Ofc they perp walked him. He's a hero, and they're demons. https://t.co/bnnQWvCH3P
— James Lindsay, kung fu grip (@ConceptualJames) May 12, 2023
Daniel Perry Trail - Guilty Verdict
23,097 Views |
242 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by quash
I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
He was convicted not on the facts on the ground...what actually happened in those few minutes downtown when an armed mob surrounded his vehicle...but on his social media and text history.
That is "justice" in the spirit of the USSR and not the traditional law and justice of the USA.
Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
His history is relevant, as is the victim's.Redbrickbear said:Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
He was convicted not on the facts on the ground...what actually happened in those few minutes downtown when an armed mob surrounded his vehicle...but on his social media and text history.
That is "justice" in the spirit of the USSR and not the traditional law and justice of the USA.
According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..." So he knew he shouldn't be in the street. But he did it anyway. Same with not brandishing a firearm at people. He most likely knew it was illegal, he did it anyway. Cost him his life.Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
"The cops?"Wangchung said:He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..."Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Oh sorry, he said "they" when referencing the cops the two times he said THEY wouldn't let them in the streets any more. He said "cops" when referencing his roommate getting arrested. I realize now how confusing that must have been for you. Why, he could have been referring to an army ofSam Lowry said:"The cops?"Wangchung said:He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..."Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Homeless keeping them from marching in the streets, or a horde of rabid squirrels. Hell, it could have been 32 Girl Scout troupes stopping them from marching for all we know! Lol
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
What makes you think he was referencing the cops? Was there some kind of free speech ban in effect?Wangchung said:Oh sorry, he said "they" when referencing the cops the two times he said THEY wouldn't let them in the streets any more.Sam Lowry said:"The cops?"Wangchung said:He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..."Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Wangchung said:He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..." So he knew he shouldn't be in the street. But he did it anyway. Same with not brandishing a firearm at people. He most likely knew it was illegal, he did it anyway. Cost him his life.Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Just a normal guy out in the streets of the Texas Capitol with his face covered, armed for combat, and talking about the cops or any other citizens who opposed him as "chicken ****".
I'm sure if he ran up on a car and pointed his assault weapon at them it was totally harmless…..
p.s.
Tanks Wangchung for posting that video. It's very eye opening
I'm not sure Wangchung actually watched it.Redbrickbear said:p.s.Wangchung said:He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..." So he knew he shouldn't be in the street. But he did it anyway. Same with not brandishing a firearm at people. He most likely knew it was illegal, he did it anyway. Cost him his life.Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Tanks Wangchung for posting that video. It's very eye opening
You are being very judgy this week, Sam.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure Wangchung actually watched it.Redbrickbear said:p.s.Wangchung said:He literally says "the cops won't let us in the streets anymore..." So he knew he shouldn't be in the street. But he did it anyway. Same with not brandishing a firearm at people. He most likely knew it was illegal, he did it anyway. Cost him his life.Sam Lowry said:I didn't hear him say "the cops won't let us protest." Are you suggesting that he was protesting illegally?Wangchung said:According to the deceased blm rioter, he had his Ak there to brandish it at people and intimidate. "The cops won't let's us protest." What about the people that disagree with you? "Those ******* wont do anything." So he KNEW he wasn't supposed to be on the street but they were anyway. He knew the gun would intimidate and he had it for that very reason. THAT NIGHT.Sam Lowry said:Again, which is it? Was he trying to intimidate people, or just trying to keep anyone from messing with him?Wangchung said:I believe my own eyes. Some people need to be told what to think, others have the ability to look at the facts and make a determination. The guy was working and turned into an illegal blocking of the street by an armed violent mob who surrounded his vehicle. The guy with the rifle bragged THAT DAY about using his rifle to intimidate people. Not some past conversation, not some bad racist joke, but an outright declaration that no one would do anything to him while he was brandishing his gun. That speaks a lot louder than an old post.Sam Lowry said:There was a whole conversation where Perry talked about initiating a confrontation and then claiming self-defense. His friend didn't take it as a joke. Instead he scolded Perry and tried to talk him down. So whom should we believe, you or him?Wangchung said:Riiight, they were just out observing the deadly riots, despite the rest of society being on lockdown for Covid. Sure, the police made it clear that, due to the deadly riots, everyone should leave the area but those good folks just wanted to watch the peaceful protestors burning down their city, totally innocent. If that doesn't call for a blanket rioter bail fund I don't know what does.Sam Lowry said:People get arrested for violating curfew during riots all the time. I'd say try again, but if "hoping to catch me a negro daddy" is your idea of a joke...maybe never mind.Wangchung said:Nah. He made jokes about it and the prosecution pretended it was a manifesto. People getting arrested for rioting during a riot don't typically hang around riots for any other reason. Try again.