- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Texas Army soldier who fatally shot armed BLM protestor charged with murder
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:13 am to wadewilson
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:13 am to wadewilson
quote:
Depends on who really threatened first.
I agree, I just think we have to acknowledge the realities that having an AK or AR means a lot of people are going to have a lower threshold for reasonable fears of bodily harm/death.
1
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:16 am to 19
quote:
Meh, the military will be with the good guys.
quote:
The US Army soldier who fatally shot an armed protestor after driving into the thick of a Black Lives Matter protest in Texas last summer has been charged with murder.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:16 am to goofball
Nice narrative. That's not even close to the story based on the facts in evidence before the grand jury. But go ahead and further the divide with bullshite like this. You should check your American card comrade
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 10:17 am
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:19 am to The Spleen
quote:
The DA had 22 eyewitnesses testify to the grand jury.
Yeah, there was definitely video when all this first came out.
And of course the DA was going to trot out 22 fellow protestors to throw this guy under the jail. The video of the retard that got shot should be enough evidence to let this guy walk. He stated he was going out into the streets with an AK to threaten people into submission because they're too big of pussies to do anything about it.
But, please, keep telling us how you're some kind of open-minded moderate
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 10:19 am
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:19 am to goofball
And this is Texas. If someone was getting a pass it would be here and under these facts. The fact that he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury should tell you educated ones that the math doesn't add up.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:22 am to TomballTiger
quote:
And this is Texas. If someone was getting a pass it would be here and under these facts. The fact that he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury should tell you educated ones that the math doesn't add up.
Like someone else said, the notion that TX is the last bastion of common sense justice is beyond laughable. Every major city, like the one in which this guy is being indicted, is about as red as New York City.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:23 am to TDTOM
quote:
t looks shouldered to me but not raised.
In the picture, he's clearly got both hands on the weapon. Raised or not, is this enough evidence to support self defense? IMO, yes. But this whole situation has so many angles.
- None of this would have happened with police did their jobs and didn't let protestors unlawfully take over streets.
- Since protestors were allowed to take over the street for an unlawful protest, you are going to have safety measures that aren't in place to prevent things like, you know, cars trying to drive on the street where protestors are.
- The inevitable happened, and a car drove on this street, which caused chaos.
- In the chaos, dumbass protestors can't understand the consequences of things that can happen in their unplanned protest, so they treat an innocent uber driver as a hostile aggressor and approach his car with a rifle shouldered.
An objective person should be able to draw the following conclusion:
- It's possible, maybe likely, the guy with the rifle thought the driver meant to do harm with his car and felt he was justified in what he did (shouldering the rifle, possibly using force to get them to comply). This doesn't mean he was right, though.
- It's possibly, maybe likely, that the driver saw the gun and felt his life was threatened, and defended himself.
I just don't see how a competent DA can bring murder charges. Even a lesser charge is a stretch. What a sad day in this country.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:24 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, there was definitely video when all this first came out.
Cool. It wasn't linked in any of the articles on the indictment that I read. Maybe it's out there, but I haven't seen it.
quote:
But, please, keep telling us how you're some kind of open-minded moderate
Huh? I've never said any of those things.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:25 am to TomballTiger
quote:Just depends on what evidence the DA presented to the grand jury. 22 witness statements is probably enough to get a true Bill just about anywhere. If there are videos of the decedent pointing his gun at the driver, then it is a pretty open and shut case of self defense (assuming the driver didn’t make an initial threat). Even without pointing the weapon, there is plenty of room for a valid self defense case. It would be interesting to know if any video footage was presented.
The fact that he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury should tell you educated ones that the math doesn't add up.
Grand jury indictments don’t mean much.
This post was edited on 7/6/21 at 10:27 am
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:28 am to SUB
Is Texas a unanimous jury state for murder trials? There's bound to be one true Texan on the jury that says not guilty.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:31 am to Pettifogger
I don’t know all of the facts of this case, but to open carry at a protest is taking a big risk as a gun owner. You potentially become responsible not only for your actions, but for the actions of those around you. Here, the gun owner could have never raised or shouldered his weapon, yet the car driver could still easily be in reasonable fear for his life and respond accordingly.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:31 am to TomballTiger
quote:
And this is Texas. If someone was getting a pass it would be here and under these facts. The fact that he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury should tell you educated ones that the math doesn't add up.
