Antifa, Just an Idea

[DarthOne]

Army sergeant Daniel Perry, who was working as an Uber driver when he encountered an armed BLM mob that had shut down the streets in Austin, Texas in July 2020, has been found guilty of murder by a jury. Perry shot a rifle-carrying BLM boogaloo member named Garrett Foster who confronted him at the driver's window.

Texas, you’ve got some ‘splaining to do!


Edit:

The case was prosecuted by a Soros-financed DA who was accused of criminal witness tampering by the lead investigator to even get the case past a Grand Jury

Perry can appeal the case. As it's a state case,
@GovAbbott
does have pardon power

Never mind, that explains a lot…SOOROOS!

 

[DarthOne]

For the eternal record here's Garrett Foster's interview before he tried to kill Daniel Perry in Austin:

Talk about famous last words…

 

[Jormungandr]

Texas, you’ve got some ‘splaining to do!


Edit:





Never mind, that explains a lot…SOOROOS!

I swear Soros is still alive because he drinks and bathes in the blood of babies and virgins.

Eh, give it another decade and even that won't save him -- time and the Reaper will have their dues, as always.

 

[DarthOne]

I swear Soros is still alive because he drinks and bathes in the blood of babies and virgins.

Eh, give it another decade and even that won't save him -- time and the Reaper will have their dues, as always.

Yes but what will be left of civilization by then if he’s allowed to continue unstopped?

 

[Jormungandr]

Yes but what will be left of civilization by then if he’s allowed to continue unstopped?

I doubt civilization will fall in a few years, but it's mutilation and mutation will continue, sadly enough.

 

[Captain X]

I'm just wondering who takes the ring of power after he goes.

 

[Typhonis]

I'm just wondering who takes the ring of power after he goes.

Hard to say....do they have anyone young and charismatic enough to do so?

 

[Megadeath]

Hard to say....do they have anyone young and charismatic enough to do so?

Coz youth and charisma have been so important and defining for Soros?

 

[Typhonis]

Coz youth and charisma have been so important and defining for Soros?

Youth so they can, theoretically, last longer. Charisma so people buy the bullshit easier.

 

[Abhorsen]

So word to people who know anything about self defense: don't talk a lot about how you want to kill people and how you hope to provoke a self defense situation with protestors. Especially don't write it down.

That's why he was convicted:

“Might Have to Kill a Few People”

And other texts that suggest Daniel Perry intended to commit murder at a Black Lives Matter demonstration

www.austinchronicle.com

Basically, I'd believe he wanted to kill protestors, got angry that day, and recklessly decided to get into a confrontation on purpose.

At that point, and indictment is easy, as it honestly doesn't matter what the dude with an AK did. A conviction takes some doing, and I see reasonable doubt, but then I'm a mathematician by training and didn't watch the trial. IMO, he shouldn't be convicted, but should lose a wrongful death lawsuit. He's probably guilty, not certainly.

 

[Marduk]

At that point, and indictment is easy, as it honestly doesn't matter what the dude with an AK did. A conviction takes some doing, and I see reasonable doubt, but then I'm a mathematician by training and didn't watch the trial. IMO, he shouldn't be convicted, but should lose a wrongful death lawsuit. He's probably guilty, not certainly.

If that is the law, then the law is ridiculous and needs to be changed. ITG postings on the internet are not a crime under 1A, and especially they aren't a crime warranting stripping someone of the right to self-defense.

It goes back to classic argument with gun control activists - if you think location X which is public and ordinarily it would be perfectly legal for you to go there at any time may contain dangerous criminals, you should just not go there, and if you instead go there and prepare to go there by equipping yourself with lethal weapons, it's "OMG you want to go and kill people".

The "wrongful death" logic would be equally applicable to the city, or better yet, organizers of the event. After all, what they were doing was more or less illegal and very dangerous. The city nor the citizenry owes a guarantee of safety or security to people engaging in things they absolutely should not be doing by all law, custom and common sense, like blocking roads and intimidating/assaulting people who contest said illegal blockade.
If anything, the city has a duty to separate such aggressive crowds from general public going about their business for the safety of both.
It doesn't take a genius that the left's love of legally dubious "disruptive protest" and reliance on spineless politicians, leftist DAs and media simps to shield it from deserved legal repercussions will result in people getting hurt, and now we have the expected result.

 

[Abhorsen]

If that is the law, then the law is ridiculous and needs to be changed. ITG postings on the internet are not a crime under 1A, and especially they aren't a crime warranting stripping someone of the right to self-defense.

No, the law is if you intend to provoke a fight, you lose your right to self defense. It basically stops murders by bringing a concealed gun to meet up with someone you hate, and pissing them off enough to get them to attack you, then killing them in 'self defense'.

