Jump to content

Governor Abbott pardons Daniel Perry for murder during protest…

tvc184

By tvc184
in The Locker Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

thetragichippy

thetragichippy

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, tvc184 said:

This is the hidden content, please

 

Perry was stupid… but was it murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

If I recall at that time you had protestors all all over the country jumping on cars while people were in them......While I agree it was stupid shooting him, how do you know what a guy is going to do walking up to you with an exposed gun? At the time I thought it was justified simply because you can't know the drivers level of fear......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullets13

bullets13

Posted
Posted

Tough case all the way around.  The guy had a lot of online activity come out where he made racist statements and statements about killing BLM protesters and looters.  So when he then goes out and does it, it looks really bad.  I've seen a lot of videos where people have driven through protestors, defended themselves against them, etc., and didn't bat an eye.  This feels different, but that doesn't necessarily make it murder, either.  His account of the events that happened vs. the witness accounts were both very different, but I'd also expect both sides' accounts to be self-serving and inaccurate to fit their narrative.  Not really sure what to think on this one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Tough case all the way around.  The guy had a lot of online activity come out where he made racist statements and statements about killing BLM protesters and looters.  So when he then goes out and does it, it looks really bad.  I've seen a lot of videos where people have driven through protestors, defended themselves against them, etc., and didn't bat an eye.  This feels different, but that doesn't necessarily make it murder, either.  His account of the events that happened vs. the witness accounts were both very different, but I'd also expect both sides' accounts to be self-serving and inaccurate to fit their narrative.  Not really sure what to think on this one.  

I think that his comments is what he was convicted on. Had they not had that, he probably wouldn’t have been convicted.

 That is one reason that I do not talk about what I would do. If you make an off the cuff comment like, “If that happened to me, they wouldn’t need an ambulance, they would need a hearse”…. then later you are in a maybe different situation but resort to deadly force, don’t be so sure they someone won’t find that comment and use it against you. “He has obviously been waiting for the opportunity to kill someone” or worse…. the opportunity to kill one of those people. (whoever “those” may be)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

If I recall at that time you had protestors all all over the country jumping on cars while people were in them......While I agree it was stupid shooting him, how do you know what a guy is going to do walking up to you with an exposed gun? At the time I thought it was justified simply because you can't know the drivers level of fear......

 

The law on self defense in Texas says that the use of deadly force is justified if the person using the force reasonably believes that it is the force is necessary.

Of course a jury will look at it and determine if the person had a “reasonable” fear. In my opinion, by law it is to be viewed from the perspective of the person using the force at that moment. That is why it says that “he” reasonably believes. Then under Texas law, a person isn’t required to prove self defense. The state is required to prove that it wasn’t and beyond a reasonable doubt.

So there was no reasonable doubt of fear when your car is surrounded by a mob and a guy is walking toward you with an AK47?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Reagan
      America lost. The Kangaroo Court won.

      By Reagan · Posted

      BOOM!!
    • Mr. Buddy Garrity
      Road to Omaha

      By Mr. Buddy Garrity · Posted

      We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • PhatMack19
      Road to Omaha

      By PhatMack19 · Posted

      Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • tvc184
      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • Separation Scientist
      Bridgeland vs Tomball

      By Separation Scientist · Posted

      MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...