- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Governor Abbott releases statement on sgt perry
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:52 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:52 am to AggieHank86
quote:
A decent prosecutor would have no trouble establishing that Perry may well have felt himself to be in danger from the crowd and that he responded by "taking out" the most "dangerous" person in the area ... regardless of whether that person represented an actual threat to Perry.
Boom. If that fear was reasonable… Elements met. You proved what is necessary for self defense. Well done, Hank.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 9:54 am
1
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:56 am to BBONDS25
quote:No, Barry.
A decent prosecutor would have no trouble establishing that Perry may well have felt himself to be in danger from the crowd and that he responded by "taking out" the most "dangerous" person in the area ... regardless of whether that person represented an actual threat to Perry.quote:
Boom. If that fear was reasonable… Elements met. You proved what is necessary for self defense. Well done, Hank.
A generalized fear of the crowd (even if "reasonable") does not justify the Defendant to shoot anyone in the vicinity who happens to be carrying a gun.
The QUESTION is whether the DECEDENT acted in a manner which caused Perry to have a reasonable fear for his (simplified) safety. The evidence on that point is ambiguous, at best.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 9:58 am
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:57 am to AggieHank86
quote:
anyone in the vicinity who happens to be carrying a gun.
You dishonesty is reaching new heights.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:57 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No, Barry. A generalized fear of the crowd (even if "reasonable") does not justify the Defendant to shoot anyone in the vicinity who happens to be carrying a gun.
Re-read the elements of the defense. It absolutely does. Your desire for your politically enemy to be incarcerated does not change the law.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The QUESTION is whether the DECEDENT acted in a manner which caused Perry to have a reasonable fear for his (simplified) safety.
Show me the element of the defense in the Texas code that states this. You’re saying he had the right to shoot anyone that mobbed his car but not the dude with the gun, specifically because his hands weren’t in the car? That is absolutely idiotic, Hank. You’re as stupid as a jury, apparently
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 10:00 am
Posted on 4/10/23 at 9:59 am to Flats
quote:SPECIFICALLY, what action by the Decedent put Perry in reasonable fear for his own (simplified) safety?
Flats
All I have seen is that he held his weapon at "low ready," while all witnesses (including Perry) confirm that he did NOT aim the weapon at Perry.
If I missed some of the evidence, please expound.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
All I have seen is that he held his weapon at "low ready," while all witnesses (including Perry) confirm that he did NOT aim the weapon at Perry.
While surrounding his car with a mob of others. Boom. Elements of that specific decedent causing reasonable fear met. Thanks for again proving my point.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:03 am to BBONDS25
quote:OK.quote:Show me the element of the defense in the Texas code that states this
The QUESTION is whether the DECEDENT acted in a manner which caused Perry to have a reasonable fear for his (simplified) safety.
Texas Penal Code §9.31 states that “a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree, the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.” (emphasis added)
quote:Not what I said, and you know it.
You’re saying he had the right to shoot anyone that mobbed his car but not the dude with the gun, specifically because his hands weren’t in the car?
I said that there is NOT uncontraverted evidence that the Decedent was about to use unlawful force against Perry.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:06 am to BBONDS25
quote:AGAIN, yes, that is evidence which WOULD support ONE interpretation of the events surrounding the shooting AND which would thus support the AD.quote:While surrounding his car with a mob of others. Boom. Elements of that specific decedent causing reasonable fear met. Thanks for again proving my point
All I have seen is that he held his weapon at "low ready," while all witnesses (including Perry) confirm that he did NOT aim the weapon at Perry.
Another reasonable interpretation is that the Decedent did not attack Perry's car and was not aiming his weapon at Perry, thus negating applicability of the AD vis-a-vis THIS Decedent. Under this view, Perry would have been entirely legally-justified in shooting one of the folks breaking his windows or reaching into his vehicle, but NOT in shooting someone nearby who just happened to be armed.
The POINT is that this jury result was not inherently unreasonable ... just that they interpreted the facts differently than the majority of this forum would do so.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 10:12 am
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
SPECIFICALLY, what action by the Decedent put Perry in reasonable fear for his own (simplified) safety?
