Greg Abbott's Pardon Promise Ignores the Shakiness of Daniel Perry's Self-Defense Claim
A Texas jury unanimously rejected Perry’s assertion that Garrett Foster pointed a rifle at him.

This month a Texas jury found Army Sgt. Daniel Perry guilty of murdering Garrett Foster, a protester he encountered at a Black Lives Matter demonstration in July 2020. Less than 24 hours after that verdict, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would pardon Perry if asked.
Abbott's hasty announcement, which seemed to be driven by conservative complaints that Perry had been unjustly prosecuted for shooting Foster in self-defense, illustrates how political prejudices convert empirical questions into tests of team loyalty. That bipartisan tendency is the antithesis of what jurors are supposed to do when they are confronted by the clashing narratives of a criminal trial.
Abbott took it for granted that Perry's account of what happened the night he killed Foster was accurate. Texas has "one of the strongest" self-defense laws in the country, the governor wrote on Twitter, and that law "cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney."
Contrary to the implication, the jurors who convicted Perry did not ignore the state's self-defense law, which allows someone to use deadly force when he "reasonably believes" it is "immediately necessary" to protect himself against the "use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force." The jurors simply did not believe the circumstances of Foster's death met those requirements.
Perry, who was stationed at Fort Hood, was in Austin that night, working an Uber shift. He honked his horn as he turned right from Fourth Street onto Congress Avenue, where a crowd was marching in one of the many protests against police abuse inspired by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis the previous May.
Perry later told police he had no idea the protest was happening or what it was about. But protesters had been marching in Austin for weeks, and messages from Perry indicated that he took a keen interest in such demonstrations.
Those texts and social media posts also revealed that Perry was angry about the rioting that accompanied many of the protests. He had repeatedly discussed the circumstances that would justify using deadly force against protesters, at one point declaring that "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work."
The Austin protesters, who believed Perry had deliberately driven into the crowd, angrily gathered around his car, slapping and kicking it. Foster, who was legally carrying a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle on a sling, approached the driver's side, and Perry opened the window.
It is not clear exactly what Foster said to Perry. But within seconds, Perry grabbed a revolver he carried for self-protection (also legally) and shot Foster five times. "The guy pointed a freaking weapon at me and I panicked," Perry said when he called 911 after driving away.
Whether Foster had in fact pointed the rifle at Perry was a crucial question during the trial. His statements to police were the only evidence supporting that claim, which was contradicted by several witnesses.
The defense did not present any photos or video that "showed the position of Foster's rifle when he was shot," the Austin American-Statesman reported. Perry did not testify, and prosecutors maintained that Foster never raised his rifle, arguing that Perry acted out of anger rather than a reasonable fear.
Messages and social media posts revealed after the trial reinforced that argument, underlining Perry's hostility toward Black Lives Matter. The movement "is racist to white people," he complained in one. "It is official I am racist because I do not agree with people acting like monkeys."
Even without that additional evidence, the jurors unanimously concluded that the prosecution had disproven Perry's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Andrew Branca, an expert on the law of self-defense, thinks that conclusion was "legally sound" in light of the evidence.
Abbott apparently disagrees, but it's not clear why. In any case, he cannot act on his knee-jerk impulse without a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which one hopes will give the matter more careful thought.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Andrew Branca, an expert on the law of self-defense, thinks that conclusion was "legally sound" in light of the evidence.
He also has said he didn’t see the trial, and also believes it’s possible there may be valid legal reasoning for a not guilty verdict. You’re missing that he was making a determination of the legal arguments and not the complete factual record of the case because he couldn’t see all the facts.
He also updated his take on the case on the basis of potential legal grounds that the verdict should be set aside: a juror inappropriately doing legal research they shared with the jury, which misrepresents the law, and a non voting juror who was involved in deliberations. Both of those present significant legal problems which merit at least a retrial. I notice you’re not quoting Branca’s opinions on those issues.
Given that the jury reached the verdict based on flawed legal reasoning, you can’t say that they all came to the conclusion that Foster’s rifle never pointed at Perry. I’m not really taking sides in this because I agree with Branca; I’d need to see the full evidentiary record. But my instinct goes against the state and not the accused because the state has to meet a high burden.
Basically nailed it.
But the worst part of the prosecution was them using weeks old Facebook messages about cars being surrounded and attacked by BLM as proof the incident was premeditated. Perry only reacted when someone with a gun pointed at his car approached.
The DA also corrupted the testimony of the sheriff for the grand jury removing over 50% of his presentation containing exculpatory evidence.
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following
Website........ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $500 a day by working from home. I made $19,517 last month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(n25) You can run google and then make this work.
.
.
More information can be found here……… https://Www.Coins71.Com
Is no one going to talk about the inflammatory statement the AK toting Mr Foster posted the day of the protest.?
He made it plain he was planning to kill any counter protester he would meet.I
None of the rightwingers here on Reason will talk about that. It goes against their 2nd Amendment religion.
His political views should not have been admissible since we wasn't out looking for trouble but working a side job that took him into an insurrection. You have the right of a jury of your peers..Austin is not his peers. Move the trial to say Allen Texas.
Is no one going to talk about the inflammatory statements the AK toting Mr Foster posted the day of the protest.?
He made it plain he was planning to kill any counter protestor he met.
These statements were not allowed in the trial.
Really Reason? You shill for every bastard on death roll, but this is where you draw the line?
Reason gotta virtue signaling these days.
Foster may or may not have been preparing to fire his weapon at Terry – I don’t know and I doubt I will ever really know absent some clear and close-up video footage of Foster just before he was shot. Neither, frankly, does any reader of this article or the comments. The witnesses who testified that the shooting was unnecessary (a) may have been telling the truth, or (b) they may have (honestly) failed to appreciate the indications of an immediate pending attack by Foster, or (c) they may have flat been lying on the stand in support of a political agenda. All three alternatives are possible, and only a liar would claim definite knowledge of the factual truth.
But the jury determines the legal truth, and that’s just the way our system works. I have no doubt that an Austin, Texas jury would be more inclined to convict in cases such as this than would juries selected from venues that are more politically conservative and more comfortable with the possession and supportive of the use of weapons in self defense. But that, also, is just the way our system works. Jury research (done in Texas, if I remember correctly) found mock jury panels more inclined to convict in identical fact situations when presented with identical shooting scenarios that varied only in the style/type of weapon the shooter used when the weapon was ugly or “repulsive", e.g., an AR-15 vs a .30-30 lever action rifle. This is illogical, but remember that Mr. Spock rarely survives the voir dire process and actually gets to sit on a jury when a prosecutor’s political dander is up and the cry for blood is in the air.
