Some of the side by side videos in the news stories had that. Sorry, not going to fish fo links right now.
2 Likes
Like was he accomplice to the crime?
2 Likes
Like IDK, it’s been proposed in this thread a person should be in jail for bringing a gun to a protest, and also that carrying to a place of nuisance (for example, a protest) is or should be illegal.
Not ideas I am liking
3 Likes
Similarly, since we’re USCCA members,
CCW permit ≠ carrying while participating in protests
2 Likes
This quote on foxnews.com:
“The “stand your ground” law prohibits an individual from arguing self-defense if they provoked a threat from someone else. Witnesses said that Perry seemed to drive threateningly into the crowd before shots were fired, and his actions seemed intentional.”
That’s the clincher. If, indeed, Perry drove his car into a crowd “threateningly”, he could not claim self defense.
In the absence of video evidence, finding an unbiased witness would probably have been nearly impossible.
My conclusion: stay away from crap like BLM/Antifa protests, period.
7 Likes
Unless (and this is a big if) Perry first used his car as a threatening/deadly weapon.
4 Likes
Exactly!!! Law-abiding citizens who drive cars (potentially deadly) and carry self-defense weapons (potentially deadly) are NOT the problem, never have been, never will be!
3 Likes
“beyond reasonable doubt”, right?
3 Likes
Are you denying that BLM have been known for many years prior for blocking roads, arson, etc. criminal and disruptive behaviors during protest? “Fry’em like bacon” and such? I have to assume any gun brought to the protest was not for personal protection, or to illustrate a point, but for intimidation, Illegal in most states.
Shooting at Perry’s car, as he was escaping, by 3rd person (who was not caught by police) proves my point.
1 Like
I get your point but I would tread carefully.
Similar to banning TikTok which gives big government power to ban any and all internet access.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
1 Like
How did we move from motives and intentions on trial to government bans? I didnt say govt should ban anything. Laws against rioting already cover enough
2 Likes
Nathan57, the mistake you’re making is that if its a person with a gun at a right wing protest, that person is a patriot. if its a person at a left wing protest, he is a terrorist.
1 Like
How am I making a mistake?
I’m the one against gun control and against saying a person should be put in jail or assumed to be guilty because they have the audacity to carry a gun somewhere they are legally able to be.
1 Like
I am saying that I am against the proposals for new gun control in this thread that would make it illegal to carry a gun at a protest.
I am saying I am against laws that, for example, would make Kyle Rittenhouse a criminal who is in jail for open carrying a rifle.
I do not know where you are getting things like BLM or arson or “fry’em like bacon” you may have me confused with someone else?
1 Like
Your mistake is being reasonable, you are not saying what I was being sarcastic about, but others in this thread seem to imply this.
From Perry’s interrogation, ““I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me,” Perry told Detective Fugitt in the interview”
From my POV he is trying to say those magic words, “I feared for my life!”
Yet there is no evidence that the victim actually assaulted Perry, at best he is merely holding a firearm. And I thought that this is a right that all people have, including people on the left.
1 Like
hmm I hadn’t seen that, did he really state that the deceased did not point or aim the rifle at him? That he thought he was going to point it at him?
'cause that’s a pretty huge difference and a pretty huge thing for the convicted to have said, and would add quite a bit to my personal % meter in terms of how much there is on which to form an opinion and go a long ways towards explaining the guilty verdict
It was stated in this thread that the rifle was leveled at the convicted…but if he himself says otherwise, and there is no evidence I have yet seen indicating a rifle was pointed at anyone…
Guilty is already making a lot of sense
Here is the video.
Yes guilty is the correct verdict, and what I am seeing from Texas politicians is this, open carry is fine if your on our side, otherwise it can be used as a reason to shot a person if they are on the left side of politics.
1 Like
I’m not painting with quite so broad of a brush, but yes, it’s the person behind the gun, not the gun itself. There’s a difference between a protest led by Al Sharpton (Dem) and a protest led by BLM (terrorist organization). Al Sharpton will tell participants to remain peaceful so that it’s the message that people remember. BLM will distribute bricks and molotov cocktails to ensure their particular “message” is heard. Bringing an AK to Al Sharpton’s protest is out of place. Bringing an AK to a BLM protest is an escalation of the violence that they’ve become known for.
The DA’s entire case was hinged on the claim that Perry knew there would be violence taking place at the protest so Perry used that to his advantage so he could shoot someone and claim self defense. Any reasonable person knows that a protest involving BLM and/or Antifa is going to be violent and innocent people are going to be attacked. It’s the fact that Foster went to participate in this violence while carrying his AK that I say he should have been arrested. The reason he brought his AK was to escalate the violence that he knew would be taking place.
I brought up brandishing as an example because merely revealing your firearm accidentally is typically not brandishing. But revealing your firearm in a threatening way is brandishing. Well, with the additional caveat of weather it’s in response to someone else’s threat or directed at an otherwise peaceful person. It’s the intent that makes all the difference. And Foster went to the protest as the aggressor. He went to the protest to participate in the violence that he knew would be taking place. He was carrying his AK as an additional threat, while standing in the middle of the street, stopping cars and terrorizing the occupants of the cars while others were smashing car windows, jumping on the hoods & roofs, and trying to flip cars over. It’s the person behind the gun, and their actions, not the gun itself. It establishes intent, which is one of the three legs used to prove guilt/innocence in court.
1 Like
Kyle Rittenhouse did not go to participate in the protest. He went to protect a friend’s business from the protestors. He carried with a defensive intent.
I get the concern. I’m focused on when are we going to stop pretending that these are peaceful protests? When are we going to treat Antifa and BLM like the terrorist organizations that they are? How many billions of dollars of damage do they have to do to small businesses and personal property before we shut them down? We criticize Brandon for arming the Taliban. Why would we allow Antifa and BLM to ratchet up their BS by now bringing firearms to their “peaceful” protests?
2 Likes
You lost me on BLM or Antifa being a terriorist organization, denoted by whom? Having being caught up within an Antifa protest while trying to drive home from Berkeley to Oakland, their beef was not with me in my car, their beef was with the symbols of government that they are protesting against.
Even then, if Daniels was a mere innocent caught up in some protest, how would he know that it was a BLM as opposed to a peaceful protest, as they both carry the same signs and preach the same slogans?
But no, it seems that because you cannot differentiate the left from the violent left, your arguing that if I am in a leftwing protest and open caring my side arm, the mere fact that I am in the context of a left wing protest, that is sufficient for me to be shot.
That seems quite wrong.
1 Like