In a controversial, and arguably partisan move, Travis County District Attorney José Garza announced this week that his office is seeking to overturn Governor Greg Abbott’s recent pardon of Daniel Perry. Perry, an ex-Army sergeant, was convicted of murder for defending himself during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Austin.
The day after Perry’s conviction in April 2023, Governor Abbott requested the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to review the case. Last month, the board unanimously recommended a pardon, which Abbott granted immediately, citing Perry’s right to self-defense.
Garza’s office has filed a petition with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that the governor’s intervention disrupted the judicial process. Garza contends that Perry’s case did not meet the criteria for a pardon and accused Abbott of overstepping his authority. Holly Taylor, director of the Division of Public Integrity and Complex Crimes in the DA’s office, claimed that Abbott’s actions violated the separation of powers doctrine.
“When Governor Abbott issued the pardon, not only did he circumnavigate the process for pardons, he exceeded his authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine,” Taylor said in a press briefing on Tuesday.
Garza emphasized the need to challenge the pardon to uphold the judicial process. Sheila Foster, Garrett Foster’s mother, supported Garza’s efforts, expressing concern that Abbott’s pardon could encourage similar acts of violence, despite evidence that it was Foster, armed with an AK-47 who menacingly approached Perry to set of the chain of events that led to his demise.
“My own child was killed on American soil for doing nothing but practicing his First and Second Amendment rights, and our governor just said, ‘That’s OK, that’s acceptable,’” Foster stated.
The case has gained national attention, with attorneys general from 14 states urging the Department of Justice to investigate whether Perry violated Foster’s civil rights. New York Attorney General Letitia James called on the DOJ to ensure justice is served when state systems fail. Of course, big shocker, all of the AGs who signed on to the letter, are Democrats, who were fine when the protesters were burning cars in the streets and looting businesses in what at the time the Dems kept insisting were “peaceful protests.”
In fact, to buoy their arguments, they even used left-leaning groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Armed Conflict Location & Events Data, as well as partisan-driven hacks posing as legitimate researchers to sell the lie that the violence you saw on your news, of black and white BLM supporters trashing America’s communities, were actually, right-wing extremists.
No doubt, where left-wing extremists arise, right-wing ones will show up, too. The problem is maybe extremism at both ends. But the Dems work overtime to discount the ones whose views they wish to promulgate and like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, they want to simply say, “pay no attention to what you really see, you need to look at what I want you to see.”
They blame Abbott for being partisan, even as they are being blatantly partisan.
The facts of the case should stand on their own, though there is some cloudiness in the matter depending on what you read about the case. Perry, who was driving for a rideshare company at the time, encountered Foster at the protest after he turned onto a street crowded with protestors. Perry claimed he shot Foster in self-defense after Foster allegedly raised an AK-47 at him, a claim that is at the heart of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Perry and his supporters argue that his conviction was an infringement on this fundamental right and was made to make a political point.
Doug O’Connell, Perry’s lawyer, dismissed Garza’s filing as “political theater,” asserting the executive branch’s pardon power is well-established. The governor can pardon whomever he wishes.
“The pardon power of the executive branch is a well-settled Constitutional authority,” O’Connell said on social media.
Following his pardon, Perry was released from prison within hours, highlighting the influence of conservative voices like former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former Texas GOP Chair Matt Rinaldi, who advocated for Perry’s right to self-defense against violent protests.
As the legal battle unfolds, Garza’s office remains committed to challenging the pardon, arguing that Governor Abbott’s actions undermine the justice system and the separation of powers.
Let freedom ring!!
Yeah BLM was not quite peaceful when they invaded a nearby town & looted a coupla stores on my birthday 4 years ago. A pallet of bricks was left for the lowlife looters. Come at me with an AK & I’ll do the same as the pardoned guy. If I could fault DJT he should have called up the National & State guard. And now in ILLANNOY I can’t use my AR without great peril from Dim goons🙄
Could have been a lot more. BLM types decided to take over a small town outside of Seattle. The town pulled out their rifles and lined the streets. Needless to say the wimps went back to Seattle.