And there’s another thing about our system and how it works. Jurors, whether “allowed” to or not, consider a lot of things in their deliberations, regardless of whether those considerations are ever given voice to. So, it is wise for those whose possession and use of a weapon might someday subject them to a similar trial situation, to consider what you say and what “footprints” you are leaving for a juror to “consider”, and do not post or casually comment that:
(1) trespassers will be shot
(2) survivors will be shot again
(3) you loot, I shoot
(4) this house protected by Smith & Wesson Security
(5) demonstrators blocking the street deserve to be shot
(6) I wish one of those assholes would try that with me!
(7) I think I’m going to go to Austin to . . . .
(8) . . . . stack the bodies like cordwood.
(9) some folks just deserve to be shot
I am sure the reader can think of other comments, verbal or written, that they have heard, or perhaps made, in the past that are inflammatory, would be embarrassing, would undermine their defense as a “reasonable person”, and that they would not like to have read to a jury judging whether or not a shooting they were involved in was “justified”.
If you are ever so unfortunate as to have to use lethal force, especially in a jurisdiction well-known for hostility toward guns or perhaps even private self-defense in any form, do you really want to be sitting on the stand (you will have to testify if your defense is that you fired in self-defense) and, on cross examination by the prosecutor, have any of the above comments or posts read back to you, or worse, to be asked (ordered) to read such a post yourself and admit to the jury that those are your words?
As to whether Gov. Abbott should pardon Terry – just as with the situations above, I don’t know! He should obtain all the information that he can, watch whatever video is available 20+ times, and then do what he thinks is right – not what his advisers tell him is politically expedient.
Get lynched.
Earning extra $15,000 or more online while working part-time is a quick, simple way to make money. I made $17,000 last month from working in my spare time, and I’m now really content as a result of this job. You can do this right now by following.
SITE. ——>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
It's not like there's video evidence of Foster with a rifle ready to fire. Oh, wait...
Foster is wearing a brown baseball cap.
Because of course there's video of an unshot Foster pointing a gun at Perry that somehow Sullum forgot to mention, but journalisming is hard.
He also neglected to mention the bullet holes in Perry's car from the other protesters who not only aimed weapons, but fired upon Perry after Perry eliminated Foster's threat. There is no question he was in mortal peril. He was surrounded by armed protesters that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were ready and willing to discharge their weapons if provoked.
Hacktastic Sullum also conveniently forgets the mention that the “witnesses” who said he did not point the rifle were also part of the same crowd who was impeding Perry’s care.
IOW, they were all potentially accessories to the death of Foster and to report that he did point the weapon at Perry could very well have been a statement against there own interests leaving them open to prosecution for felony murder.
None of them should have been permitted to testilie like they did.
But this was not a remotely fair an impartial court.
Sullum has the worst case of TDS among the Reason staff. Is he also a gun-grabber? I don't remember if he tried to participate in the smearing of Kyle Rittenhouse.
-jcr
I see the guy in the brown cap holding the rifle pointing at the ground, though, or maybe the rear brake light. I’ve never seen any video that seeming captures the motion of Foster holding the gun, so I can’t say if he’s consistently holding it down or raising it up.
I try not to comment on cases where I don't have a strong feeling either way. However, this statement from Sullum:
carrying a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle on a sling
Evokes a certain image in ones mind. Namely, an image like this.
As you can clearly see from the linked image, that is a man carrying a "rifle on a sling". The rifle is not at the ready, by even the most liberal definitions. Sullum is either being intentionally dishonest here, or ignorant.
I will not speak to the strength of the self defense claim specifically, but suggesting Foster was "carrying a rifle on a sling" is a markedly different characterization than what we have video for.
The cops did: they investigated and recommended no charges.
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the desire to prosecute any case where any violence was done against people who were part of a BLM riot/protest, regardless of how justified it appears to be. We've seen this multiple times now and that has to be part of the calculus.
It's called "low ready" position. It's how you carry a rifle when you want to be able to raise it on target and fire in under a second.
And that's not mention that he's part of an angry mob that is breaking the law and assaulting Perry.
Every single person in that crowd was a legitimate target, and all are guilty of felony murder.
After studying that picture, I think you’d need X-ray vision to see through other members of the mob and see more than a few little bits of the rifle, and it’s so grainy those little bits could be anything. To “see” the position of the rifle in that picture, you’re mentally connecting dots that are just as likely unrelated. Similarly, around 1900 several quite competent astronomers got a grainy view of Mars through telescopes and saw “canals”. As for the witnesses, they were not only in a chaotic scene where it’s dubious whether they could see what they claim, but they were part of a mob threatening Perry. They are no more credible than the “Hands up. Don’t shoot” witnesses in East St, Louis, or the ones whose testimony against Kyle Rittenhouse was disproven by video.
Even assuming he wasn’t pointing the rifle at Perry, he was part of a mob threatening Perry. He would not have been there and armed if he didn’t intend to either harm Perry, or credibly threaten harm. His stance (which is the one relevant thing I can see clearly in this picture) matches someone carrying a rifle in a position where he could have pointed and fired in under a second. Do you actually have to give a threatening stranger a chance to shoot you first before defending yourself?
Friend/enemy is all that matters in a totalitarian environment
Motion is irrelevant. Brandishing and discharging in the direction both constitute criminal conduct in Texas. Texas is unique in this class of crimes but the criminalization isn't unique, as we all know the McCloskeys for 'unlawful use of a weapon' even though one weapon as confiscated and submitted to the crime lab, wasn't able to be discharged.
Brandishing has to mean something other than carrying, right, or else everyone would have had absolute freedom to shoot Kyle Rittenhouse. If this guy simply ran up to the car, carrying his gun and keeping it angled down, then that's not necessarily provocative. So what we need is some objective criteria the defendant could have used to claim self-defense, not just the fact that he saw a gun.
So what we need is some objective criteria the defendant could have used to claim self-defense, not just the fact that he saw a gun.
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
Really, what this boils down to is essentially saying that Perry's skirt was longer and more conservative than Foster's so he must be guilty. If you want to say rape is illegal, skirts are immaterial, fine. If you want to say short skirts are illegal because they precipitate rape, not fine, but to say the longer skirt was more guilty of precipitating rape is specifically contorting the letter and intent of any such law to the desired end.