There's a difference between going to a place even if it's dangerous because you have the right to be there, and going to a place because you want to provoke an argument and kill someone.

Now given a friend of Perry's literally pointed the above out on facebook messenger when Perry was talking about trying to provoke a self defense scenario, it becomes IMO probable that this is what Perry was doing, with some other facts. But I still don't see it as beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Marduk]

No, the law is if you intend to provoke a fight, you lose your right to self defense.

By that logic, all the people in the provocative roadblock also have no right to self defense, it's all up to interpretation.

It basically stops murders by bringing a concealed gun to meet up with someone you hate, and pissing them off enough to get them to attack you, then killing them in 'self defense'.

That's pretty ridiculous, if that is the law at all.
So, by that logic, pissing off people who have poor self control is illegal, unless:
a) You don't defend yourself if they attack you
b) Are genuinely surprised that they have poor self control

There's a difference between going to a place even if it's dangerous because you have the right to be there, and going to a place because you want to provoke an argument and kill someone.

Yeah...
Did he provoke the dangerous standoff, or did the other side provoke it with their illegal roadblock?
Can both sides provoke it at the same time?

Now given a friend of Perry's literally pointed the above out on facebook messenger when Perry was talking about trying to provoke a self defense scenario, it becomes IMO probable that this is what Perry was doing, with some other facts. But I still don't see it as beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's pretty stupid to talk of it, still, shouldn't be illegal.
I could understand that logic if the people setting up illegal roadblocks were also sentenced for "provoking a self defense scenario" and more illegal acts beyond that, but as we see, this is overall a situation that should not be allowed to happen in the first place.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'm surprised they got him convicted on a murder charge instead of a lesser charge with a less stringent threshold.

 

[Abhorsen]

By that logic, all the people in the provocative roadblock also have no right to self defense, it's all up to interpretation.

No. Again, you aren't reading what I'm saying: Doing something trying to provoke a fight? That's a problem. Any self defense person will tell you the same: you aren't acting in self defense when you do something with the intent of causing a fight, as you are provoking. Going somewhere that's likely to cause a fight but you have the legal right to be there? Not a problem. That's why Texas has a no duty to retreat clause.

The provoking clause matters a ton, when, you know, you talk about inciting people:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

statutes.capitol.texas.gov

Yeah...
Did he provoke the dangerous standoff, or did the other side provoke it with their illegal roadblock?
Can both sides provoke it at the same time?

Yes. Also, both sides can have valid self defense at the same time.

That's pretty ridiculous, if that is the law at all.
So, by that logic, pissing off people who have poor self control is illegal, unless:
a) You don't defend yourself if they attack you
b) Are genuinely surprised that they have poor self control

Note, words don't count. It means doing aggressive actions, even if they'd otherwise be legal, like, say trying to drive your truck through them.

 

[Marduk]

No. Again, you aren't reading what I'm saying: Doing something trying to provoke a fight? That's a problem. Any self defense person will tell you the same: you aren't acting in self defense when you do something with the intent of causing a fight, as you are provoking. Going somewhere that's likely to cause a fight but you have the legal right to be there? Not a problem. That's why Texas has a no duty to retreat clause.

The provoking clause matters a ton, when, you know, you talk about inciting people:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

statutes.capitol.texas.gov

Can you point to the exact paragraph relevant to the significance of non-immediate, privately discussed steted intent regarding the situation in general?
Because what i've found there is:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), 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. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

The article suggests 1A and\or 1B were fulfilled, while on the other side, C1 "verbal provocation alone", well, dunno if writing counts but that seems like the case here, and the writing wasn't even known to the people involved, 3 doesn't look good for the protester's right to self defense, while 4A may have some interesting relevance here, as it seems that protesters were trying to block the car, attacked it, and tried to issue orders to the driver under such threatening conditions (which obviously seems like an unlawful, aggressive act), rather than removing themselves from the public road, which they absolutely could safely do, but chose not to, while the driver was clearly just trying to pass through, de facto attempting to leave the encounter.

Unfortunately there is no definition of provocation listed there, other than the exception of "verbal provocation alone".

Yes. Also, both sides can have valid self defense at the same time.

In some messed up situations, yes. In this one, in fact the protesters may be damned under 3, as some of the stuff they were doing sounds like at least a class B misdemeanor.
On the other hand, a situation where both sides didn't have valid self defense is also possible.

Note, words don't count. It means doing aggressive actions, even if they'd otherwise be legal, like, say trying to drive your truck through them.

They were banging and kicking his car, which further aggravates the situation, and may fall under 3A.