Same thing happened in Prescott, AZ. The commies got off their bus, saw all the rifles, and got back on and left.
And Oklahoma.
Try that in a small town.
I’m trying to stir dacian but I think he was arrested for loitering near a junior school.
May have rage quit as some suggested based on the newer moderation algorithm. Or psych hold or your suggestion. Whatever the case nice to have more thoughtful edge commenters. On that topic things may get wild when politicians and their owners begin to realize a lot of people on either end are just about done pretending there is a relevant justice system at many levels. Watch for those cunts your way trying to finish the job with disarming you if things get stupid(er) here.
…. dacian was loitering IN a class he was FLUNKING, while IN a junior high school. Unfortunately, no arrest was made.
“Garza’s office has filed a petition with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that the governor’s intervention disrupted the judicial process.”
Yes, that is the very reason for pardons, especially when the courts elevate judicial process over JUSTICE.
Quaint notions of “justice” need not apply. They’ve basically been irrelevant since the 400’s.
AMEN!!
Amen.
If this is the case I’m remembering the video from then this guy’s conviction was a grade-A travesty. Dude was fed to the political wolves in a blue city.
As for the current maneuverings, *shrug* “ordo ab chao” comes to mind. It sure would be a shame if rational thinking intervened on that front.
[And no, troll(s), I’m not suggesting this has any connection to the Freemasons. So, keep your low-IQ fuckery set to “simmer” when you fire up your search engine to figure out what the shit I might be saying that you could throw accusations at.
To save you some time by whittling it down in advance, I’m either using the phrase in the classical manner or referencing an album by a Norwegian metal band.]
I vote for the Norwegian metal band 😉
Speaking of Leftist turds and Black Metal (not a Mayhem fan, so I had to look they album up), remember when Antifa was going to go after Metal music in general, but Marduk in particular? 🤣🤣🤣 I’m thinking they went to one show and that was the end of that.
The Austin mayor is responsible for this death. Democrat mayors allowed this lawlessness. Remember the Seattle mayor calling it the Summer of Love right before violence broke out? These people are idiots. The majority of the population is even worse for allowing this.
In an interview Thursday, prior to the deadly shooting in CHOP, Mayor Durkan acknowledged her poor choice of words.
“I clearly said that in jest, it probably was not the smart thing to do,” she said.
“The majority of the population is even worse for allowing this.”
Touches on an interesting conundrum.
If one believes in “Rule of Law” yet there is no Rule of Law, does one break the law to bring other lawbreakers to heel, or does one simply sit back and hope to Christ that the people in charge suddenly gain 40 IQ points and start acting correctly?
At what point does one decide that the true criminals are the ones running the system that allows this? And, if that decision is made, what does one do? Does one follow the rules de jour of the broken system or does one exit the system and attempt *cough* external repairs *cough*?
Such is the issue with a system that is fundamentally broken by the people running it.
Now, the answer is actually quite simple if the people for whom the system supposedly operates are educated and principled because such people understand power and how to wield it.
However, it becomes a bit of a stickier wicket when education and principle have both been effectively dead at the macro scale for ~70 years.
“that the people in charge suddenly gain 40 IQ points and start acting correctly?”
That’s funny. Granted, they aren’t all the brightest, but a lack of intelligence isn’t really the problem. The problem is a lack of morality. The people in charge don’t care about bad outcomes because they know they’ll be insulated from those problems. It’s no sweat off their back if people die. We also can’t sit back and hope they discover morality because it’s obviously trending in the opposite direction.
“We also can’t sit back and hope they discover morality because it’s obviously trending in the opposite direction.”
There’s that conundrum. A circle that seemingly can’t be squared.