Otherwise, you're specifically legally encouraging more open parading of weapons up to the specific point of aiming for intimidation as speech. At which point, Perry was just making his point more clear than Foster did.
Otherwise, you’re specifically legally encouraging more open parading of weapons up to the specific point of aiming for intimidation as speech. At which point, Perry was just making his point more clear than Foster did.
Foster: Didn't point the weapon. Not a threat. No intent. Purely performative speech.
Baldwin: Pointed the weapon, pulled the trigger, killed someone. Not guilty. No intent. Purely performative speech.
Perry: Pointed the weapon, pulled the trigger, killed someone. Guilty of premeditated murder because fuck you, we can read minds in the moment and without evidence retroactively.
I was going to say... I recall seeing video of this. I don't know that I saw him aim the weapon, but it was at least at high ready when he approached. That's enough for me to say that dead guy was the aggressor and self-defense is justified. Dead guy didn't know he was armed, so entering the already violent interaction was intimidation at the least.
What a bullshit take and what a bullshit verdict.
They wrote a fucking hagiography for the piece of shit LARPing faggot wannabe Rambo who got his retarded little LARPing faggot brains blown out when it happened, I don't know how you all missed it:
The Libertarian Party Mourns Garrett Foster, Activist Killed at a Black Lives Matter Protest
Meanwhile, you bitch and moan in defense of the piece of shit LARPing faggot wannabe Rambo who forfeited any claims to self defense by putting himself somewhere he never should have been. When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes, and sometimes you face consequences.
Lmfao, the guy who won the gunfight with a pistol despite being drawn on first by the guy with a rifle is the LARPer? Good one, shreeky-poo.
You're so right though! What the fuck would a motorist be doing driving on a public street when a bunch of LARPing faggots are standing in the middle of it? Clearly the guy who survived an attack by a mob who ran him off the road played stupid games and won stupid prizes. Not the LARPing faggot who got his skull ventilated trying to play tuff gai.
Any time you want to recreate your idol's last moments on earth, I'm here to help shreeky-poo. Not a joke. Name the time and place. I'll be there.
"putting himself somewhere he never should have been."
"Did you see the dress she was wearing?" in other words.
Explain why a public road is somewhere he should not have been.
“Did you see the dress she was wearing?” in other words.
Not just "Did you see the dress she was wearing?", "Did you see the dress she was wearing in a street full of half-naked hookers?"
Foster was open carrying *and* handling the weapon after being warned about it previously. Someone else returned fire at Perry. The notion that Perry is the only one in this clusterfuck who's skirt was premeditatedly too short or the one who was most flagrantly parading around in a short skirt is plain bad faith.
"putting himself somewhere he never should have been"
What, like in the middle of a public street, unlawfully, in a chaotic crowd, confusing people legally using said street for its intended purpose, visibly carrying a rifle in a ready position?
"putting himself somewhere he never should have been..."
He was an uber driver. He was driving on a public road. Geesh.
Why should perry not have been on a public street?
Seems like the protesters shouldn't have been there either. On a public street. You know, where people drive cars to get to where they are going.
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $600 a day by working from home. I made $29,517 ast month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(y6) You can run google and then make this work. More information can be found here…………..
SITE. —> usdtwork
And disobeying traffic signals. Dude was intentionally using his wheelchair-bound fiance to stop traffic for the protest.
I don't know why protesters seem to think that annoying a bunch of regular people trying to go about their business is good for the cause.
*assaulting
They think it's good for the cause because it is. Violence works. Especially state sponsored violence.
They got rid of Trump, which was the primary purpose of the nationwide blmantifa terror campaign, and demonstrated their power to assault anybody who isn't a member of their mob because nobody has the right to self defense anymore.
who forfeited any claims to self defense by putting himself somewhere he never should have been.
1. How did we establish he was where "he never should have been"?
2. Apply whatever answer you come up with to Foster, then explain how you arrived at the exact opposite conclusion for acts which are substantially the same (bringing a weapon to a protest).
He was driving down a public road that was being illegally blocked by these protesters!
Sullum is absolute scum, and should be lynched.
Sullum is a compromised hack just trying to limp into retirement age.
"Abbott apparently disagrees, but it's not clear why."
Abbott doesn't really care one way or the other, he's a sleazy opportunistic politician (but I repeat myself) who really wants us all to forget his role in embracing the COVID tyranny.
Awwwww, you sad about your LARPing faggot bitch butt buddy getting ventilated, bitch? Cry more, bitch.
So, it is pretty clear why Abbott disagrees. He's a shameless opportunist eager to pander to the most extreme right wingnuts.
Hahahahahahahahaha, cry more you pedophile faggot. The investigators testified for the defense. Your LARPing little bitch ass homeboy got ventilated because he was a stupid fuckup pussy bitch who ran his mouth and couldn't hang.
Kirkland, is that you?
Way too coherent, not enough rape fantasy.
This would be an interesting article if Sullum hadn’t lost all credibility long ago.
It would also be interesting if Sullum had acknowledged that BLM crowds are not mostly peaceful, and got away with billions of $$$ of arson, looted thousands of stores, and murdered a few people. Of course the BLM "witnesses" said their guy had done nothing to justify being shot.
Not having been at the mostly peaceful protest, and not having seen all the trial evidence, I have no idea who was in the right. But BLM protestors have zero credibility.
You could watch the half dozen or so fucking videos that were taken. The same one the cops watched when they investigated and recommended no charges, then testified on behalf of the shooter at trial. Garrett Foster was a piece of shit stupid LARPing faggot bitch wannabe tough guy who was running around with his AK-47 in the "down ready" position all night looking for somebody to fuck with and had this to say mere hours before he ate a well-deserved hot serving of lead:
Or maybe not, you faggot bitch. Rot in hell. Your racist piece of shit stump of a bitch will be behind you before you too long and you can beat off while you watch satan fuck her for a while.
What?
Juxtapose this story with Emma Camp’s articles on the Morgan Bettinger situation of what the reliability of BLM protester testimony is, as well as the hostility and racism of that movement is prone to.
Oh, and Perry's defense's job was not to prove that Foster's gun was pointed at him. It was the prosecution's job to prove that it was not.
And Jacob is fully on board with whatever racist, marxist narrative they're spinning today.