 

[Abhorsen]

The article suggests 1A and\or 1B were fulfilled, while on the other side, C1 "verbal provocation alone", well, dunno if writing counts but that seems like the case here, and the writing wasn't even known to the people involved, 3 doesn't look good for the protester's right to self defense, while 4A may have some interesting relevance here, as it seems that protesters were trying to block the car, attacked it, and tried to issue orders to the driver under such threatening conditions (which obviously seems like an unlawful, aggressive act), rather than removing themselves from the public road, which they absolutely could safely do, but chose not to, while the driver was clearly just trying to pass through, de facto attempting to leave the encounter.

Unfortunately there is no definition of provocation listed there, other than the exception of "verbal provocation alone".

So first, you quoted the wrong section. You needed 9.32, for deadly force, though it is pretty similar.

Second, you ignored the "And" in 9.31.a.2. Crucially, you can't provoke someone even if 1A or 1B was satisfied. 9.31.a.3 would refer to Perry as the actor (not the protestors), and basically invalidates self defense while committing a crime. He'd have to be convicted of another crime for this to matter, and he wasn't, so Perry passes on that.

Basically, Perry needs all of 1, 2, and 3 to go in his favor (though the burden of proof is on the prosecution, it's just easier to phrase this way). He argued that 1 was hit, and for sake of argument, let's give him this. For 3, Perry was not convicted of another crime, and so clearly passes that as well. The hang up is 2. If he provoked, he loses his self defense claim.

Here's some commentary as to what provoke means in Texas, likely informed by case law and precedent, not just the written down law:

Provoking the difficulty: a limitation on the right to self-defense | Texas District & County Attorneys Association

In a recent murder case, Elizondo v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed jury charge error in the context of self-defense and provocation. Upon the State’s request, the trial court limited…

www.tdcaa.com

Provoking the difficulty
Provoking the difficulty, as the doctrine of provocation is commonly referred to, is a concept in criminal law which acts as a limitation or total bar on a defendant's right to self-defense. The phrase "provoking the difficulty" is legalese that simply translates to "provoked the attack." The concept has its roots in common law, founded upon the theory of estoppel and based on the legal tenet that a man may not take advantage of his own wrong to gain favorable interpretation of the law.
The State is not entitled to a jury charge on provocation precluding the assertion of self-defense unless there is sufficient evidence that:
1) the defendant did some act or used some words that provoked the attack on him;
2) such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack; and
3) the act was done or words were used for the purpose of and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other.
An instruction on provocation should be given only when there is evidence from which a rational jury could find all three of the provocation elements beyond a reasonable doubt. If the facts do not support including an instruction on provoking the difficulty, a trial court errs by submitting it to the jury, because it has limited the defendant's right of self-defense.

So note it's not just that the action provoked the harm. The act also had to be calculated in order to provoke the attack, and the goal of provoking such an attack was to use it as a pretext for doing harm. This is a highish bar to hit, so I'm surprised a jury got there beyond reasonable doubt, but then I have a high threshold for beyond a reasonable doubt (specifically, that I can't imagine any other remotely plausible explanation that fits a fact pattern).

But for a civil trial? Where one is looking for >50%? Oh, yeah, he probably did this all on purpose.

 

[Cherico]

I'm just wondering who takes the ring of power after he goes.

With his money?

I know the left, once he's gone you have a few years a decade tops where the left is super charged with money he deeded to the cause as a final fuck you. Thing is with out some one riding herd, the money is mismanaged, its embezzeled people give themselves massive raises, it gets spent inapropiately and then one day the money is all gone.

Once that point is hit the left looks for a new sugar daddy among the tech bros if they havent already.

 

[Marduk]

So note it's not just that the action provoked the harm. The act also had to be calculated in order to provoke the attack, and the goal of provoking such an attack was to use it as a pretext for doing harm. This is a highish bar to hit, so I'm surprised a jury got there beyond reasonable doubt, but then I have a high threshold for beyond a reasonable doubt (specifically, that I can't imagine any other remotely plausible explanation that fits a fact pattern).

But for a civil trial? Where one is looking for >50%? Oh, yeah, he probably did this all on purpose.

But the civil trial would be on "wrongful death", not self defense. I think the controversy here would be, does perfectly legal action or not refraining from a perfectly legal action count as "pretext" for purposes of 3?
If, say, a mafioso demands protection money with a threat of violence from a business owner, who refuses to pay, provoking the mafioso to attack him, and shoots him in self defense, does that mean that if earlier he has fantasized online about shooting mafiosos in self defense, he's basically legally bound to either pay or take a beating?
I think that would be pretty ridiculous and a reasonable interpretation of the law should not extend such protections to those taking part in outright criminal initiatives.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Governor Abbott apparently has said he's working to pardoning Mike Perry.

BREAKING: Greg Abbott vows to pardon Sgt. Daniel Perry after murder conviction in death of BLM rioter

“I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry.”

thepostmillennial.com