How do moral people deal with righting an immoral system to which those people are subservient? All actions that would produce the right outcome are immoral. Yet, under such a moral code, immoral actions ultimately serve to bolster a corrupt system, either this or the next.
Is forced morality, in fact, moral? No. It’s both immoral and corrosive because it’s really just raw power being exercised. No different than North Korea or the people currently in charge.
And then there’s another question. Is morality sufficient to govern a nation? Will stupid but moral people guide a country to glory or to certain doom? We already kind of have that answer and it’s not promising.
It’s at that point point at which I wonder if it’s worth dropping a nuke in the proverbial punchbowl of a TTAG conversation.
“All actions that would produce the right outcome are immoral.”
I don’t think so. I think we have a great example of how to right the ship. It’s the Bud Light strategy. We can apply a similar blueprint toward politicians. We know the powers that be don’t care about morality, just like some corporate execs. Dead bodies piling up is no different than paying consultants. It’s the price of doing business. But they do care about something. They care about themselves. They care about their own personal survival. Personal survival for them means money, power, and status. The only way to change their behavior is to take away the things they care about.
They don’t fear us because we never push back. Therefore, their behavior never changes. The corporate execs fret over offending a small portion of the population because those people will push back and boycott them. Those execs haven’t traditionally feared the majority of the population because most people don’t care enough to: 1) understand that this corporate or political behavior is a major problem, and 2) understand that we have the power to do something about it. All we have to do is educate people about these two basic facts. It’s a problem. We have the power to do something about it.
The roadblock is overcoming the brainwashing that you’ve discussed. I wonder if that’s becoming less of an issue because the government, just like corporations, has become so intrusive that even normie norms are noticing. We’ll never be able to completely overcome the great brainwashing, but we don’t have to. I won’t get into my apparently offensive spiel on the benefits of segregation based on differences in political philosophy, which is really the difference between a moral and an amoral society.
Short answer to the last question: we need smart and moral people. I can’t describe how pissed off I was (and still am) over the Iraq WMD lie. And Syria. And Ukraine. And, etc. That’s probably over 500,000 dead people for each of those wars funded by the US. Then there’s the physical destruction, lasting emotional issues, broken families, etc. Even with a self-centered mindset, how do I personally benefit from that? I don’t. Yet they ask me to cheer it on for democracy or something.
I don’t think so. I think we have a great example of how to right the ship. It’s the Bud Light strategy. We can apply a similar blueprint toward politicians. We know the powers that be don’t care about morality, just like some corporate execs. Dead bodies piling up is no different than paying consultants. It’s the price of doing business. But they do care about something. They care about themselves. They care about their own personal survival. Personal survival for them means money, power, and status. The only way to change their behavior is to take away the things they care about.
They don’t fear us because we never push back. Therefore, their behavior never changes. The corporate execs fret over offending a small portion of the population because those people will push back and b-o-y-c-o-t-t* them. Those execs haven’t traditionally feared the majority of the population because most people don’t care enough to: 1) understand that this corporate or political behavior is a major problem, and 2) understand that we have the power to do something about it. All we have to do is educate people about these two basic facts. It’s a problem. We have the power to do something about it.
The roadblock is overcoming the brainwashing that you’ve discussed. I wonder if that’s becoming less of an issue because the government, just like corporations, has become so intrusive that even normie norms are noticing. We’ll never be able to completely overcome the great brainwashing, but we don’t have to. I won’t get into my apparently offensive spiel on the benefits of segregation based on differences in political philosophy, which is really the difference between a moral and an amoral society.
Short answer to the last question: we need smart and moral people. I can’t describe how pissed off I was (and still am) over the Iraq WMD lie. And Syria. And Ukraine. And, etc. That’s probably over 500,000 dead people for each of those wars funded/fueled by the US. Then there’s the physical destruction, population displacement, lasting emotional issues, broken families, etc. that will impact generations. Even with a self-centered mindset, how do I personally benefit from that? I don’t. Yet they ask me to cheer it on for democracy or something.
*b-o-y-c-o-t-t gets moderated
I noticed the last myself. Might be worth paying attention to the particular words that information gate keepers do not want spoken. Regardless, I’m reminded of a saying of which an old friend of mine is fond: politics is the process of forcing bad people to do the right thing. What you say rings true.
“politics is the process of forcing bad people to do the right thing.”
That’s perfect. There’s a huge gap in the priorities of politicians and their constituents. The masses have been fooled into believing they don’t have the power to change that.
For all the fan-fare the Bud Light strategy didn’t actually work. If you want that to work you actually have to target a company and sink it. Cutting the profits of a subsidiary of a multinational doesn’t really teach them anything, the same way hacking at tentacles of the squid that attacks The Nautilus doesn’t do much. You gotta harpoon that sumbitch to get it to go away.
The reason this works for the Left is because the folks at Company X don’t just fear a loss of business. They fear these people showing up at their houses or burning down the business. They also fear the internal machinations of their own employees who are on board with the cult.
For example, even after Bud Light, Tractor Supply Depot has adopted DEI and Pride. As have many other companies. Harley hasn’t gotten rid of it, we just don’t discuss it. As the Wall Streeters have said, they stop talking about it, change the name and keep doing the thing but more quietly under a different name.
Further, pols are going to be very difficult to target this way because their main *asset* isn’t “being a politician” as most seem to assume, it’s the Rolodex they get by being a politician.
As a related example: Cash Patel has pointed out that if you want to really burn the “deep state” you pull all their security clearances because that’s their meal ticket if they get booted from .gov. They don’t really care about being in the “intel community” because they can just leave and make millions with that clearance at a defense contractor. Pull that and they’ll make less but still make money because they’ve got that Rolodex. But pulling the clearances makes a point and actually does hit them kinda hard.
Further still, at this point, do you really think pols care about being reelected more than whatever The Blob has on them? I mean, look at Dan Crenshaw and ponder how that happens for a bit.
The old Notorious BIG saying comes to mind with regards to the “deep state”, spoken from their point of view too.
I’m big dangerous, you’re just a little vicious
If you can’t strip them of that Rolodex they mostly won’t care. They’ll go become a lobbyist or join an NGO that pays and they’ll stay in the same circles until they either find a way back in or retire.
If you look at the “go woke, go broke” strategy overall it’s about 33% effective. Which means you’re still 66% fucked, which is the same as 100%. You need to get well past 50% to something like 66%.
There are several ways you can do that but all of them include certain basic things that are, currently, very hard to do.
The main one being a gut and remodel job on the GOP overall. Which means you need to get people past blind tribalism of “R’s gud!”.
Which is why I focus on propaganda and psychology, which have been weaponized against the population for seven decades. Based on the demos of voting, you need 55-60% of people to give up on tribalism and realize that voting for one wing of the predatory bird over the other is still voting for the bird.
Once the population realizes this, you can start taking feathers by the handful.
Quite frankly, that’s going to be very hard from a pro-2A/pro-freedom point of view because the hard truth is that most GOPers are not in favor of freedom unless it touches on their own personal preferences and hobbies because they are brainwashed to prefer certain forms of safety over the dangers of freedom.
This was created by an erosion of any base principles starting right after the war. Which is why the ONLY places you find actual study of the truly useful tools for this topic are squirreled away in small philosophy departments in far flung universities. Your local church ain’t even promoting it 95%+ of the time.
Shit, most pastors can’t even tell me the overarching meta-narrative of God’s real power. Which, interestingly enough, is tied to exactly what we’re discussing here. Incentive structures and timeframes.
“it’s the Rolodex they get by being a politician.”
Yes. That’s how they really cash in after they leave office. There’s a former US Senator that my dad knows and used to campaign for. He lost when my state tranzitioned* to red. Oh well. He raked in millions after that as a consultant/lobbyist. Apparently they all do that if they don’t cling to power until they die or practically die. (*avoiding moderation)
The Bud Light movement definitely drew some blood. More importantly, it let us know that we can make a difference. Just don’t listen to Hannity who told people not to b-o-y-c-o-t-t* companies. It isn’t the customer’s responsibility to keep people employed. That’s the executives’ responsibility. I don’t drink, but if I did, I’d never touch Bud Light (AB) again unless they did a complete 180. Like you said, that isn’t happening yet. But now they have something to think about.
“more than whatever The Blob has on them?”
I’ve heard that’s a real concern. As soon as they flip to help the Dems, as just enough of them always do, then they immediately make the cancel list and we replace them. It’s amazing how many chances someone like Lindsey Graham gets. Yes, they can still cash in, but they won’t be the ones voting for absurd bills. And they usually do want to stay in power. That’s why they keep running until they’re beyond retirement age.
R voters are better than the alternative because they tend to respect the Constitution and love the country. There’s also the rural, working, and Christian values that make them better to deal with than typical D voters. That’s something we can work with. It’s obviously going to take a generation, at a minimum. I’m pretty late to the game. I just began noticing the real power game a few years ago. I know I’m not alone. You don’t always notice these things if you’re not a political junkie, and you’re busy with family and work life. It’s difficult not to notice, at this point.
This will be a bit long but I think you’ll see where I’m going here.
“The Bud Light movement definitely drew some blood.”
Indeed. But bloodying their lip isn’t the goal here. Due to the fact that they’ve built this edifice in a manner similar to interlocking fields of fire, you’re two minutes through the 11th round here and down on points. A KO is required. If that can’t be had, which it can’t, a new attack vector is needed. Fortunately, they’re abundant.
” Just don’t listen to Hannity…”
I’ve said here before that the difference between Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow is that Maddow has a higher level of testosterone.
I mean that. Sean’s a liar and a shill and, rather obviously, has issues with self esteem…. but he promotes the right narratives. I tend to think of Fox as a bastardized, dumbed down and rather slimy version of “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, with the focus on loyalty to royalty. They tell the approved opposition narrative but they never actually tell the truth.
Were I to say this back in my welding days: They’re not telling you to stand up on your hind legs and stop fellating the state, they’re telling you how to give .gov better head in a moderately innovative way. That’s hardly useful in my book.
“R voters are better than the alternative because they tend to respect the Constitution and love the country.”
While I believe the latter though I suspect the love is shortsighted to the point of blatant myopia, the former is, in my personal experience, extremely questionable.
Most of them, quite frankly, don’t know what’s in the Constitution and are more than ready to throw out the parts of it they find inconvenient.
And if you disagree then they’ll name-call you.
What percentage, for example, are willing to say that all drugs should be legal at the federal level and only controlled at the state level because this is not a proper function of the federal government as laid out in the Constitution?
<10% based on polling. For the rest, the Constitution is out the window, along with a large section of the BoR because drugs are bad.
Very few people are saying they're good. They're simply saying that this is not a proper function of the Federal Government and it is extremely corrosive to many other things to let .gov out of its Constitutional box. The treatment is worse than the disease.
Some of us realize that the WoD is a fucking scam that's meant to do nothing other than fund a massive security apparatus and normalize the obliteration of the 4A and 5A as a stepping stone to going after other amendments.
Try arguing that to a room full of R's. At best they'll scream profanity at you. At best.
Try pointing out how this has been used to erect the foundation of a totalitarian police state, which is not an arguable position, it's a fucking fact. That room of R's is, shall we say, rather unreceptive.
Or try pointing out DUI checkpoints are a blatant violation of the 4A. Or how DUI in general is police-state-cash-grab. Oh, well we don't need that 4A and 14A incorporation doctrine on this topic because, well, I don't like drunk drivers.
And damn near to a fucking person they'll call you a drunk with multiple DUIs or a druggie if you do these things. They don't care if they just slandered you. They're emoting. Hard. What you get is ad hominem, not reason. You can go back through some of my "conversations" on this very site and see that.
Because they cannot comprehend someone presenting the position of "I don't have to like the behavior or encourage it to understand that this is not the proper role of government".
Shit, I've had "pro 2A people" tell me to my face that I'm a criminal because I can tell you how to use microstamping to muddy investigational waters by collecting spent brass from a range and leaving it at the crime scene.
ONLY A CRIMINAL WOULD THINK OF THAT!
This is what I'm told. Usually quite loudly and energetically and with an obvious undercurrent of personal dislike for me mixed with a thinly veiled threat this this is about to go sideways in the physical realm if I don't leave.
You see this even more widely in the 2A community. They'll adopt the EXACT same arguments as the anti-gunners as soon as you find something they don't like. Drugs, guns, abortion, teen pregnancy, inner city crime etc.
This is why I say there's no principle there for most of them. Because there isn't. There's an emotional web of reactions with very little underlying THOUGHT behind it.
As designed by our educational system, IMHO, btw.
“There’s also the rural, working, and Christian values that make them better to deal with than typical D voters.”
Living way the heck out in the country I’ll agree with this wholeheartedly but I will point out that unless you’re seriously considering a rurally based guerilla war as the option of choice, it’s not enough.
Why do I think that?
For whatever reason, people are very good at spotting holes or unexplained bits in arguments and then assigning the reason to be blatant hypocrisy. They build this as a pattern, because that’s what brains do, and then write off anyone who says similar things even if that person has a good argument.
This is why messaging discipline matters. This facet of human pattern recognition is also, uh, helped along by the current media environment. This is why Musk’s acquisition of X matters so much whether older GOPers understand it or not.
While I’m personally not religious, I’d like to “build a better Christian”. Funnily, this is basically what Nietzsche really wanted he just didn’t think it was possible given the trends in the 1800’s.
IMHO, he was wrong about the resiliency of the religion. Yes, it’s taken a battering but it IS still standing. The reason for that is what you suggest here, it contains things that work. Which it does.
Now, when an agnostic suggests improvements to Christian behavior it is generally not looked upon well by Christians. I’m not really sure why constructive criticism on this front is unwelcome but it is. Numerous Theology Journals have bemoaned this for decades. They teach a lot of stuff in Seminary that they don’t ever say to the flock because actual Christian doctrine is mostly forgotten and rather unpopular.
The truly amusing part of this, in a very dark way, is that Christians NEED NOT LISTEN TO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES. They only need study their own serious thinkers. Not Billy Graham or Joel Osteen or any of those morons. Aquinas, Abelard, Pascal, Ockham, Augustine, Bacon and the like.
The fact that they don’t do this is, again foisted on them by an educational system IMHO. That’s likely because such people are a path to actual wisdom. Wisdom that is flexible but doesn’t break. Wisdom that can defend a principle without tossing it aside or tossing another principle aside.
If they did that they’d realize exactly why I ask the question about morality that I posed above.
Because it’s not helpful if you don’t understand what morality actually is and how it functions. It’s not really just a set of hard-fast rules that can always be applied along any timeline and for any set of incentives.
For example, if you think about it there are not Seven Deadly Sins. There’s one. The others are all symptoms of the one. (It’s Sloth, btw. The rest are all a symptom of the breakdown of self-control which is really a form of laziness.)
What religion really does, whether God exists or not (which is why you can bring along agnostics but not athiests who are diametrically opposed as an article of faith), is it provides and organizing principle to allow one to order a set of short term incentives in a manner which feed into medium term incentives which feed into longer term incentives.
This produces a “moral” society which isn’t so much “moral” as it is strong, flexible and lasting because it has ordered its priorities in such a manner that long term goals are achieved via discipline.