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how many were caught in the act of rioting and how many weren't. You're again making assumptions for political reasons. And again, this defendant didn't just display a dislike for someone. He displayed an intention to "go to Dallas to shoot looters."Wangchung said:Legally speaking they're innocent until proven guilty but only a raging moron would claim that LEGAL distinction means we cannot look at the facts in front of us and make a reasonable judgment. Rioters caught in the act of rioting at a riot are not the same as a person who dared to previously display a dislike for violent leftists rioters ending up needing to defend himself from a man who stated, on video that day, that he uses his rifle to intimidate. A man who later raised that same rifle at the man who's vehicle he and his rioting buddies just surrounded. At a man who was actually working. I live in Travis county. I know this jury pool quite well. You can play semantics all you like but the man deserves a pardon. It's just too bad he didn't take more rioters out first.Sam Lowry said:Even a rioter is innocent until proven guilty. Not surprised you wouldn't understand that.Wangchung said:No, it isn't, because a criminal rioter is not an innocent person, unlike a person who is forced to defend themselves. That you wouldn't understand the difference is unsurprising.Sam Lowry said:Indeed not. It's more comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being pardoned.Wangchung said:A pardon for a man who merely defended himself is not comparable to a criminal who was arrested for rioting being bailed out for purely political reasons.Sam Lowry said:Have looked at the crimes and can confirm there's still a vast difference between a pardon and bail.Wangchung said:Until you look at the crimes. Self defense versus rioting.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't equate to a pardon, either. There's a vast difference between that and bailWangchung said:Rioters being bailed out, as Kamala Harris helped raise $35,000,000 to do, does not equate to someone being forced to defend themselves from an armed mob then being prosecuted for that act of self defense.Osodecentx said:Totally agree. Abbott is on thin ice. I can see other results with a different result the will have some going bat**** crazy, e.g. pardoning BLM riotersMothra said:
Have a really hard time with this one. No doubt the Travis County DA is as bad as they come. He truly is as incompetent DA as any in the United States, and his decision not to prosecute criminals has made Austin unsafe.
But this man was tried by a jury of his peers, who believed he did something wrong. And believe it or not, Travis County juries aren't the bastion of liberals that people think they are. They are very diverse in both race and politics.
I haven't seen all the evidence, but I suspect there is a lot more to this story.
.
There are some cases where the jury is obviously wrong, but this isn't one of them. If you're advocating a pardon without knowing all the facts, you're the one acting for purely political reasons.
Your characterization of the available evidence is also dishonest. The defendant didn't just "disagree" with BLM. He specifically talked about shooting and killing people.
Also, pointing out that he made an online joke is in no way me condoning the joke itself, but I get why you would try such a distraction. By the way, he shot a white rioter.
Tanks Wangchung for posting that video. It's very eye opening
If Perry was so Hell bent on shooting just any protester, why do you think it happened to be the one POS that pointed a gun at him? Coincidence? No…he shot the one stupid mf'er that left him no choice but to try and save his own life!
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
Poor Sam seems very ill-informed on the facts. Has to ask everyone else what happened.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
It's as if he can't read or look up things on his own.
That's just sad.
No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
SIC EM 94 said:
If Perry was so Hell bent on shooting just any protester, why do you think it happened to be the one POS that pointed a gun at him? Coincidence? No…he shot the one stupid mf'er that left him no choice but to try and save his own life!
Very very good question.
If you just wanted to kill someone out on the streets protesting during the summer of BLM there were more opportunities than you could count.
Why wait until your uber car Job vehicle was surrounded and someone with their face covered was point a AK-47 assault rifle at you?
Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Any mention of a curfew in the trial?Wangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was trying to intimidate people.Wangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I have no narrative. Like I said, I was troubled by the verdict but haven't followed the case closely. I'm just trying to sort out which parts of your narrative are based on evidence and which parts you're making up (e.g. "the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people").Wangchung said:Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
Well the fact I provided a video of him in this conversation bragging about the intimidation his possession of the gun caused proves you're a liar, and stupid one at that.Sam Lowry said:I have no narrative. Like I said, I was troubled by the verdict but haven't followed the case closely. I'm just trying to sort out which parts of your narrative are based on evidence and which parts you're making up (e.g. "the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people").Wangchung said:Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Sam likes pretending he is a trial lawyer.
So much easier than actually defending an opinion with facts, to just challenge everyone else and pretend to be superior.