Oh, and Perry’s defense’s job was not to prove that Foster’s gun was pointed at him. It was the prosecution’s job to prove that it was not.
Slight disagreement on the second sentence. It was the prosecutions job to prove that Perry *knew* beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not a threat.
The only way Perry was guilty of murder is if he knew Foster was carrying in Condition 3 or less. Otherwise, Foster was imperceptible from being every inch the credible threat Perry was and more.
Did the article mention that while there were many properly permitted marches in Austin during that period, this was not one of them? The crowd was, without question, illegally blocking the street.
I sometimes feel like I'm the only damn person in the whole country who understands what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link………………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
A screaming mob surrounds your car and starts slapping and rocking it. One of them has a rifle. The photo Branca himself uses shows his hands are on it, with the butt against his shoulder. It is clearly not just dangling in a sling, as Sullum implies. Is it reasonable to assume the mob has bad intentions? Reflecting upon the precise angle of the barrel is not something a sane person will do in that situation.
Texas has a "castle doctrine" that applies to vehicles as well as homes, that is, there is no duty to retreat. I believe, contra Branca, that it clearly was self-defense under Texas law.
But the fact remains that Travis County is probably the only Texas county in which this prosecution would even have been brought. It is an uber-progressive county that wants to be San Francisco (and is getting there) with an uber-progressive Soros-funded District Attorney. The police who investigated determined it was self-defense. (I've practiced criminal law in Texas on both sides, and it's highly unusual for a prosecutor to pursue something against the conclusions of those who actually investigated.) Had this occurred under identical facts, but at a right-wing protest rather than a BLM ptotest, there is zero chance a prosecution would have been brought.
B-I-N-G-O
Even the arguments from the prosecution that our "libertarian" writer chooses to highlight are about politics.
The guy with the rifle was a BLM protester and there had been (uneventful and peaceful) protests all the time there. He was not threat. The crowd was no threat. They are the good guys.
Meanwhile, our shooter drove into the protest. He knew they would be there because there had been other protests in the area. He didn't like BLM, which means he is racist. Therefore, he went there looking to shoot somebody. (While working an Uber shift)
Politics is a powerful mind-altering drug. If you allow it to be the lens through which you see the world, you can truly believe anything at all.
It all starts with the false assumption that the protest was peaceful, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Armed people roaming the streets, blocking traffic and interfering with business is not peaceful.
I don't know about Texas but in California it is illegal to be armed while protesting. you can be armed if you are not a participant
Hmm, that seems fairly constitutionally questionable.
Was this Reagan keeping the Black Panthers "in line" again ?
It's a common law, and is the case in Florida, you malignant tumor.
I love how people like you always use that to shut on Regan (not a fan of his), but never the Democrat legislature that passed the law. Funny that.
Disagree. Especially state-to-state. It’s a very obvious and self-evident notion that as you progress from being unarmed to being a direct and credible threat, you stop being protected by free speech. I can absolutely see one state saying you can protest but you can’t carry a gun or weapon, the next saying you can protest with a gun or weapon as long as you aren’t handling the weapon, making threats, or otherwise engaged in criminal activity, and the next saying you can carry, in hand, as long as you aren’t pointing the weapon. Congress shall make no law, shall not be infringed, everything in between is reserved to the states or the people.
The distinction, in this case, as I’ve pointed out, is that Perry’s actions don’t rise to the crime of premeditated murder and Foster’s actions do constitute several potentially criminal and reasonably threatening acts prior to getting shot.
The DA is another soros "restorative justice" prosecutor who believes in using the prosecution office to change laws as they see fit. They are open about it an in violation of their oaths, instead using their powers for political means. All of this absent on Sullums articles despite them being open about it. Reason seems to be fine with unequal application of the law as viewed by Soros backed DAs.
"One of them has a rifle."
But is that not allowed in as open carry? If a person can just shoot a person carrying a gun an say they did it in self defense than maybe its time to rethink open carry. You can have one or other but both present a problem.
If a person can just shoot a person carrying a gun an say they did it in self defense
You can and should if they point it at you during an angry confrontation.
Yes, you can carry a gun, just like you can carry a knife or a baseball bat, but you can't wave one around threatening people with it ("brandishing" as the law refers to it sometimes), or someone is liable to do something about it.
Reflecting upon the precise angle of the barrel is not something a sane person will do in that situation.
Nor is obligated to.
Texas has a “castle doctrine” that applies to vehicles as well as homes, that is, there is no duty to retreat. I believe, contra Branca, that it clearly was self-defense under Texas law.
Further, if I brandish and fire a rifle at the ground between us, I’ve engaged in what Texas law identifies as “deadly conduct”. Whether you’re injured by the conduct or not, brandishing and/or firing the weapon constitutes the offense.
Fuck around, find out. You should try it some time just like your LARPing faggot bitch butt buddy did, Jakie. Seeing you gulp and gasp for you last breath choking on your own blood just like that pathetic little wannabe thug bitch ass pussy would make me cum harder than you did the last time you watched Cuties.
Standalone reminder for anyone confused about why Reason is taking the side of the pathetic LARPing faggot bitch wannabe tough guy who got his pussy-ass brains blown out after running around all night looking for a fight with his tough guy weapon in the down-ready position:
The Libertarian Party Mourns Garrett Foster, Activist Killed at a Black Lives Matter Protest
Conspicuously missing from that article were some of Garrett Foster’s last words:
I think all the people that hate us and want to say shit to us are too big of pussies to stop and actually do anything about it
Lmfao. Maybe in Portland you little faggot bitch, not Texas. Even your lefty enclave of Austin isn’t safe for your LARPing bitch faggotry. Fucked around, found out. Good riddance. I hope your mom and your racist stump of a girlfriend get raped to death, too. Rot in piss.
For libertarian law enforcement reform activists: BLM (the organization) is not on the side of good policing reform.
They are explicitly created to prevent this from happening by diverting all the energy from actual reforms to discussions of "racism". This is intentional. They were created for this purpose.
"Hands up, don't shoot" was their genesis. The myth of the gentle giant, gunned down for merely being black.
The Obama administration came in and shut down the investigation, taking over and saying that nobody was allowed to speak to the public, lest they be charged with obstruction and the police department taken over by the feds.
They waited a month to announce anything, yet before Eric Holder got on a plane, they knew definitively that the "gentle giant" had reached into the police car and grabbed the officers gun, which discharged into his thumb inside the vehicle getting blood inside the door and leaving the bullet lodged inside the door.
This was kept secret until critical mass had built behind riots over a cop just straight up murdering a kid for walking down the street.
Pretending that BLM is on our side is not just stupid, it is suicidal.
You're dealing with totalitarians who have no moral or ethical limitations, are driven entirely by resentment, and are every bit as evil as anyone in history has ever been.
What we are seeing is the remaining Koch joining soros in ideological corruption and Reasons editors playing up to their funding mechanism. Koch has joined Soros in multiple avenues from foreign policy, censorship, to praising BLM activism. See for example:
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/koch-soros-think-tank-features-defender-of-chinese-censorship/
His statements to police were the only evidence supporting that claim, which was contradicted by several witnesses.
Were those witnesses a priest, a minister, and a rabbi by any chance? No, they were the dead guys wife, his roommate, and a fellow BLM activist. Those are all clearly impartial witnesses, I'm sure. We should be celebrating dead BLM protesters, not digging for ways to exonerate them.
The case against Richard Glossip is far stronger than the case against Daniel Perry.
And yet, Reason simps for Glossip but not Perry. I wonder why.
You're "certain beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was not self defense? Because that's the standard for a criminal conviction.
Slight correction:
You're "certain beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was not a premeditated murder? The onus is not to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, this inverts the presumption of innocence. The standard is that anyone in Perry's situation would reasonably consider Foster a credible threat. A claim of self-defense equating or lowering the threshold for a guilty finding defeats the purpose of having self-defense, or any defense, as a defense. Effectively, "Only guilty people would try to assert they're innocent".
Greg Abbott is thinking about a pardon at a time when there are some real question about self defense. When we have young people shot for knocking on the wrong door, pulling in the wrong driveway, getting in the wrong car, and rolling a ball on the wrong yard. I think the Governor might want to rethink this action.
BTW - if Governor Abbott does this I predict there will be calls for Federal action as a violation of the victims civil rights. Perry not going to walk from this.
Perry not going to walk from this.
Of course not. He is going to get in his car and drive away.
all the actions you mentioned in the first paragraph do not qualify for self defense so there is no reason to re think self defense rules. they broke the rules just like a drunk driver breaks driving rules
I agree that none of the cases I mentioned qualify as self defense, the question is how many of the people committing those action used that as their initial defense? If we accept the idea of self defense and I think we have to, then we need to establish clear boundaries and make sure they are well understood. I suspect that pardoning Perry will make the terms of self defense less clear, not more clear;
So you think the Governor should base his decisions on optics and the general social news media environment rather than the facts of the case or an analysis of complex issues? Wow ...
The jury heard the facts of the case and voted to convict. Why is the governor a better judge of the facts than the jury? If Perry feels the case was not fairly tried he has the right of appeal and that would be better than a pardon. For one thing a pardon accepts the conviction and an appeal would offer a chance for acquittal.
The jury heard _part_ of the facts. The judge allowed Perry's inflammatory internet posts in as evidence, but did not allow Foster's similarly inflammatory internet posts. Since there is neither a clear video nor a trustworthy witness to establish whether Perry was pointing the rifle or "merely" holding it to his shoulder and pointed near Perry, Foster's posts go to intent and to whether he was likely to bring the rifle up and point it at Perry.
The one thing that is proved by video is that Foster carried a gun, joined a mob threatening Perry, and had the gun to his shoulder and pointed in Perry's general direction if not precisely at him. If Perry had correctly interpreted that as "not pointing the gun at me but threatening me and standing ready to aim and shoot me before I can react", would he have been required to wait to get shot before defending himself?
But Perry described his situation differently - the gun was aimed at him. I don't see anything in the evidence presented in court that disproves that - unless you take other members of the mob as reliable witnesses. Perhaps that testimony is what the judge should have excluded. Under the stress of a mob attacking his car, Perry might have misinterpreted a gun pointed near him as a gun pointed at him, or it may actually have been aimed at him. And if he read Foster's body language as "about to fire", Foster's posts suggest that may have been an accurate reading.
Greg Abbott is thinking about a pardon at a time when there are some real question about self defense. When we have young people shot for knocking on the wrong door, pulling in the wrong driveway, getting in the wrong car, and rolling a ball on the wrong yard. I think the Governor might want to rethink this action.
So we cannot allow actual self-defense to exist because people who don’t act in self defense will nevertheless claim to. This is how easily the left will dispense with our rights.
Note the operative principle of the fake libertarian commenters: whatever standard is required to support the leftists’ position is the correct standard.
You are Fvckin retarded. You don’t punish someone for something unrelated someone else on the other side of the country did, idiot
He's an evil totalitarian, and we cannot keep tolerating their existence.
I am not suggesting anyone be punished, I am suggesting that a convicted murderer not be rewarded.
And he won’t be. Because he shouldn’t have been charged, let alone convicted.
Fuck off, cunt.
"....and rolling a ball on the wrong yard...."
If you think for one second that this atrocity has any semblance of self-defense than your higher than Joe on his meds plus Hunter's crack!
The DOJ has lost any moral authority given their lack of protecting the Bill of Rights for the "wrong kind" of Americans for quite some time. Time and time again, ethnic Americans are killed for their race and the DOJ refuses to do anything. In this case, surround a car in an illegal protest and point an "assault" rifle at an American, they have every right to shoot first for self-defense. The DOJ has no cause here except to try and remove an innocent's man 2nd amendment right.
There are all kinds of questions about why Perry was there and what his intentions were. I have heard speculation that on active duty he needed special permission to work off-base as a driver. It also came out that he took a fare in that area that was a significant distance from his last. Then there are his Facebook posts. Lots of circumstantial evidence.
All of it became irrelevant when Foster approached him holding a rifle in a position it could quickly be fired. Even if Perry contrived to be there and wanted to shoot someone, he had the right to do so when confronted violently with a rifle. Self-defense is an inalienable right, even if the circumstances leading up to it are contrived. The jury reached an unsound verdict. That is the only reasonable libertarian viewpoint.
"...when Foster approached him holding a rifle in a position it could quickly be fired.."
Is that how we're going to decide? Which weapon was in a position to quickly be fired? If so, there's the undisputed fact that Perry got off several shots before Foster got off any. Which would tend to be evidence that his weapon was even closer to firing position.
And no, I'm not saying that means the winner of any quick draw is the aggressor. What I'm saying is if we're going to have robust and widely practiced open carry, the rule can't be that you get to shoot anyone that has a gun. The rule can't be that you get to shoot anyone that isn't carrying their gun in some official slung position taken from a military drill guide. The rule can't even be that you get to shoot anyone that has a gun and is angry about a political disagreement.
With open carry there are going to be cases where two people go to a protest armed, each with the intent of getting in the other guy's face, and each thinking "I don't plan to shoot him but if he's looking for trouble I'm game." I don't know exactly what the rules of engagement ought to be, but I wouldn't vote for a law that each is entitled to shoot the other first.
Thank you. This sums up my concern that open carry and self defense present significant challenges to each other. It is not enough to say the other person had a weapon and I felt threatened.
The world is not now, has never been, and will never become safe or challenge-free. You are entitled to your concern, but you're not entitled to impose that concern on the rest of us in the form of laws against going armed in public, regardless of the potential consequences for "society" that might entail. The rest of us are entitled to ignore any wishful thinking you might engage in about an imaginary non-violent world without random acts of violence by the occasional violent person.
It's true that's not enough.
However, "This person was carrying a rifle in their hands and was part of a mob that surrounded my car and was beating on it" is significantly different from simple "open carry". Quit pretending like "open carry" includes "walking around with a pistol in your hand".
Open carry just means my holster is visible and not under a concealment garment. Not "in my hand".
Claiming otherwise is mendacious.
The only pretending I'm doing is responding as if you made a good faith comment.
You can't literally believe that someone doing OC loses all rights, including the right to life, if they put their hands on their gun. If we used your rule, any third bystander could've legally shot Perry, a fourth could shoot the third, etc. Rittenhouse had his gun in hand, would that justify the skateboard guy bashing in his head? Can I go to a shooting range and blow away everyone with a gun in their hand?
Obviously no. There has to be a true threat and I concede that angry people banging on your car is somewhere on the threat spectrum. I wasn't there (and neither were you) in the heat of the moment. I'd say "reasonable doubt" applies here. But then if Foster had shot first and claimed he was afraid of Perry's pistol I'd say reasonable doubt applied to him as well.
You're a lying tumor.
First off, Rittenhouse had his rifle in his hand as he was running away from being assaulted and chased, and anticipated having to use it at a moments notice.
In Fosters case he was the one doing the chasing along with an angry mob boxing Perry in and striking his car.
Additionally, approaching someone with a long gun at low ready, is a threatening act. Low ready has the barrel of the gun pointed towards someone, but a few inches down and to the side. It's "I'm anticipating I may have to shoot sometime in the very near future, and will have to react very quickly."
I take many firearms classes, and I also hunt, so I am often around people carrying weapons. If I were in a class, and unless that class was force on force training with simunitions , and someone approached me with a rifle or pistol at low ready that student would be ejected from the class and likely barred from training at that facility or at least with that instructor ever again. If someone approached me just with a weapon in their hands period, they would likely be similarly banished. Pistols stay in holsters, and rifles stay slung until you are going to use them.
If a rifle is slung across a persons chest, the barrel is pointed as down as possible and off to the side as far as is safe. The owner of that rifle may have a hand on the rifle to maintain it being pointed in the safest direction, but it's not being held in a position so it will be ready for immediate use. A hand would usually be wrapped around the stock, the action and/or the forend/barrel so there is no mistaking the intention of that individual.
I have also come into contact with individuals that are hunting with firearms, both while I was hunting and times when I was not. No one has ever approached me holding a weapon at low ready or even close to it. When they see me, they'll either sling their rifle, or hold it across their chest with the barrel pointed either up or down and as off to the side and away from me as possible. Usually one hand is around the forend/barrel and the other is either wrapped around the stock or more likely the action so they can cover the trigger guard. I've had more than one individual unload their firearm and leave the action open before approaching me. These are the ways you carry a firearm if you aren't intent on threatening someone with it.
Mr. Smith
Thank you for the informative comment (seriously). Foster was definitely violating many rules of gun safety.
Now to the next point: "student would be ejected from the class and likely barred from training". "If someone approached me just with a weapon in their hands period, they would likely be similarly banished."
Unless you left out part, it appears you don't shoot and kill the students who violate the rules, even though some people here seem to be arguing you were entitled to. Why not?
Because you didn't feel seriously threatened. That's the only real issue in this case - did Perry reasonably believe he was about to suffer major harm. I'm not totally ruling out that the combo of a car pounding and someone else carrying a gun could create that belief. I would say neither alone even comes close, and that the combo would depend on how Foster and Foster alone was acting.
If you don't see the difference between the situations of a person behaving improperly with a firearm in a class and the instructor not feeling threatened but still ejecting them from the class, and a person behaving improperly with a firearm while taking part in an assault on a person's property and that person feeling threatened by that action, you *really* shouldn't carry firearms.
Walking around with a firearm like an asshole at a gun class gets you thrown out of the class. Walking around with a firearm like an asshole in the middle of a mob that's blocking traffic and banging on people's cars might just get you shot. If you truly can't distinguish the difference in those scenarios... I have no idea how to respond to that.
I didn't say anything about "putting your hands on your gun". I said "carrying your gun *in your hands*". (Emphasis added.) Those are two different things.
Carrying a rifle port arms and carrying it in both hands are very different. And yeah, if I see a guy walking around with a rifle in his hands in public, I'm going to quite possibly shoot that guy if he makes any threatening motions. Because carrying a rifle that way says that he's prepared to start shooting.
And don't bring up foolish what-ifs like the range. People with firearms in their hands at a shooting range are a complely different thing from the same thing on a street in the middle of downtown. And if you're truly incapable of distinguishing those things, I have no idea how to help you with that other than to suggest that your grasp on reality implies you might not be suited to firearms ownership.
"if he makes any threatening motions"
Sure. And that is exactly what needs to be determined at trial. They need to be motions that would reasonably make a person of ordinary firmness believe they would be killed or victimized in some serious way.
By the way, Perry himself apparently told the cops he "panicked". Not "I made a sound judgment to prevent my imminent murder, and would like to explain my impeccable rationale for why I was strictly entitled to kill him."
The reason I bring up foolish what-ifs like the range is because you make categorical comments about a certain rifle position being sufficient to shoot someone, totally failing to consider your rule is riddled with obvious exceptions until they are pointed out to you.
