Texas Governor Pardons man who shot BLM Protestor
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
Swifty Morgan
New member
Seems unfair to say Perry drove into a crowd of protesters. Makes it sound like he tried to run people down, which is not even close to true. He was barely moving when he turned into the protest, and he stopped without harming anyone. The car was stationary when the shooting took place, and Perry had a legal right to be there. The character with the AK did not have the right to be in the street or to approach and menace him. The protest itself was illegal. You can't just take over a street without a permit, First Amendment notwithstanding.
Was it a great idea for Perry to be there? That's not a simple question, and it's irrelevant unless he broke the law. By showing up and interfering with an illegal protest, he was definitely provoking an organization known to be full of violent idiots, and it was deliberate, but his presence was, itself, a protest, perhaps more valid than the BLM protest, because he didn't break any laws by showing up in his car.
Should you be against someone who protested a protest and then had to defend himself, just because he knew he was likely to be met with violence? If people don't counterprotest because they're afraid their adversaries will commit crimes against them, what's happening is called a "chilling effect." The general rule in America is that we are against chilling free speech.
It's easy to say he shouldn't have been there, but you could say the same thing about the guys who pulled off the Boston Tea Party or the people the Chinese killed in Tianenmen Square. They could have stayed home instead of staging provocations.
People, including journalists with a duty to be honest with the public, are calling Perry a "self-proclaimed racist." That would not nullify his right to self-defense, but on top of that, it's not true. He made sarcastic remarks, saying he was a racist because he was against people acting like monkeys. He was not sincerely calling himself a racist, and he did not call black people monkeys.
People should be disturbed that mainstream journalists with a big audience would lie about him so blatantly.
He didn't try to run people down. He was threatened with a rifle for no reason whatsoever. He was outnumbered. He knew BLM was a violent organization. He had a legal right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. His possible status as a racist is irrelevant, because racists have the right to defend themselves. He did not actually label himself a racist, by any legitimate standard. If he was hoping to provoke aggression, it doesn't matter unless he did something illegal to provoke it. I shouldn't walk through Compton at night with 5 Rolexes on each arm and a Klan hood on my head, but if I do, I'm still allowed to shoot anyone who tries to mug me.
I would have shot that guy, too, if the circumstances led me to believe he was likely to shoot first. Having an AK waved at you is no joke.
As for the notion that it's wrong for an executive to undo the verdict of a jury, wow; all I can say is "O.J. Simpson." A jury of black women set him free, knowing he murdered two people, and they have since admitted they did it in order to get revenge for Rodney King. Juries do stupid, evil things every day.
My dad defended 11 murder suspects and got 10 off. The one who got convicted was black, and he had killed another black man. On the way out of the court, one member of the all-white jury said, "Got rid of two of them at once." Jurors are idiots.
This is supposedly a nation of laws, and the law says a governor can pardon people. If Perry's prosecutor wanted to use the law to make Perry suffer, he can't complain if the law sets him free.
Was it a great idea for Perry to be there? That's not a simple question, and it's irrelevant unless he broke the law. By showing up and interfering with an illegal protest, he was definitely provoking an organization known to be full of violent idiots, and it was deliberate, but his presence was, itself, a protest, perhaps more valid than the BLM protest, because he didn't break any laws by showing up in his car.
Should you be against someone who protested a protest and then had to defend himself, just because he knew he was likely to be met with violence? If people don't counterprotest because they're afraid their adversaries will commit crimes against them, what's happening is called a "chilling effect." The general rule in America is that we are against chilling free speech.
It's easy to say he shouldn't have been there, but you could say the same thing about the guys who pulled off the Boston Tea Party or the people the Chinese killed in Tianenmen Square. They could have stayed home instead of staging provocations.
People, including journalists with a duty to be honest with the public, are calling Perry a "self-proclaimed racist." That would not nullify his right to self-defense, but on top of that, it's not true. He made sarcastic remarks, saying he was a racist because he was against people acting like monkeys. He was not sincerely calling himself a racist, and he did not call black people monkeys.
People should be disturbed that mainstream journalists with a big audience would lie about him so blatantly.
He didn't try to run people down. He was threatened with a rifle for no reason whatsoever. He was outnumbered. He knew BLM was a violent organization. He had a legal right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. His possible status as a racist is irrelevant, because racists have the right to defend themselves. He did not actually label himself a racist, by any legitimate standard. If he was hoping to provoke aggression, it doesn't matter unless he did something illegal to provoke it. I shouldn't walk through Compton at night with 5 Rolexes on each arm and a Klan hood on my head, but if I do, I'm still allowed to shoot anyone who tries to mug me.
I would have shot that guy, too, if the circumstances led me to believe he was likely to shoot first. Having an AK waved at you is no joke.
As for the notion that it's wrong for an executive to undo the verdict of a jury, wow; all I can say is "O.J. Simpson." A jury of black women set him free, knowing he murdered two people, and they have since admitted they did it in order to get revenge for Rodney King. Juries do stupid, evil things every day.
My dad defended 11 murder suspects and got 10 off. The one who got convicted was black, and he had killed another black man. On the way out of the court, one member of the all-white jury said, "Got rid of two of them at once." Jurors are idiots.
This is supposedly a nation of laws, and the law says a governor can pardon people. If Perry's prosecutor wanted to use the law to make Perry suffer, he can't complain if the law sets him free.
IF you've watched any mainstream journalists in recent decades, you should have noticed that they lie about nearly everything. The days of ethics in media reporting have long gone, taking thinking people's trust with them.
It is a simple, and deliberate formula, lies (aka inaccurate reporting) generates controversy, which generates interest, which creates ratings which means profit.
When someone tells them a lie, they simply repeat it, believing they are not lying, but simply reporting what someone said. A lie of omission is still a lie.
yes, juries do "stupid" things, some convict or acquit not on the facts, but to "send a message" (what ever the hell that is supposed to mean
) and prosecutors are known to do the same thing with the cases they bring, or don't bring before the courts.Swifty Morgan
New member
I totally thought Rachel Maddow was unbiased. This is shocking.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It's not "lies," and it's not inaccurate reporting.
It's alternate facts ...
It's alternate facts ...
Calling Harry Turtledove, we are....Aquila said:
It's said that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
In what has now become Travis County, TX, he can also convict that sandwich.
See: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-pardons-daniel-perry-following-board-recommendation
Note the word "unanimous"
That should tell the Gentle Reader everything he needs to know,
and also slap that prosecutor up side the head -- with self-same ham sandwich.
Swifty Morgan
New member
Alvin Bragg could convict a ham sandwich without telling it what crime it committed.