with that sentence? I thought he literally ran into people from the wording. Same with ran a red light. Without reading into the exact court documents I don't even know if that is accurate as one witness i read said he turned onto the street. Was that a right turn or left? Did he just make right turn without stopping?

Then the description is again murky. From a witness- "While the friend was pushing Whitney near 4th and Congress, she saw a car turning, coming fast towards her and the crowd of protesters. The car jerked to a stop only a few feet away from her." How far from the turn were the protesters, how far is a few feet, how fast is fast? I know this doesn't matter to some but I don't like being told the story in a specific way that doesn't match how an unbiased person would describe it.

From Balko's article - "According to multiple witnesses, protesters then surrounded Perry’s car, some of them kicking and slapping it. Foster stood next to the car, holding his rifle."

Why do most these news story leave out the actual scene of what was happening? I really dislike that stuff.
Click to expand...

Good news for you then! The man is going to be set free and will receive no further punishment for the crime. So no matter how murky it is, or how much you dislike the reporting, or how much you don't want to just read through the court case, it doesn't even matter. He's free and he got what he wanted, to murder someone. USA! USA! USA!
 
RolandRat said:
I suppose this all boils down to the specific laws in the state regarding stand your ground and how "fear for your life" is interpreted.

It's interesting after the airman/police fatal shooting. Is someone walking up to you openly carrying an assault rifle reasonable justification to shoot them?
Click to expand...

This is the deep South where if you're black, you are a threat if you're carrying a nail file But if you're white and wearing a pointed hood you can open carry automatic weapons.

Unless you're Hunter Biden.
 
rdwight said:
Bad article. Most is of is spent trying to equate character with action. Lumps looters/rioters and protesters together so comments sound more inflammatory. Positions him as a racist then imbeds the 1 sentence that the victim is also white randomly in the writing. I honestly do not know what happened after reading it.
Click to expand...

The racist element is relevant not because of the race of the murder victim, but because a BLM protest was targeted.
 
a baffling exercise

In 2023 Attorney Andrew Fleishmann wrote, "Let’s start with the obvious. There were many eyewitnesses in this case. And not one of them testified that Foster had pointed his weapon at Perry. “That’s nothing,” Perry stans re[p]ly, because these people are BLM protesters totally devoid of the simple decency and kindness that marks real Americans, and they must have all agreed to lie in court, identically, to ensure that Perry would be convicted by a panel of soft-handed Soros-loving libs...This pardon would be a baffling exercise of executive discretion." This article makes some good points about escalation and other topics.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
In 2023 Attorney Andrew Fleishmann wrote, "Let’s start with the obvious. There were many eyewitnesses in this case. And not one of them testified that Foster had pointed his weapon at Perry. “That’s nothing,” Perry stans reply, because these people are BLM protesters totally devoid of the simple decency and kindness that marks real Americans, and they must have all agreed to lie in court, identically, to ensure that Perry would be convicted by a panel of soft-handed Soros-loving libs...This pardon would be a baffling exercise of executive discretion." This article makes some good points about escalation and other topics.
Click to expand...

The killer went there with the expressed intent to murder another human being. And then he did it. The only person who said it was self defense was the killer.
 
Abbott on the pardon

Governor "Abbott said, “Texas has one of the strongest ‘stand your ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney.”" This does not make any sense.
 
RolandRat said:
Going by the article. it says that Perry, the shooter, sent a text saying “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”

Perry was driving for Uber, he encountered protesters, seemingly by accident? He honked his horn and then drove forward at the crowd.

After that, things seem a bit clouded. Foster, the dead guy, was openly carrying an AK-47, one side says he aimed the gun at Perry, the other says nope, and it was here Perry shot and killed Foster.

Doesn't seem as clear cut as people are making out.
Click to expand...

Given that all the evidence and testimony, including Perry's, says that the highlighted is a lie, calling the chain of events "clouded" is a major misnomer.

Given events like this and like the situation where the judge was willing to pervert the course of justice to get rittenhouse off, one must conclude that the red parts of the US are completely lawless. Murderers are being let off scott free, after all, because of their ideological purity.
 
rdwight said:
Bad article. Most is of is spent trying to equate character with action. Lumps looters/rioters and protesters together so comments sound more inflammatory. Positions him as a racist then imbeds the 1 sentence that the victim is also white randomly in the writing. I honestly do not know what happened after reading it.
Click to expand...

Perry has liberally pasted all over the internet how racist he is. Saying calling him racist is inflammatory is simply pandering to him and the rest of the far right.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Given that all the evidence and testimony, including Perry's, says that the highlighted is a lie, calling the chain of events "clouded" is a major misnomer.

Given events like this and like the situation where the judge was willing to pervert the course of justice to get rittenhouse off, one must conclude that the red parts of the US are completely lawless. Murderers are being let off scott free, after all, because of their ideological purity.
Click to expand...

I have read some on this and yes, Perry did say he didn't want to give the other guy a chance to shoot and so he shot him first.

These kind of incidents are hard for me to comprehend simply because someone walking around in public with an AK-47 would immediately strike me as a threat. I guess this is just normal in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom