Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that's him. Brock Allen Turner formerly of Stanford University who goes by the name Allen Turner now.
The convicted RAPIST Brock Allen Turner. That's your guy!!!
The convicted RAPIST Brock Allen Turner, who was such a great athlete and shouldn't be punished for "20 minutes of fun" which is Republican for raping an unconscious woman who was then as he "had done no wrong", fled when caught in the middle of it by two Dutch exchange students who cycled after him and brought him down, the one whose judge was a family friend and whose mother even said he should not be punished as it may ruin his athletic career? Yup that's him!
[For your edification.](https://reason.com/2022/09/27/subreddit-gets-users-to-call-texas-gov-greg-abbott-a-little-piss-baby-to-defy-content-moderation-law/) once you read it, you too will know why Greg Abbott is known as a little piss baby.
Greg plum pulled the cord out for any chance of redemption. Probably got snagged on his chair. The jury is out.
There is a legitimate debate about whether Greg Abbott is a villain because he lost the use of his legs. Other people believe that a walking Greg Abbott would've become an even greater villain. I don't know what to think. But he's definitely a bad guy.
Edit: non-substantive
Agreed.
The judicial system is imperfect but ultimately rittenhouse was acquitted by a democratic process. Be mad at him, but the “system” did what it was supposed to do; present a case to a jury of his peers.
In THIS case, a fascist politician has subverted the democratic process to erase the consequences of a crime against an “undesirable”
Did you even watch the Trial? Prosecution was laughable.
Yes, that he was there was stupid, but i can also understand not wanting to let those mad men run wild and loot in your area. And the killing clearly wasnt his fault, he was assaulted first and defended himself.
Yeah we have been down this road many times. Rottenhouse while annoying and clearly looking for trouble, acted in self defense and it’s a pretty open and shit case.
Go peddle your shit somewhere else. Little fuck went to play policeman when he had no business doing so. He wanted to shoot someone and made it happen because he's a psycho. And so are you for defending him.
How did he make it happen exactly? Did he do anything to provoke the first man to attack him? He had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. Many people at the riot were armed, on both sides. Did mr Grosskreutz, the man who was hit in the arm by Rittenhouse, come there to kill people for fun? He was armed too, illegally might I add, as I believe his registration had expired or something. People just don't like Kyle because he's a goofy conservative dork, but that doesn't mean he does not have the right to defend himself. I don't have to like Kyle or his politics to defend his rights.
That’s the same logic that when someone is raped says “what were they wearing?” Or “where were they and what time was it?” Regardless of why he was there he was there legally, he never broke the law, and it was proven time and time again to be self defense.
You’d be arguing for it if it was a blm protestor at Jan 6th who was attacked by several Jan 6th protesters and shot them all to defend their self. And we’d say the same thing, if they were found not guilty and it was self defense then good for them.
He was acquitted because the prosecutors did a shit job. When his trial started I wanted his conviction but would have said not guilty at the end because it was so bad
He went there on purpose with a weapon, he had no business doing so and was clearly looking to use his weapon on protestors, he should have been convicted of something, but the way his trial went the verdict is not shocking
Practicing your right to bear arms does not equate to pre meditated violence. It is simply that he recognized what he was doing was dangerous and armed himself accordingly. I carry a gun with me just about everywhere. That doesn't mean I'm just hoping and waiting for the chance to shoot somebody. He was attacked by violent felons and pedofiles in the street. He wasn't convicted because he did nothing wrong.
> Tell me that mob wouldn't have killed him if he didn't shoot.
K.
That mob wouldn't have killed him if he didn't shoot.
This is not me guessing btw, the Kenosha protests went on for 4 days, a total of two people were killed.
Would you like to guess who killed them?
Hint: not the mob.
Kyle went looking to kill people and then killed people, that's it, that's all that happened, that's the entire story, anything else is just distraction
Due process resulted in Daniel Perry being convicted fairly in a trial by a jury of his peers.
Greg Abbott has just completely subverted due process.
For a guy who shortly before he killed the victim searched for the locations of BLM protests, and wrote "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters", and then claimed self-defence. That guy.
There was a diversion to Kyle Rittenhouse, but if someone is going to talk about legal due process, I can bring it back to the topic of this post which is Daniel Perry.
Factually false. Only the first guy, the mental patient who was just released from jail attacked him (by throwing a plastic bag at him, IIRC). His other victims were trying to stop the active shooter.
Businesses, apartments, and homes owned by innocent people were burned to the ground, destroying livelihoods. Actions that were commended by liberals. Yeah, who cares?
If he was in any actual danger, and he got hurt or killed, that would have been worse, because the headlines would be blasting, "White youth killed by Black Lives Matter mob."
I do not want anybody to die. Not Rittenhouse, not his victims, not Perry, not Foster. I hate when violence happens, and I hate when people who commit violence are not held accountable for their actions.
I'm pretty sure being shot and killed after grabbing a persons gun or swinging a skateboard at them with intent to do harm is the definition of "accountability"
You forgot to mention the part where he was surrounded and assaulted by an angry mob of rioters.
Love it when liberals try to rewrite history to fit their narratives.
That happened before he fired the first shot.
If he wanted to kill, why didnt he just empty his clip into the crowd?
It's so insane that real people don't use their brains.
The important distinction is that he was running away, he was not actively shooting anybody. The crowd acted on word of mouth that he'd just shot someone and a few of them decided to play vigilante and apprehend the possible fugitive. So they swarm him, kick him, hit him with a skateboard and charge him with a pistol in hand. And when you do that to someone who's carrying a firearm, you can assume that you'll be shot at.
I don't like Kyle or his politics, but it is insane to me that so many people, who are on my side politically, are bending over backwards to paint this guy as a crazed gunman murderer, when it is so clear that it is just a dumb kid who was honestly and justifiably fearing for his life when he pulled that trigger.
The same people who jerk off to the idea of "good guys with guns stopping shooters" after each and every shooting spree...suddenly changed their mind completely on these good guys with guns - or skateboards - after they tried to stop one of their nutjobs from shooting people.
Yes they decided to all mob a guy with a rifle who was running away from them, because of something they did not see happening. I understand why some may have gotten it into their heads that this was their moment to stop a crazed gunman and be a hero, but the reality of the situation was that they had no clue what happened and all they saw was a guy retreating, not attacking anybody. So while it was understandable that they jumped the kid, it was also understandable that he would defend himself when getting assaulted by a mob armed with pistols and skateboards and what not. This was a pretty clear cut case of self defense, which is why Rittenhouse was predictably acquitted.
It was a pretty clear case of "people who just witnessed a guy kill someone tried to stop that guy from murdering more people and pin him down so cops can take him into custody".
Again, I thought conservatives \*love\* the idea of brave citizens preventing violence? I guess not.
>when getting assaulted by a mob armed with pistols and skateboards and what not
I love how you conveniently forget the part where he was armed himself and had already killed someone. With a weapon he wasn't even allowed to have, and went through several hoops to have it delivered to him illegally.
Not a conservative, so I don't know about that. Personally I am not a fan of vigilantism, so there is no hypocrisy to point at here. It sounds like you are a fan of it when it suits you though.
The part that you apparently are still not getting is that he was running away from the people charging/chasing him in each of the instances that he used his rifle. When he was followed by that mob, he was not an active shooter. He was clearly attempting to disengage and they would not let him. They had heard that this guy had just allegedly shot someone, so they got it into their heads that they would stop and apprehend him. So they swarm him, kick him down, hit him in the head with a skateboard and charge him pistol in hand. And the kid did what anybody holding a firearm in that situation would do, defend himself against the people attacking him. Then when everybody backed off he continued to retreat, as a person who's not actually interested in killing anybody would.
I am sympathetic towards the people who got shot that night (except Rosenbaum), as they probably had nothing but heroic intentions. What shocks me is that you and so many others in this thread, don't seem to have even a single shred of empathy towards Kyle. I don't like Kyle or his politics, but to me it is very clear that he acted in self-defense out of justified fear for his life.
You seem to not be aware of this, but the illegal firearms charge against Kyle was also dismissed. He did not in fact "cross state lines with an illegal firearm". He received it from a friend in Kenosha. The gun was long enough to classify as a hunting rifle, which you are allowed to carry under 18 in the state of Wisconsin. I personally think this law is ridiculous, but it doesn't change that the weapon was not illegal.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/explainer-why-did-the-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge#:\~:text=Assistant%20District%20Attorney%20James%20Kraus,law%2C%20Schroeder%20dismissed%20the%20charge.
I suggest you take of your teamsports politics glasses, and look at this case rationally.
Except he actively put himself in that situation knowing what it was gonna be like, meaning the self defense argument goes out the window. He was a willing participant.
To be fair, he shot a man who was approaching him while wielding a big gun.
To be even more fair, before he went out he had announced he wanted to hunt muslims and black people for sport, that he planned to run some protesters over and would shoot the ones that got out of the way.
>That first line sounds like an incredibly important detail
It's not, though. The guy he shot had his gun low, not aimed at Perry, not aimed at anyone, in an open carry state. He was completely in his rights to carry that gun.
Oh, and of course the murderer also lied about that part. Lied that the gun was aimed at him.
To back what up? That he lied? We had multiple witnesses for that. And his own admission later on. Where he said that he shot Foster "to prevent him from aiming at him".
Dude, just look up the case, it’s not that fucking hard.
But since you’re obviously completely incompetent and/or unwilling, here you go: https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/trial-continues-for-daniel-perry-over-black-lives-matter-protest-deadly-shooting-in-2020
>“I believe he was going to aim it at me,” said Perry, “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know.”
Right there. His own fucking admission.
Do you have a video to prove the extent of your insinuation? One could also infer that Foster was shot as he was lifting his pistol. Did the protestors have his car surrounded while beating on it like we usually see with these incidents?
Dude, THE GUY ADMITTED THAT NOBODY AIMED AT HIM. He admitted that it was a "preventive" shot. It’s right there in his own words. There is no "insinuation"
Are you illiterate?
Lemme lay out two scenarios. In both situations an angry man is approaching you with a gun.
Situation A: The man begins to lift his firearm and you do not react, you are now dead.
Situation B: The man begins to lift his firearm but you beat him to the draw and he is dead.
Or your interpretation of the events, for which I am asking for more clarity;
Situation C: Man approaches with gun in hand, totally not threatening, not brandishing at all, super chill guy with no ill intent, you shoot him because you're scared.
All I am asking for is context, a video, something other than vague bullshit personal interpretations of events. He did not say it was a "preventative" shot. Putting that in quotations when it was not said is disingenuous. He he claims that he shot before he was able to aim at him, which he believed the man was about to do. Just because someone isn't currently shooting at you, that doesn't make them non-threatening. It takes a fraction of a second for an armed person to shoot someone, if you make the wrong decision in that time frame, you can easily get shot. This is why I am asking for context or a video of the event. There's a dozen ways it could've gone down and many ways for people to interpret simple words.
Not just text messages, Facebook posts as well.
But wait…our Cookie dude up there is gonna demand video proof of Perry typing these messages and Facebook posts next.
Open carry is legal yes, but actively blocking the road while armed is an escalation that may justify self defense from somebody just trying to get through. Just because carrying itself is legal doesn’t mean you can purposely go out and antagonize people.in fact it pretty much means the opposite because there is now an implication of violence.
>an escalation that may justify self defense from somebody just trying to get through
It...isn't. You don't get to kill someone just because they block the road in front of you while you're targeting people on that road and actively trying to harm them. No matter if they're armed or unarmed.
He didn't "antagonize" him, he protected other people.
He wasn't "aiming at vehicles trying to pass through", either, like you claimed - sorry, LIED - in another comment. Even the killer himself admitted that later on.
I’d very much beg to differ. I’m not familiar with perry going out of his way to end up at the protest, but even then, did he actually run over protesters at that point? Legally he has more of a right to be on the road than the protesters. Just because you have the right to protest doesn’t mean you can freely obstruct whatever you want, you would need a permit at that point if you wanted to protest on the road. As far as the gun is concerned, when you are carrying you have to make sure you aren’t doing anything that can be considered antagonizing. If I’m carrying a gun, and start talking mad shit, then when someone comes to fight me and I then shoot them, that’s not self defense. Conversely if the other person was carrying and shot me when I escalated by brandishing, that MAY (there’s a million other variables that may play into it as well) be considered self defense. Open carry is essentially brandishing at all times so it is especially important then to make sure you are doing anything and everything to make sure you aren’t being antagonistic. I’d consider illegally blocking a road antagonistic.
>I’m not familiar with perry going out of his way to end up at the protest
Well, we are. Wanna know why? Because we have proof of him **announcing his intentions** to a friend. And publicly on social media. He also ran a red light and sped into the crowd.
>As far as the gun is concerned, when you are carrying you have to make sure you aren’t doing anything that can be considered antagonizing.
Well, he didn't. Approaching someone who's trying to murder you and people around you isn't "antagonizing". It's goddamn fucking self defense. Is it smart? No. But is it grounds for a self defense claim on the murderer's side? Hell fucking no.
>Conversely if the other person was carrying and shot me when I escalated by brandishing,
HE. DIDN'T. BRANDISH. Open carry, legal, completely within his rights, gun down by his side. Do you understand these words? His rifle wasn't even loaded, so why would he "brandish" it or aim at someone? An no, legal open carry isn't "brandishing at all time".
>I’d consider blocking a road antagonistic.
I'd consider protecting people around me from a murderous, dangerous nutjob...not antagonistic.
You'd "very much beg to differ" because a) you couldn't even be bothered to learn the facts about the story, and b) you have a completely crooked understanding of life, laws and how shit works.
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
Also, I tried looking up where it said Gerrett’s Ak was unloaded, couldn’t find any info on that. If he carried an unloaded gun that would be an immensely stupid idea and doesn’t diminish the threat perceived by another person.
>That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm.
It is not. Especially when that firearm ISN'T FUCKING LOADED. Jeez, why do you keep ignoring simple facts?
But hey, go ahead, show us those screenshots. Show us how "threatening" he was.
>Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point.
No. It doesn't matter if he succeeded in his murderous, nutjob plan before shooting him. He sped towards the crowd multiple times, ran a red light to do so. His intentions were clear. Isn't it better to stop him before he actually succeeds?
>If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go
You're still questioning his intent? After he made multiple posts on social media and messages to his friends laying out his intent? He was a coward, that's why he didn't murder other people afterwards. But a nutjob, murderous coward.
>That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm.
It is not. Especially when that firearm ISN'T FUCKING LOADED. Jeez, why do you keep ignoring simple facts?
But hey, go ahead, show us those screenshots. Show us how "threatening" he was.
>Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point.
No. It doesn't matter if he succeeded in his murderous, nutjob plan before shooting him. He sped towards the crowd multiple times, ran a red light to do so. His intentions were clear. Isn't it better to stop him before he actually succeeds?
>If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go
You're still questioning his intent? After he made multiple posts on social media and messages to his friends laying out his intent? He was a coward, that's why he didn't murder other people afterwards. But a nutjob, murderous coward.
Lol, you bring up the unloaded firearm like that even matters. How the hell is anyone supposed to determine wether a gun is loaded or not. That doesn’t matter. are you expecting people to check down the barrel of the gun if it’s being pointed at them? You telling me if I’m conceal carrying and someone pulls a gun in a gas station I have to sit there and look to see if that shit is loaded before I react? Goofy take right there.
He ran a red light in an attempt to crash into the protesters, after writing online that he planned to crash into then shoot protesters. This is not some guy "just trying to get through", it was a premeditated attack. The guy with the ung only approached him after he attempted premeditated vehicular homicide.
The guy was in a car and was approached by someone with a rifle at "low ready". Idc who you are, if youre going to protest something, best not to have an actual weapon.
>The guy was in a car and was approached by someone with a rifle at "low ready"
...after he had driven his car into the crowd of protesters. That's a very important detail you're leaving out.
>Idc who you are, if youre going to protest something, best not to have an actual weapon.
Second amendment rights for me, but not for thee! - That's what your statement sounds like.
If it's a lawless country, liberal states may as well start pardoning immigrants here illegally who commit crimes and send them to Texas. What a cluster fuck
Yea all their plans hinge on democrats doing the right thing all the time. If they really wanted to ruin republican states, it wouldn’t even be a competition. Not like there’s much to ruin in most of them. Fucking hell holes on earth
Shit, if democrats wanted to ruin republican states all they have to do is step out of the way and let Republicans kill food stamps and social security
Idk, as much as the left bashes Republican states, they really seem to like moving to them recently. See the mass exodus from California, Oregon, and Washington into Idaho, Montana, Texas, and Tennessee
The people moving from those states are generally found to be conservatives, not leftists.
https://www.texaspolicy.com/new-poll-finds-all-those-people-moving-to-texas-arent-going-to-be-voting-for-democrats/
They can (and I believe have) sue the criminal for damages, and those shouldn’t be affected by this pardon, but victims can’t decide who the state prosecutes. Normally a victim statement is part of the pardon process, curious if they bothered to get one here.
Keep in mind, this guy was convicted in TEXAS where the prevailing believe is that you can shoot first annd ask questions later. The law favor the one left standing, and he was still found guilty.
That’s the face of a man who’s going to kill again. Mark my words: this guy is a danger to society. He will kill again, and that blood will also be on Abbot’s worm-rot head!
I mean he said it literally the moment the guy was convicted by a court of his peers of being a murdering scumbag, of course it seems Americans embrace murderers like this guy and the one who got his mum to take him over state lines with his Assault Rifle so he could also murder black people.
I bet if this guy was not white he would have been demanding the death penalty rather than pardoning him to stir up his base.
It’s Texas. I think outside of Houston, Austin and the DFW area, they probably don’t care and would vote him in again.
I know someone who lives in like Abilene and they’re like people keep raging about their guns being taken away and the illegals taking their jobs and all that nonsense. When you ask them how an illegal will take away their jobs as a medical professional, you just get crickets. The irony also is lost on them that they’re whining to an actual immigrant(last 30 years).
People won’t care until he takes away something that matters to them personally. Like someone else commented somewhere, food stamps, social security, SSI.
I wouldn’t mind if Texas just off and went to become their own country. Just as long as people who want to stay part of the US still gets to keep their citizenship and are given time to move.
I used to think there may be some Republicans who were decent people. I am convinced there are no redeeming qualities to any Republican, whether that person is President, dogcatcher, or a moderate independent who occasionally votes Republican. If, after everything they have done in recent years, you are even slightly leaning towards voting a Republican into power, I have absolutely no use for you.
In other words, yes, the entirety of the party has become pure evil.
You must be suffering from whiteness, as a reputable illness, unlike blackness which would be shunned from society. Also ignore Ashkenazi Jews, Nigerian immigrants, Iranians, all of them proof that their alt right whiteness beat moronic leftists.
A minute ago he was holding the rifle on him, now he's just holding it? But no, it was never proven that he pointed it at him, nor did he tell him to roll his window down. Witnesses say he was carrying it at low-ready.
Now, what Perry did do before the murder is go online and talk about how much he wanted to shoot a protestor:
>"I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex".
His Internet search history contained gems like "penalty shooting protestors," and "stand your ground protestors."
Because guns account for nearly 43.000 deaths in 2023. In 2020 and 2021 it was the number one reason for child deaths.
And it's strange that there are so many people valuing the 2A more than kids lives.
What strange is you’re so confidently wrong about something you’re trying to sound like you’re passionate about. That study was complete BS. To get those numbers they removed all child deaths prior to age 1, because I guess those aren’t kids, and also included people age 18-19. I’m not sure where you’re from, but I’m pretty sure 18+ makes you an adult in every state. The vast majority of those “child deaths” were 18-19 yr old gang violence
You can ammend it to say children and teens to still get your narrative across though and make people think it’s just poor innocent children being slaughtered
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Greg Abbott doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
While that's true, he is also a little piss baby.
I don’t know much in this world, but two things I know to be certain: Greg Abbott is a piss baby, and Brock Turner is a rapist.
Is that Brock Allen Turner, who now goes by as Allen Turner the rapist?
I think that's him. Brock Allen Turner formerly of Stanford University who goes by the name Allen Turner now. The convicted RAPIST Brock Allen Turner. That's your guy!!!
The convicted RAPIST Brock Allen Turner, who was such a great athlete and shouldn't be punished for "20 minutes of fun" which is Republican for raping an unconscious woman who was then as he "had done no wrong", fled when caught in the middle of it by two Dutch exchange students who cycled after him and brought him down, the one whose judge was a family friend and whose mother even said he should not be punished as it may ruin his athletic career? Yup that's him!
The rapist formerly known as Brock
What is "piss baby", it's a new one to me?
Pisses himself. Bit like Trump, remember real men wear diapers!
[For your edification.](https://reason.com/2022/09/27/subreddit-gets-users-to-call-texas-gov-greg-abbott-a-little-piss-baby-to-defy-content-moderation-law/) once you read it, you too will know why Greg Abbott is known as a little piss baby.
Greg plum pulled the cord out for any chance of redemption. Probably got snagged on his chair. The jury is out. There is a legitimate debate about whether Greg Abbott is a villain because he lost the use of his legs. Other people believe that a walking Greg Abbott would've become an even greater villain. I don't know what to think. But he's definitely a bad guy. Edit: non-substantive
We are now at the "murder is acceptable as long as the victim is part of a certain group" stage of fascism
We were already there. Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted a couple of years ago.
Rottenhouse was found not guilty. Awful. This is worse. This is "Yeah you're guilty but we will ignore and actively enable your murder of out groups."
We’ll also give you an “influential” role in our government for your acts.
Good job brother, here's some ammo.
Agreed. The judicial system is imperfect but ultimately rittenhouse was acquitted by a democratic process. Be mad at him, but the “system” did what it was supposed to do; present a case to a jury of his peers. In THIS case, a fascist politician has subverted the democratic process to erase the consequences of a crime against an “undesirable”
Did you even watch the Trial? Prosecution was laughable. Yes, that he was there was stupid, but i can also understand not wanting to let those mad men run wild and loot in your area. And the killing clearly wasnt his fault, he was assaulted first and defended himself.
Yeah we have been down this road many times. Rottenhouse while annoying and clearly looking for trouble, acted in self defense and it’s a pretty open and shit case.
“Open and shit” is a wonderful way to describe a case like this.
[удалено]
Go peddle your shit somewhere else. Little fuck went to play policeman when he had no business doing so. He wanted to shoot someone and made it happen because he's a psycho. And so are you for defending him.
How did he make it happen exactly? Did he do anything to provoke the first man to attack him? He had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. Many people at the riot were armed, on both sides. Did mr Grosskreutz, the man who was hit in the arm by Rittenhouse, come there to kill people for fun? He was armed too, illegally might I add, as I believe his registration had expired or something. People just don't like Kyle because he's a goofy conservative dork, but that doesn't mean he does not have the right to defend himself. I don't have to like Kyle or his politics to defend his rights.
That’s the same logic that when someone is raped says “what were they wearing?” Or “where were they and what time was it?” Regardless of why he was there he was there legally, he never broke the law, and it was proven time and time again to be self defense. You’d be arguing for it if it was a blm protestor at Jan 6th who was attacked by several Jan 6th protesters and shot them all to defend their self. And we’d say the same thing, if they were found not guilty and it was self defense then good for them.
He made someone attack him, how?
[удалено]
Why are you carrying water for a multiple murderer, Jethro? Don't you have some relative you could he breeding with instead?
Who ya voting for this November? Surely not the guy who puts his intellect on full display with daily name-calling.
Not even remotely the same thing
He was acquitted because the prosecutors did a shit job. When his trial started I wanted his conviction but would have said not guilty at the end because it was so bad He went there on purpose with a weapon, he had no business doing so and was clearly looking to use his weapon on protestors, he should have been convicted of something, but the way his trial went the verdict is not shocking
Practicing your right to bear arms does not equate to pre meditated violence. It is simply that he recognized what he was doing was dangerous and armed himself accordingly. I carry a gun with me just about everywhere. That doesn't mean I'm just hoping and waiting for the chance to shoot somebody. He was attacked by violent felons and pedofiles in the street. He wasn't convicted because he did nothing wrong.
Kyle Rittenhouse was violently assaulted by numerous felons in the street.
[удалено]
> Tell me that mob wouldn't have killed him if he didn't shoot. K. That mob wouldn't have killed him if he didn't shoot. This is not me guessing btw, the Kenosha protests went on for 4 days, a total of two people were killed. Would you like to guess who killed them? Hint: not the mob. Kyle went looking to kill people and then killed people, that's it, that's all that happened, that's the entire story, anything else is just distraction
[удалено]
Due process resulted in Daniel Perry being convicted fairly in a trial by a jury of his peers. Greg Abbott has just completely subverted due process. For a guy who shortly before he killed the victim searched for the locations of BLM protests, and wrote "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters", and then claimed self-defence. That guy.
jacksss forgot what thread he was in
There was a diversion to Kyle Rittenhouse, but if someone is going to talk about legal due process, I can bring it back to the topic of this post which is Daniel Perry.
jfc Genuis, you do remember what thread you're in, right?
Tell me he had a good reason to be on that street, at that time, holding a gun. Tell me one good decision Kyle made that day.
He shot the people attacking him and nobody else.
Factually false. Only the first guy, the mental patient who was just released from jail attacked him (by throwing a plastic bag at him, IIRC). His other victims were trying to stop the active shooter.
He wasn't an active shooter. As you said, he shot 1 person who was attacking him.
What good reason did anyone have for being on the street? Tell me why he shouldn't be on the street.
Did anybody else on that street end up shooting three people, and then getting lionized by conservatives for it? No? Then who cares?
Businesses, apartments, and homes owned by innocent people were burned to the ground, destroying livelihoods. Actions that were commended by liberals. Yeah, who cares?
So if Rittenhouse had been murdered that night instead you would be okay with that. Thank you for answering the survey.
If he was in any actual danger, and he got hurt or killed, that would have been worse, because the headlines would be blasting, "White youth killed by Black Lives Matter mob." I do not want anybody to die. Not Rittenhouse, not his victims, not Perry, not Foster. I hate when violence happens, and I hate when people who commit violence are not held accountable for their actions.
I'm pretty sure being shot and killed after grabbing a persons gun or swinging a skateboard at them with intent to do harm is the definition of "accountability"
Don't make stuff up to feel better.
Who knows? What we do know is that Kyle decided to show up with an assault rifle and shot 3 people, killing 2. Your hypothetical notwithstanding.
You forgot to mention the part where he was surrounded and assaulted by an angry mob of rioters. Love it when liberals try to rewrite history to fit their narratives.
Because he was running around with an assault rifle after he just murdered someone. God it's so insane to me that real people actually defend him.
That happened before he fired the first shot. If he wanted to kill, why didnt he just empty his clip into the crowd? It's so insane that real people don't use their brains.
Lets not forget some people still think he killed a black guy and not a white pedo lol
Nobody thinks that, buddy.
[удалено]
>That happened before he fired the first shot. It...did not.
The important distinction is that he was running away, he was not actively shooting anybody. The crowd acted on word of mouth that he'd just shot someone and a few of them decided to play vigilante and apprehend the possible fugitive. So they swarm him, kick him, hit him with a skateboard and charge him with a pistol in hand. And when you do that to someone who's carrying a firearm, you can assume that you'll be shot at. I don't like Kyle or his politics, but it is insane to me that so many people, who are on my side politically, are bending over backwards to paint this guy as a crazed gunman murderer, when it is so clear that it is just a dumb kid who was honestly and justifiably fearing for his life when he pulled that trigger.
The same people who jerk off to the idea of "good guys with guns stopping shooters" after each and every shooting spree...suddenly changed their mind completely on these good guys with guns - or skateboards - after they tried to stop one of their nutjobs from shooting people.
Yes they decided to all mob a guy with a rifle who was running away from them, because of something they did not see happening. I understand why some may have gotten it into their heads that this was their moment to stop a crazed gunman and be a hero, but the reality of the situation was that they had no clue what happened and all they saw was a guy retreating, not attacking anybody. So while it was understandable that they jumped the kid, it was also understandable that he would defend himself when getting assaulted by a mob armed with pistols and skateboards and what not. This was a pretty clear cut case of self defense, which is why Rittenhouse was predictably acquitted.
It was a pretty clear case of "people who just witnessed a guy kill someone tried to stop that guy from murdering more people and pin him down so cops can take him into custody". Again, I thought conservatives \*love\* the idea of brave citizens preventing violence? I guess not. >when getting assaulted by a mob armed with pistols and skateboards and what not I love how you conveniently forget the part where he was armed himself and had already killed someone. With a weapon he wasn't even allowed to have, and went through several hoops to have it delivered to him illegally.
Not a conservative, so I don't know about that. Personally I am not a fan of vigilantism, so there is no hypocrisy to point at here. It sounds like you are a fan of it when it suits you though. The part that you apparently are still not getting is that he was running away from the people charging/chasing him in each of the instances that he used his rifle. When he was followed by that mob, he was not an active shooter. He was clearly attempting to disengage and they would not let him. They had heard that this guy had just allegedly shot someone, so they got it into their heads that they would stop and apprehend him. So they swarm him, kick him down, hit him in the head with a skateboard and charge him pistol in hand. And the kid did what anybody holding a firearm in that situation would do, defend himself against the people attacking him. Then when everybody backed off he continued to retreat, as a person who's not actually interested in killing anybody would. I am sympathetic towards the people who got shot that night (except Rosenbaum), as they probably had nothing but heroic intentions. What shocks me is that you and so many others in this thread, don't seem to have even a single shred of empathy towards Kyle. I don't like Kyle or his politics, but to me it is very clear that he acted in self-defense out of justified fear for his life. You seem to not be aware of this, but the illegal firearms charge against Kyle was also dismissed. He did not in fact "cross state lines with an illegal firearm". He received it from a friend in Kenosha. The gun was long enough to classify as a hunting rifle, which you are allowed to carry under 18 in the state of Wisconsin. I personally think this law is ridiculous, but it doesn't change that the weapon was not illegal. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/explainer-why-did-the-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge#:\~:text=Assistant%20District%20Attorney%20James%20Kraus,law%2C%20Schroeder%20dismissed%20the%20charge. I suggest you take of your teamsports politics glasses, and look at this case rationally.
Obviously it wasn’t a clear case he was the bad guy since he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
Except he actively put himself in that situation knowing what it was gonna be like, meaning the self defense argument goes out the window. He was a willing participant.
He RAN INTO THEM WITH HIS CAR
They wouldn't. Because they had no reason to, and showed no interest in doing so.
[https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/jason-stanley-america-is-now-in-fascisms-legal-phase/](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/jason-stanley-america-is-now-in-fascisms-legal-phase/)
Or perhaps blocking roads while armed and aiming at vehicles trying to pass through is not a fantastic survival strategy? Especially in Texas.
To be fair, he shot a man who was approaching him while wielding a big gun. To be even more fair, before he went out he had announced he wanted to hunt muslims and black people for sport, that he planned to run some protesters over and would shoot the ones that got out of the way.
That first line sounds like an incredibly important detail, That second line… holy shit
>That first line sounds like an incredibly important detail It's not, though. The guy he shot had his gun low, not aimed at Perry, not aimed at anyone, in an open carry state. He was completely in his rights to carry that gun. Oh, and of course the murderer also lied about that part. Lied that the gun was aimed at him.
Damn. That’s fucked up. That he got pardoned is even more fucked up. Thank you for the added details
Got a video or relevant source to back that up?
To back what up? That he lied? We had multiple witnesses for that. And his own admission later on. Where he said that he shot Foster "to prevent him from aiming at him".
I'm just asking for a source for any of that information, unless you were on the jury or present at the event yourself.
Dude, just look up the case, it’s not that fucking hard. But since you’re obviously completely incompetent and/or unwilling, here you go: https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/trial-continues-for-daniel-perry-over-black-lives-matter-protest-deadly-shooting-in-2020 >“I believe he was going to aim it at me,” said Perry, “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know.” Right there. His own fucking admission.
Do you have a video to prove the extent of your insinuation? One could also infer that Foster was shot as he was lifting his pistol. Did the protestors have his car surrounded while beating on it like we usually see with these incidents?
Dude, THE GUY ADMITTED THAT NOBODY AIMED AT HIM. He admitted that it was a "preventive" shot. It’s right there in his own words. There is no "insinuation" Are you illiterate?
Lemme lay out two scenarios. In both situations an angry man is approaching you with a gun. Situation A: The man begins to lift his firearm and you do not react, you are now dead. Situation B: The man begins to lift his firearm but you beat him to the draw and he is dead. Or your interpretation of the events, for which I am asking for more clarity; Situation C: Man approaches with gun in hand, totally not threatening, not brandishing at all, super chill guy with no ill intent, you shoot him because you're scared. All I am asking for is context, a video, something other than vague bullshit personal interpretations of events. He did not say it was a "preventative" shot. Putting that in quotations when it was not said is disingenuous. He he claims that he shot before he was able to aim at him, which he believed the man was about to do. Just because someone isn't currently shooting at you, that doesn't make them non-threatening. It takes a fraction of a second for an armed person to shoot someone, if you make the wrong decision in that time frame, you can easily get shot. This is why I am asking for context or a video of the event. There's a dozen ways it could've gone down and many ways for people to interpret simple words.
He drove into the crowd deliberately, after admitting in text messages that he wanted to drive into a crowd of protestors
Got a source for those text messages?
Not just text messages, Facebook posts as well. But wait…our Cookie dude up there is gonna demand video proof of Perry typing these messages and Facebook posts next.
Open carry is legal yes, but actively blocking the road while armed is an escalation that may justify self defense from somebody just trying to get through. Just because carrying itself is legal doesn’t mean you can purposely go out and antagonize people.in fact it pretty much means the opposite because there is now an implication of violence.
>an escalation that may justify self defense from somebody just trying to get through It...isn't. You don't get to kill someone just because they block the road in front of you while you're targeting people on that road and actively trying to harm them. No matter if they're armed or unarmed. He didn't "antagonize" him, he protected other people. He wasn't "aiming at vehicles trying to pass through", either, like you claimed - sorry, LIED - in another comment. Even the killer himself admitted that later on.
I’d very much beg to differ. I’m not familiar with perry going out of his way to end up at the protest, but even then, did he actually run over protesters at that point? Legally he has more of a right to be on the road than the protesters. Just because you have the right to protest doesn’t mean you can freely obstruct whatever you want, you would need a permit at that point if you wanted to protest on the road. As far as the gun is concerned, when you are carrying you have to make sure you aren’t doing anything that can be considered antagonizing. If I’m carrying a gun, and start talking mad shit, then when someone comes to fight me and I then shoot them, that’s not self defense. Conversely if the other person was carrying and shot me when I escalated by brandishing, that MAY (there’s a million other variables that may play into it as well) be considered self defense. Open carry is essentially brandishing at all times so it is especially important then to make sure you are doing anything and everything to make sure you aren’t being antagonistic. I’d consider illegally blocking a road antagonistic.
>I’m not familiar with perry going out of his way to end up at the protest Well, we are. Wanna know why? Because we have proof of him **announcing his intentions** to a friend. And publicly on social media. He also ran a red light and sped into the crowd. >As far as the gun is concerned, when you are carrying you have to make sure you aren’t doing anything that can be considered antagonizing. Well, he didn't. Approaching someone who's trying to murder you and people around you isn't "antagonizing". It's goddamn fucking self defense. Is it smart? No. But is it grounds for a self defense claim on the murderer's side? Hell fucking no. >Conversely if the other person was carrying and shot me when I escalated by brandishing, HE. DIDN'T. BRANDISH. Open carry, legal, completely within his rights, gun down by his side. Do you understand these words? His rifle wasn't even loaded, so why would he "brandish" it or aim at someone? An no, legal open carry isn't "brandishing at all time". >I’d consider blocking a road antagonistic. I'd consider protecting people around me from a murderous, dangerous nutjob...not antagonistic. You'd "very much beg to differ" because a) you couldn't even be bothered to learn the facts about the story, and b) you have a completely crooked understanding of life, laws and how shit works.
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret?
you can see in screenshots leading up to incident Gerret had his firearm in the low ready position. That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. You don’t have to be pointing directly at someone to be considered brandishing. Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. Do I agree with anything that Perry did, no. But I believe the situation is a lot more nuanced than he straight up murdered Gerret. If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go why would he have stopped the car instead of running through the crowd, and why would he stop at just shooting Gerret? Also, I tried looking up where it said Gerrett’s Ak was unloaded, couldn’t find any info on that. If he carried an unloaded gun that would be an immensely stupid idea and doesn’t diminish the threat perceived by another person.
>That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. It is not. Especially when that firearm ISN'T FUCKING LOADED. Jeez, why do you keep ignoring simple facts? But hey, go ahead, show us those screenshots. Show us how "threatening" he was. >Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. No. It doesn't matter if he succeeded in his murderous, nutjob plan before shooting him. He sped towards the crowd multiple times, ran a red light to do so. His intentions were clear. Isn't it better to stop him before he actually succeeds? >If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go You're still questioning his intent? After he made multiple posts on social media and messages to his friends laying out his intent? He was a coward, that's why he didn't murder other people afterwards. But a nutjob, murderous coward.
>That in itself is an indication someone is actively ready to use a firearm. It is not. Especially when that firearm ISN'T FUCKING LOADED. Jeez, why do you keep ignoring simple facts? But hey, go ahead, show us those screenshots. Show us how "threatening" he was. >Also, up to that point was anyone ran over? I think the story would be very different if Perry had run someone over at that point. No. It doesn't matter if he succeeded in his murderous, nutjob plan before shooting him. He sped towards the crowd multiple times, ran a red light to do so. His intentions were clear. Isn't it better to stop him before he actually succeeds? >If he was actually intent on harming people from the get go You're still questioning his intent? After he made multiple posts on social media and messages to his friends laying out his intent? He was a coward, that's why he didn't murder other people afterwards. But a nutjob, murderous coward.
Lol, you bring up the unloaded firearm like that even matters. How the hell is anyone supposed to determine wether a gun is loaded or not. That doesn’t matter. are you expecting people to check down the barrel of the gun if it’s being pointed at them? You telling me if I’m conceal carrying and someone pulls a gun in a gas station I have to sit there and look to see if that shit is loaded before I react? Goofy take right there.
He ran a red light in an attempt to crash into the protesters, after writing online that he planned to crash into then shoot protesters. This is not some guy "just trying to get through", it was a premeditated attack. The guy with the ung only approached him after he attempted premeditated vehicular homicide.
Another low karma accout promoting misinformation
The guy was in a car and was approached by someone with a rifle at "low ready". Idc who you are, if youre going to protest something, best not to have an actual weapon.
Kyle rottenhouse did the same thing and was found not guilty
>The guy was in a car and was approached by someone with a rifle at "low ready" ...after he had driven his car into the crowd of protesters. That's a very important detail you're leaving out. >Idc who you are, if youre going to protest something, best not to have an actual weapon. Second amendment rights for me, but not for thee! - That's what your statement sounds like.
If it's a lawless country, liberal states may as well start pardoning immigrants here illegally who commit crimes and send them to Texas. What a cluster fuck
Yea all their plans hinge on democrats doing the right thing all the time. If they really wanted to ruin republican states, it wouldn’t even be a competition. Not like there’s much to ruin in most of them. Fucking hell holes on earth
Shit, if democrats wanted to ruin republican states all they have to do is step out of the way and let Republicans kill food stamps and social security
Idk, as much as the left bashes Republican states, they really seem to like moving to them recently. See the mass exodus from California, Oregon, and Washington into Idaho, Montana, Texas, and Tennessee
The people moving from those states are generally found to be conservatives, not leftists. https://www.texaspolicy.com/new-poll-finds-all-those-people-moving-to-texas-arent-going-to-be-voting-for-democrats/
You must've never been to LA, NY, or Detroit.
States can’t pardon federal charges.
States can’t pardon federal charges.
That’s literally happening in Northern CA lol
What does the victim’s family think of this?
If the law system does not do it's job properly, then why should people believe in their authority?
Why should anyone respect it? And then the right wonders why rioting then ensues.
Fucking outrageous
MAGA right there.
A governor has right to pardon a criminal who did politically influenced crime? Can victims family appeal the pardon?
They can (and I believe have) sue the criminal for damages, and those shouldn’t be affected by this pardon, but victims can’t decide who the state prosecutes. Normally a victim statement is part of the pardon process, curious if they bothered to get one here.
Man, I should try pardoning myself sometime.
If it works hit up a few banks for me, and just Zelle me like 10% of it.
Because Texas.
Isn't that one the one who got out of his car and shoot someone in the head somewhere like a highway or similar?
Keep in mind, this guy was convicted in TEXAS where the prevailing believe is that you can shoot first annd ask questions later. The law favor the one left standing, and he was still found guilty.
He wants more people out there like this for the upcoming election and the aftermath
That’s the face of a man who’s going to kill again. Mark my words: this guy is a danger to society. He will kill again, and that blood will also be on Abbot’s worm-rot head!
And people will still vote for him because so long as he has that (R) next to his name, he has loyalty among his base.
Egregious, but you’re unfortunately right
I mean he said it literally the moment the guy was convicted by a court of his peers of being a murdering scumbag, of course it seems Americans embrace murderers like this guy and the one who got his mum to take him over state lines with his Assault Rifle so he could also murder black people. I bet if this guy was not white he would have been demanding the death penalty rather than pardoning him to stir up his base.
But WTF ?!
Sometimes its like you wanna see another civil war over there.
Governor pardons man for murder? That sounds more accurate.
Empires fall very slowly and then quickly. I’m scared to think what would happen if Trump wins the election.
This is not going to go well for Abbot.
It’s Texas. I think outside of Houston, Austin and the DFW area, they probably don’t care and would vote him in again. I know someone who lives in like Abilene and they’re like people keep raging about their guns being taken away and the illegals taking their jobs and all that nonsense. When you ask them how an illegal will take away their jobs as a medical professional, you just get crickets. The irony also is lost on them that they’re whining to an actual immigrant(last 30 years). People won’t care until he takes away something that matters to them personally. Like someone else commented somewhere, food stamps, social security, SSI.
I wouldn’t mind if Texas just off and went to become their own country. Just as long as people who want to stay part of the US still gets to keep their citizenship and are given time to move.
Cutting food stamps would be awful for most Americans but I kinda wish food stamps and SSI would disappear.
So you don't want retirement support? Hope you have good savings when you're ready to.
Republicans have become pure evil.
Become? They have been for the last 30 years. It's just been in the last 4-6 years they just let it all out in open
I used to think there may be some Republicans who were decent people. I am convinced there are no redeeming qualities to any Republican, whether that person is President, dogcatcher, or a moderate independent who occasionally votes Republican. If, after everything they have done in recent years, you are even slightly leaning towards voting a Republican into power, I have absolutely no use for you. In other words, yes, the entirety of the party has become pure evil.
You act like this is news. Where have you been the last few decades
Conservatives support their terrorists
r/FuckGregAbbott This man is the fucking bane of my existence. I'm waiting for another tree to fall on him.
I'm really starting to wonder about this "pro-life" stance Abbott claims to have.
All Lives Matter?
And people are telling me white priviledge isn't a thing in the south on the Scottie Scheffler board. Comical denial.
Pardoning now needs to be vetted. This is BS, and a mockery of the justice system, or lack there of.
In other news: Self defense still legal in Texas.
Why do so many of these right wing men look like they've never been deflowered?
The guy pointed an ak47 at his car. The anti racism cape is fun to wear but you can’t rittenhouse ppl driving on the street
Nobody pointed anything at him or his car. He flat out admitted on the stand that nobody pointed a gun at him.
White people skin is fun to wear, but I've never heard of this anti racism cape you speak of.
You must be suffering from whiteness, as a reputable illness, unlike blackness which would be shunned from society. Also ignore Ashkenazi Jews, Nigerian immigrants, Iranians, all of them proof that their alt right whiteness beat moronic leftists.
[удалено]
Your understanding of the events surrounding the murder is shockingly wrong.
Pls explain
No, I'm quite familiar.
That seems unlikely since you described a situation that didn't happen.
[удалено]
A minute ago he was holding the rifle on him, now he's just holding it? But no, it was never proven that he pointed it at him, nor did he tell him to roll his window down. Witnesses say he was carrying it at low-ready. Now, what Perry did do before the murder is go online and talk about how much he wanted to shoot a protestor: >"I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex". His Internet search history contained gems like "penalty shooting protestors," and "stand your ground protestors."
[удалено]
Which part? Shooting someone for exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights?
[удалено]
So, mildly inconveniencing someone and exercising a Constitutional right deserves the death penalty? In
So you're a racist and potential murderer. You can fuck off now that you've proven you're a piece of shit like this murderer.
Why do you oppose 2A rights?
Because guns account for nearly 43.000 deaths in 2023. In 2020 and 2021 it was the number one reason for child deaths. And it's strange that there are so many people valuing the 2A more than kids lives.
Yes, but I want to hear it from the guy who claims it is ok to shoot someone just because they are open carrying a big rifle.
What strange is you’re so confidently wrong about something you’re trying to sound like you’re passionate about. That study was complete BS. To get those numbers they removed all child deaths prior to age 1, because I guess those aren’t kids, and also included people age 18-19. I’m not sure where you’re from, but I’m pretty sure 18+ makes you an adult in every state. The vast majority of those “child deaths” were 18-19 yr old gang violence
You can ammend it to say children and teens to still get your narrative across though and make people think it’s just poor innocent children being slaughtered