If you are going to open carry, don't act in a threatening way towards anyone who isn't threatening you and this won't happen. An angry mob surrounding a car is absolutely threatening. I'm honestly amazed more protesters don't get shot doing stuff like this, which seems to be a common tactic in protests these days.
(Responding to both you and MWADoc)
I absolutely agree that pounding on the car is threatening. (Somewhat - you say car poudings are common, and therefore we can conclude that the overwhelming majority of people who experience a car pounding do not in fact die or suffer significant injury.)
Was Foster pounding on the car? I don't know, if so, maybe Perry was justified. What I won't buy is a collective guilt argument that any armed person who - after the fact - turns out to have shared some political leanings with the car bangers becomes eligible for ventilating. You shoot some individual person, you need to show that exact individual threatened you.
I pretty much agree. Though I believe that when there is a claim of self defense, the sate has to prove that it wasn't.
Yeah, I could see Abbott justifying a pardon based on reasonable doubt. To me a key question is what Foster said after the car window went down, and we'll never know.
1. "Say your prayers, Nazi!"
2. "You want trouble, MAGA Man, now you got it!"
3. "We're occupying this street, and I order you to leave"
4. "You're a piece of right wing trash. Fuck you."
5. "My friends here are agitated. You need to go somewhere else"
6. "Excuse me sir, can I help you?"
(1), yeah, shoot. (2) maybe. (3)-(6) no. No duty to run away either, but there's a lot of possible options between running away and shooting.
Perhaps if you consider the evidence that several protestors kicked and struck the defendant's car at the time of the shooting that will help you decide whether his life was immediately threatened and what reasonable "rules of engagement" might be. This is not a case of "whataboutism" - it's a case of an armed mob attacking an otherwise innocent vehicle and its occupant. If you don't want to be shot, don't commit a violent act that could scare the bejeebers out of your victim and cause him to feel the need to shoot you!
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $600 a day by working from home. I made $29,517 ast month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(y6) You can run google and then make this work. More information can be found here…………..
SITE. —> usdtwork
There is an assumption, rarely stated directly, that protesters (at least ones deemed virtuous) have a right to harass anyone caught up in their activities whom they do not like the look of. And if the target of that harassment does anything to actively object, then they are at fault for whatever happens.
Just to be clear, I support RKBA and permitless open carry. And I don't think it is or should be legal to surround someone and pound on their car. The question is who you are entitled to shoot when a crowd does in fact pound on your car. Given that car pounding is generally quite survivable, I'd say you need some evidence of intent to escalate beyond pounding. And specific to the person you're shooting, not generalized to everyone present who shares their political ideology.
Was Foster's gun enough evidence? That's the whole issue. OC means having a rifle is perfectly everyday behavior like having a smart phone or a flashlight, so by itself it proves nothing, and some different person doing car pounding also proves nothing. I'd have to see the look on Foster's face, the body language, and hear what words he used when the window went down.
Reasonable doubt for Perry? Sure. Supporting what he did? No, I'm 100% sure I would have got out of that situation without shooting anyone (since I don't carry) and reasonably confident I would have got out alive.
Post your name and address then.
How does that follow? You think I need to be taught some kind of lesson in-person?
Thanks for the offer but I have zero fear or hope that you or any other comment would drive to far South Texas to try and teach me something. Nothing tough or brave, it’s just too long a drive for a small fish , plus you’d be terrified and distracted by the less-than-perfectly-legal residents that make up maybe 10-20% of the people on my street (I don’t go around asking people for their papers, it’s an estimate.)
But I have mild concerns that a few commenters here would try to get me in trouble with my employer or screw with my work-related online content. Just because they seem to be consumed with rage. Not you of course, you’re civil debate to the bone.
You're literally cancer.
There's a photograph of Foster holding his rifle butt to his shoulder and facing the car. That's NOT how you carry a rifle innocently, it's how you carry it when prepared to aim and shoot.
I don’t know exactly what the rules of engagement ought to be, but I wouldn’t vote for a law that each is entitled to shoot the other first.
How about equivocate on a non-premise in defense of the person who showed up to instigate political unrest and participate in assault with their hand on their weapon? I'd ask if you'd do that, but the truth is self-evident.
Who are you talking about, Perry or Foster, or both? I think they both wanted trouble and found it. Just a guess, not how I'd vote on a jury.
The mistake people make on highly public court cases, both civil and criminal, is thinking there’s a good guy. Wrong. Most court cases involve a bad person and a worse person, either of who could have very easily made the problem go away single-handedly but chose not to. Hundreds or thousands of people on the streets of Austin that night, including many who oppose BLM strongly, they made different choices that didn’t involve an armed showdown.
Who are you talking about, Perry or Foster, or both?
Perry wasn’t participating in an assault and was not convicted of such. Even without the shooting, Foster was guilty of this. There’s photographic evidence of Foster holding the weapon as he approached the car. There’s no evidence that Perry even touched his weapon until the shots were fired.
The mistake people make on highly public court cases, both civil and criminal, is thinking there’s a good guy. Wrong. Most court cases involve a bad person and a worse person
You realize your translation of good vs. bad to bad vs. worse doesn’t substantially differentiate you from the people you assert to be committing a mistake under jurisprudence, right? That it belies the fact that you still hold a presumption of guilt, differing only in degrees and not kind, right?
Just like you, I feel free to have personal opinions and conjectures about people with a standard waaay lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Something like 500 posts a day here do the same.
Some lawyers loosely running the site doesn't make this into a courtroom.
Already said that what's in article would not be enough for me to vote to put someone in prison. But it's a Reason article, not a trial transcript.
Already said that what’s in article would not be enough for me to vote to put someone in prison.
Your presumption or wish or fantasy or whatever in between, that you get vote people into prison one way or the other, again, belies your motives, reveals your preferences, and casts all your other assertions as false.
"Open carry" doesn't mean "in your hands", it just means "visible". Also, don't go to protests armed.
Your right to go armed in public doesn't go away because you're attending a protest. Whether it's a good idea or not - going to protests, going armed to protest - has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's a good idea for you and your protestor buddies to assault and batter a nearby vehicle while armed at a protest. Or even legal ...
Every single "protester" mobbing Perry's car was guilty of felony murder.
I don't know Texas law, but in Florida it is illegal to attend a political protest and carry.
Clarification: the 2 sentences above are independent thoughts, unrelated to each other and responding to separate points.
Every single “protester” mobbing Perry’s car was guilty of felony murder.