If you really think about what morality is, it’s an instruction set for longevity of people and therefore of the society made up of those people. It’s the eschewing of short-term incentives while moving towards a larger goal. The Big W, as it were.
You can see this without being religious. The question is why religious people can’t sell something that obviously works.
Modded.
Of fucking course. Punctuation isn’t appreciated by WP.
For future reference:
SOME MODERATED WORDS AND PHRASES
t-r-a-n-n-i
t-r-a-n-z (included in any word)
s-e-cks (included in any word)
g-a-e
yet (plus) another
someone (plus) else
article (plus) content
c-a-s-i-n-o
d-r-i-n-k-i-n-g
s-o-c-i-a-l (ist, ism)
v-a-c-c-i-n-a-t-i-o-n
h-o-m-o (etc.)
l-i-t-t-l-e
b-o-y-c-o-t-t
“Shit, most pastors can’t even tell me the overarching meta-narrative of God’s real power.”
Please, I would love to hear more about the overarching metanarrative of God’s real power.
Yeah, religious people probably aren’t interested in listening to an agnostic tell them how to do religion. I’m sure plenty would be interested in having a conversation about it, but there’s a time and a place for everything.
Are we up the creek with entitlements? You know we are because you talk about it. Do we get people to show up to vote by telling them we’re getting rid of “their” entitlements? You know the answer. Do we get them to show up by saying we need to federally legalize recreational drugs? I think that would put us firmly in the weeds, so to speak. We don’t have to beat them over the head with the Constitution either.
We have to take it one step at a time. We don’t need to purify an electorate before we can begin winning. All we have to do is explain to them that: 1) there are problems, and 2) we have the power to do something about it. The most dangerous aspect of the Bud Light ordeal is that people figured out that they have power. One of the many reasons that the uniparty wanted to take out Trump is because they could NOT afford to let people see that there is another way. They’ve been saying they would fix immigration since Reagan. They never did it because they never wanted to do it. The funny thing is, they’re still pretending like they’re going to fix it now that’s it’s election time! How many lies will these people take? They also didn’t want Americans to figure out that we don’t have to constantly fuel global conflict.
Now please tell me why politically engaged “gun people” that historically vote R, and identify as having “libertarian values”, are essentially voting for the drooling puppet by not voting for Trump. These same people voted for McCain, Romney, and maybe one Bush.
Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I think people really may be waking up and starting to question. I don’t think hope is lost.
Ultimately they can’t win because their plans don’t work. I’ve said that for years. This was true of the Soviets, it just took ~74 years. You can see it happening in China too. Eventually it happens to all such systems.
The question is if you can avoid having a phoenix burning and then rising anew situation in the US.
Such a situation is a highly unproductive and inefficient way to get where we want to go. It also kills tens of millions of people, one way or another. The only worse choice is a straight out civil war.
The only good communist is a dead communist. Sergeant Perry, like Kyle Rittenhouse, was just doing his duty.
“…Garza’s office remains committed to challenging the pardon, arguing that Governor Abbott’s actions undermine the justice system and the separation of powers.”
So what?
To Garza, political crimes should not be punished, and ALL crime is political.
Meanwhile, leftist DAs across the country are dismissing felony charges against countless thugs, some of them even murder charges. But that’s just fine.
See my post above on the nature of crime to l3ftists.
He raised and lowered his AK forever…play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Texas all states north and land west of the Mississippi river all land east of the rocky mountains, with satellite states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho.
My new map of America.
Due to the possibility Our country may be invaded by shitheads our boarders are now permanently closed.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Holly Taylor (Texas Office for Public Integrity):
“When Governor Abbott issued the pardon, not only did he circumnavigate [sic] the process for pardons, he exceeded his authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine.”
She meant, of course, he circumvented the process for pardons (he didn’t). Yes, she got a government education. I checked.
How dare you do to us what we do to you whenever possible.