So much easier than actually defending an opinion with facts, to just challenge everyone else and pretend to be superior.
Intimidating and brandishing aren't even the same issue. The difference is pretty important in this case.Wangchung said:Well the fact I provided a video of him in this conversation bragging about the intimidation his possession of the gun caused proves you're a liar, and stupid one at that.Sam Lowry said:I have no narrative. Like I said, I was troubled by the verdict but haven't followed the case closely. I'm just trying to sort out which parts of your narrative are based on evidence and which parts you're making up (e.g. "the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people").Wangchung said:Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
Oh right, because the point of his brandishing was NOT to intimidate "those *******" who won't do anything while he is armed, as the dead rioter stated, right? His point was whatever you can imagine that floats your narrative along your river of bull****, right?Sam Lowry said:Intimidating and brandishing aren't even the same issue. The difference is pretty important in this case.Wangchung said:Well the fact I provided a video of him in this conversation bragging about the intimidation his possession of the gun caused proves you're a liar, and stupid one at that.Sam Lowry said:I have no narrative. Like I said, I was troubled by the verdict but haven't followed the case closely. I'm just trying to sort out which parts of your narrative are based on evidence and which parts you're making up (e.g. "the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people").Wangchung said:Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
We haven't established that he did brandish, or talk about brandishing, much less why. You're too busy telling your story instead of listening to what was said. Cart before the horse.Wangchung said:Oh right, because the point of his brandishing was NOT to intimidate "those *******" who won't do anything while he is armed, as the dead rioter stated, right? %A0His point was whatever you can imagine that floats your narrative along your river of bull****, right?Sam Lowry said:Intimidating and brandishing aren't even the same issue. The difference is pretty important in this case.Wangchung said:Well the fact I provided a video of him in this conversation bragging about the intimidation his possession of the gun caused proves you're a liar, and stupid one at that.Sam Lowry said:I have no narrative. Like I said, I was troubled by the verdict but haven't followed the case closely. I'm just trying to sort out which parts of your narrative are based on evidence and which parts you're making up (e.g. "the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people").Wangchung said:Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when %A0Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame %A0street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
This is payback for Kyle Rittenhouse being found innocent.
Daniel Perry and Daniel Penny will not be so lucky.
Daniel Perry and Daniel Penny will not be so lucky.
Other than the video I provided where he directly speaks to why he carries his rifle and how it affects the people who disagree with them when they see it, right? If we just ignore that huge piece of evidence then you might have a rational opinion.Sam Lowry said:We haven't established that he did brandish, or talk about brandishing, much less why. You're too busy telling your story instead of listening to what was said. Cart before the horse.Wangchung said:Oh right, because the point of his brandishing was NOT to intimidate "those *******" who won't do anything while he is armed, as the dead rioter stated, right? %A0His point was whatever you can imagine that floats your narrative along your river of bull****, right?Sam Lowry said:Intimidating and brandishing aren't even the same issue. The difference is pretty important in this case.Wangchung said:Well the fact I provided a video of him in this conversation bragging about the intimidation his possession of the gun caused proves you're a liar, and stupid one at that.Sam Lowry said:I have no narrative. Like I said, I was troubled by the verdict but haven't followed the case closely. I'm just trying to sort out which parts of your narrative are based on evidence and which parts you're making up (e.g. "the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people").Wangchung said:Except for the fact that he bragged about brandishing at people and was the only person shot out of the rioters that surrounded the victim's vehicle. Nevermind those facts though, you've got a narrative to protect and no one crams facts into a good narrative when %A0Sam is around!Sam Lowry said:It sounds like jaywalking is the most relevant thing you've got. But it doesn't lend much weight to your argument that he was tryingWangchung said:I don't know, was there any mention of Jay walking? Noise ordinances? What other irrelevant **** can we wonder about?Sam Lowry said:Any mention of a curfewWangchung said:You're right, it totally could have been Perry's lawyers that told them they could no longer block the streets. Good call.Sam Lowry said:What about Perry's lawyers? Did they mention it?Wangchung said:For the middle of the street? I don't know, you'll have to ask the muppets from sesame %A0street, they are the ones most likely to have told the rioters they( the rioters) cannot march in the street. I mean, we just can't know for sure who he meant, right? Just wish we had some context clues to help us solve this esoteric puzzle. Shucks.Sam Lowry said:Was there a curfew?Wangchung said:No, we think the teachers union told them they cannot march in the streets anymore when he referenced "they". Lol, play semantics when you don't have a real argument.Sam Lowry said:
What about Perry? Was he allowed in the streets?
in the trial?
to intimidate people.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?