SPECIFICALLY, he was not just a guy in the vicinity with a gun. A guy's car, on the road legally, is swarmed and people are beating on it under conditions that have resulted in violence for several months. Mr "conservatives are pussies" approaches the car with his weapon at the high ready (it was closer to that than low) and Perry was trapped. I suspect the weapon was moving at the time but all I have are stills. You are not obligated to wait until someone shoots you to defend yourself, and waiting until someone is aiming at you is waiting until they shoot you.
Swarm a cop car so they can't move, then walk up to the driver's window with an an AK ready to shoot. We don't (and shouldn't) demand that cops are staring down the barrel until they fire, nor should we demand it of our citizens.
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:20 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The POINT is that this jury result was not inherently unreasonable ... just that they interpreted the facts differently than the majority of this forum would do so.
The problem you have Hank, is you don't want our institutions to be trash. It's personally destabilizing to you so you'll make inane arguments so you don't have to face that reality.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
just that they interpreted the facts differently than the majority of this forum would do so
Or the majority of Texans.
It's a feature of the system.
But we have another system called the pardon system to correct interpretation errors.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:29 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The problem you have Hank, is you don't want our institutions to be trash. It's personally destabilizing to you so you'll make inane arguments so you don't have to face that reality.
There was a clown here the other day claiming that the judicial process was apolitical.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I said that there is NOT uncontraverted evidence that the Decedent was about to use unlawful force against Perry
That isn’t the standard. The standard is whether the defendant was reasonable in his fear. A mob of people, including the decedent were surrounding his car. Element met. You and I both know it.
Your contrarian schtick is funny until it makes you take disgusting positions. Like twisting yourself into knots to defend wrongful convictions and defending grooming children.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Another reasonable interpretation is that the Decedent did not attack Perry's car and was not aiming his weapon at Perry, thus negating applicability of the AD vis-a-vis THIS Decedent.
This is not reasonable as the sole element lies with whether the fear of the defendant was reasonable. You absolutely know this and know you’re typing complete BS.
Good lord. My respect of your ability to lawyer honestly has been damaged. This isn’t even a difficult case. It is clear as day. Yet you muddy the waters for political reasons. I didn’t think you were one of the dirty attorneys. I’m disappointed
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 11:06 am
Posted on 4/10/23 at 11:42 am to AggieHank86
quote:
A generalized fear of the crowd (even if "reasonable") does not justify the Defendant to shoot anyone in the vicinity who happens to be carrying a gun.
This is too silly to award any faux-contrarian points. Good try tho. 
Posted on 4/10/23 at 12:09 pm to AggieHank86
I thought the law was supposed to work the same everywhere which is why it is a Law and not a whim. Isnt't that right?
Except in liberal areas where they make up stuff as they go, right dude?
Except in liberal areas where they make up stuff as they go, right dude?
Posted on 4/10/23 at 5:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And it gives to the jury the power to determine whether any such exercise was “reasonable.“
Yes Hank. We are aware of the jury’s verdict — that is indeed why this thread exists.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 5:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Moral of the story? Don't go to a liberal jurisdiction and engage in conduct that leaves you at the mercy of the local jury pool
Are you genuinely a member of the Texas Bar? In any event, what a frightening thing to contemplate.
quote:
... especially after basically posting a manifesto about how much you would enjoy ventilating a protester.
This is prog fan fiction and you know it.
Posted on 4/10/23 at 5:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In your mind, is there even one shred of doubt that Perry went into Austin that day hoping for a confrontation of some sort? Based upon his online footprint, I don't see how any objective person could see the matter otherwise.
That being the case, he simply MUST accept that Texas law will give an AUSTIN jury the authority to determine whether his actions were a reasonable response to the circumstances with which he was presented. No sane person puts himself in that position.
If he had stayed in Bell or Coryell County, the jury would likely have seen the same facts in a very different light. Of course, he would not have had the opportunity to initiate a confrontation with BLM in Bell or Coryell, either.
He made his choice.
perry is an uber driver, uber runs a lot downtown
you ignored my earlier point, if perry was there to incite trouble while going east on 4th why did he turn right on congress and head away from downtown? he was three blocks from the bridge that would have taken him out of downtown completely
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News