Further, numerous other laws exist in numerous other places that indicate that if I show up with a mob of people who trash your car, we all get hauled in, and it's discovered I have a weapon, I can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Even if I didn't draw the weapon, even if I only touched the car without damaging it. Drawing/handling the weapon and touching the car is more than enough to constitute the crime by the standard of other presumably reasonable* courts/jurors/people.
*And again, we're talking in the defense of Perry not the prosecution of Foster.
>>A Texas jury
at the Travis County courthouses the picante sauce comes from New York City
Perry was active duty Army at the time, so he could be court-martialed (in addition to a wrongful death lawsuit by Foster's estate).
“jurors unanimously concluded that the prosecution had disproven Perry’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” The legal expert on self-defense notwithstanding, the usual standard is that the prosecution must prove he was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. By the same standard they would have to prove that a hostile person armed with an AK-47 during a violent confrontation was NOT a threat to the defendant’s life beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is nothing in the article that would support that they had met that standard. It’s pretty easy for an antifa protestor, participating in a violent protest, to say, “Naw, our fellow violent protestor didn’t point his gun at the defendant!” and not that difficult to believe that an Austin jury would believe it. This is not a place where “the preponderance of the evidence” is reasonable. Also, I would like to see an article about what charges were brought against the protestors who angrily struck and kicked defendant's car.
Not a "shadow of doubt" but a "reasonable doubt".
Also, I would like to see an article about what charges were brought against the protestors who angrily struck and kicked defendant’s car.
Impossible. There were no charges against the protesters. Not even the ones who drew pistols and tried to kill Perry as Perry retreated after eliminating the threat posed by Foster. There were multiple bullet holes in Perry's car.
So it's one person's word against another's. Sounds like reasonable doubt. And self defense has a lot to do with state of mind. It doesn't seem unreasonable to see an armed and angry crowd surrounding your car and beating on it as a deadly threat.
There do seem to be some open questions here. Maybe it wasn't justified in hindsight. But it does't seem unreasonable that in that moment he legitimately and reasonably thought his life or safety was threatened.
"Abbott took it for granted that Perry's account of what happened the night he killed Foster was accurate"
Bullshit. He made a flimsy excuse for pardoning one of his white supremacist chums because he approves of that kind of murder. End of.
White Supremacist?
Tell us you are a shitty paid t without telling us you are a shitty paid troll
This is just sad.
F-
Haha. Darwin, bitch. Cry more.
Fuck Sullum.
1) The rifle or handgun or blowgun or shuriken or sword or knife doesn't have to be leveled at the intended victim in order for self-defense to apply.
2) Self-defense can and does apply selectively across indicted crimes. That is, you can be innocent of murder by self-defense and still guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The only way you summarily assume the opposite is if you presume guilt.
3) None of the above matters in the case of a pardon and your naked pro-partisan, pro-guilt stance is showing. I absolutely believe Nicolas Cruz should be executed for his crimes. If DeSantis grants him a commutation or stay of execution, that's the law. If I can say that about someone like Cruz, why shouldn't wrongthinkers logically perceive your stance as a threat best dealt with at your doorstep rather than waiting for it to visit theirs?
If you carry a gun for self defense, DO NOT post shit on social media.
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $600 a day by working from home. I made $29,517 ast month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(y6) You can run google and then make this work. More information can be found here…………..
SITE. —> usdtwork
Sullum incoherently repeats himself again, "blah blah blah, lefty bullshit, lefty bullshit, lefty bullshit".
apparently the PHOTOGRAPH of the thankfully dead rioter shouldering his AK is not evidence.
Jacob Sullum is a propagandist, not a reporter
https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/07/NINTCHDBPICT000598476776.jpg?w=620
And it is entirely uncoincidental that the only member of that mob blocking and/or beating on the car who got shot is the one who has a weapon in his hands and raised.
Fuck you Sullum, you dishonest piece of trash.
You were just fine with Ashley Babbitt getting killed for much, much less.
Die in a fire.
https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1651271616775565312?t=OuuN-WIhcpuRF_giQ0vJCw&s=19
BREAKING: A transgender representative in Minnesota has introduced a bill that will remove the exclusion of pedophiles from the protected class of “sexual orientation.”
This means it will be illegal to discriminate against child rapists.
This is what we have been sounding the alarm on. There is a concerted effort to normalize the sexualization of children and to legalize pedophilia. This is just one more step toward that end goal.
We need everyone to join in this fight before it is too late.
#GaysAgainstGroomers
[Link]
"But stop calling us groomers."
And the BLM groups are always kind and sweet just treating every and everything with the utter most resect and would never point a gun at anyone or lie to the police. /sac
The rifle did not have to be actually pointed at the defendant to give rise to self-defense.
^This. Nor did it have to be pointed at the defendant to rise to a criminal offense.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link………………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Piss off Sullum. A mob fills the streets, surrounds & obstructs a car, and a guy walks up with an AK and per video brings it to at least low ready. This Foster idiot offensively and proactively created a lethal situation where there was no need, LARPing his high-speed spec-ops fantasies. He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. You're choosing to err on the side of removing the survivor's liberty and promoting a prison solution. Just cast your Biden vote already, you two have the same twisted idea on what "freedom" means.
So a Bolshevik mob illegally taking over a public street, attacks a car and one of the thugs with what Joe Biden would call "an assualt rifle" points it at the driver. Said driver shoots bolshie thug and drives off. How is any way is this murder? Abbott should just have a retrial in say Plano or Allen where a jury of the man's peers would judge. Then send in the Texas Rangers into Austin and deport all bolsheviks, socialists, and cultural marxists back to Cali.
Accurate summary.
Yeah, this one pissed me off. The guy who got smoked was practically begging for it on video before hand. The mobs rushing cars with a guns shit is not ok.
Reason hasn't been libertarian in a long time. some times Robby Soave writes one and once in while John Stossle shows up but thats its
Given the Soros/Koch alliance it's not hard to believe, it almost seems to be the plan and Reason is just another mouthpiece to the revolution.
We have had the police reform Reason wants: anarchotyranny with completely political enforcement and/or prosecution of regime enemies.
Rules/laws are nothing more than a weapon which will be used against you whether you break them or not.
Just work online and earn money. He now makes over $600 a day by working from home. I made $29,517 ast month just doing this online job 2 hours a day. so easy and no special skills required…(y6) You can run google and then make this work. More information can be found here…………..
SITE. —> usdtwork