Once again, there is video of the incident you can see for yourself. Foster shoulders his AK as he approaches the vehicle and has his hand on the grip as if he's about to shoulder fire. He points the barrel in Perry's direction and a split second later you hear shots.
Justice is applied extremely unevenly from one DA and locale to the next, just about anywhere else in TX and this doesn't get charged.
Just because a BLM-friendly DA was able to pull 22 protestors off the street and have them testify as biased witnesses against Perry to land the grand jury indictment doesn't mean he'll get convicted of anything (as he shouldn't be), and it damn sure doesn't mean he's automatically guilty like you're trying to say
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:32 am to SUB
quote:
I just don't see how a competent DA can bring murder charges. Even a lesser charge is a stretch. What a sad day in this country.
Look, this is part of a larger plan.
To me, this is akin to people faking hate crimes. There's literally no risk, and all reward.
These local politicians and DA's are clearly making a statement - if you resist their politics and their henchmen, we'll ruin you.
Look at it this way, if they prosecute someone like this and the charges don't stick or they can't convict, they can blame "the system" as to why they couldn't convict the guy. They guy may walk, but he's basically ruined financially for the rest of his life, which helps them achieve their ultimate goal - Do not resist or we will either throw you in jail for the rest of your life or we'll bankrupt you trying to defend yourself.
They also have a media on their side that is more than happy to aid them in influencing any sort of jury or public perception of you. You can be found not guilty yet you'll still be threatened and likely have to go into hiding.
We're at a very dangerous point where you can be made into a criminal on the whim of a handful of people and there's literally no way for you to defend yourself. Hell, watch every donation website purge any money this guy collects for his defense fund.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:35 am to TomballTiger
quote:
And this is Texas. If someone was getting a pass it would be here and under these facts. The fact that he was indicted by a Texas Grand Jury should tell you educated ones that the math doesn't add up.
quote:
Travis County grand jury
Travis county (Austin) is full of transplants from California and New York on top of the liberals already there. Throw in a $oro$ bought and controlled DA, and it’s not close to being a regular Texas Grand Jury. Your math doesn’t add up there.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:36 am to WDE24
quote:
Just depends on what evidence the DA presented to the grand jury. 22 witness statements is probably enough to get a true Bill just about anywhere. If there are videos of the decedent pointing his gun at the driver, then it is a pretty open and shut case of self defense (assuming the driver didn’t make an initial threat). Even without pointing the weapon, there is plenty of room for a valid self defense case. It would be interesting to know if any video footage was presented.
Grand jury indictments don’t mean much.
It's about trying to ruin this guy in any way possible. That DA likely knows they don't have a case, but he knows he gets to play with house money while this guy will basically need to put himself into debt for the rest of his life just to stay out of jail. This is a concerted effort to let the world know they'll be punished for resisting any radical left wing movements.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:39 am to IAmNERD
quote:
Yeah, open carry is legal. Pretty sure your protection under the law ends when you point it at someone under no threat to yourself.
In his car and a person outside the vehicle pointed an AR at him if this doesn’t imply deadly intent I don’t know what does. Do we have to wait till they pull the trigger or shoot us before defending ourselves.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 10:41 am to The Spleen
quote:
I've never said any of those things.
Because if you did it would be a lie.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:09 am to WDE24
quote:
Grand jury indictments don’t mean much.
Other than financially ruining the guy trying to defend his lawful actions in court, no.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 11:48 am to WDE24
quote:
I don’t know all of the facts of this case, but to open carry at a protest is taking a big risk as a gun owner. You potentially become responsible not only for your actions, but for the actions of those around you. Here, the gun owner could have never raised or shouldered his weapon, yet the car driver could still easily be in reasonable fear for his life and respond accordingly.
Agreed this is exactly what I was trying to articulate.
Posted on 7/6/21 at 12:03 pm to TomballTiger
interesting your username is TomballTiger and you take this stance. I guess it isn’t surprising considering the voting demographic shift in your neck of the woods these days.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News