Was Garretts’s weapon on a sling or was it in his hands, IE brandishing it. A rifle in general is an offensive weapon as opposed to a pistol. If you unholster a pistol in a crowded area it is a threat. If you take a rifle from the slung position, into your hands in a crowd, I would consider that rifle at the ready, and a threat. Would I shoot. If that muzzle started to come my way, yes.
Travis County District Attorney José Garza = The Peoples Rep of AUSTIN. (Not the real world) and Garza is reported to be yet, another, spawn of Soros,
“Perry, an ex-Army sergeant, was convicted of murder for defending himself”
Actually, after hearing the testimony, examining the evidence and deliberating, the lawfully impaneled jury found that Sergeant Perry was NOT defending himself.
In order to lawfully pardon an individual, the executive must articulate a particular miscarriage of justice that makes the pardon necessary.
And courts have ruled that an acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.
It is interesting to see so many folks on here defending a white supremacist and open racist. At last you folks are being honest about your bigotry and prejudice, bravo!
“Unsealed evidence shows racist comments, threats of violence made by Daniel Perry before killing of Austin protester
Gov. Greg Abbott has said he wants to pardon Perry, who was convicted by a Travis County jury last week.
BY JOLIE MCCULLOUGH
APRIL 14, 2023
12 PM CENTRAL”
“On May 29, 2020, days after George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer prompted nationwide protests, Perry sent a text message saying, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”
Two days later, according to the records, Perry said in a Facebook message that when he is in Dallas, “no protestors go near me or my car.”
“Can you catch me a negro daddy,” the other man replied.
“That is what I am hoping,” Perry said.
“I wonder if they will let my cut the ears off of people who’s decided to commit suicide by me,” he added.
The court records, released Thursday, contain evidence pulled from Perry’s phone records and social media accounts.
The U.S. Army sergeant also sent racist and anti-Muslim messages before and after Floyd’s death. In April 2020, he sent a meme, which included a photo of a woman holding her child’s head under water in the bath, with the text, “WHEN YOUR DAUGHTERS FIRST CRUSH IS A LITTLE NEGRO BOY,” according to the state’s filing.“
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/14/daniel-perry-racist-comments-texas-shooting-austin-protester/#:~:text=Two%20days%20later%2C%20according%20to,near%20me%20or%20my%20car.%E2%80%9D
“At last you folks are being honest about your bigotry and prejudice, bravo!”
y’know, I really just don’t give a flying fig what you call me or think of me. You and yours have so overplayed that hand, it’s pretty much meaningless now. Bravo.
“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer”.
Gonna be wild when many in power realize the can’t get the mask back on and a lot more people are about done playing along. Probably not yet but this year took some big steps.
Yep!
“pretty much meaningless”
Meaningless? No, I’d say straightahead violent racism:
“Unsealed evidence shows racist comments, threats of violence made by Daniel Perry before killing of Austin protester“
That right there is the conservative Republican brand these days.
Miner you are playing a game of diminishing returns. The appeal to emotion and virtue signaling has been overplayed and increasingly no one cares. We are just about in power play mode and the side you mock is just starting to realize they are involved in a game where they have been played against for generations. Good luck with that.
“The appeal to emotion and virtue signaling”
No signaling here, I’m just pointing out the fact that the entire conservative right wing is coming out in support of an admitted violent racist, as proven by his multiple online postings.
And in order to support this violent racist, the conservatives are willing to ignore the actual decision of a lawfully impaneled jury in a court of law.
That makes them ethically and morally bankrupt.
Ethics and morals from the man that openly supports a pedo and ignores the #metoo of his victim?
And I am not aware of ‘being a racist’ is a criminal offense. After all. you openly support the sanger plan of eugenics to eliminate the ‘black problem’.
You also support gun control measures that will prove a hardship for the poor and minorities.
You also support open borders which are devastating mostly poor and minority segments of the population.
Do you lose your right to self defense because of your proven track record of classism and, yes indeed, racism, miner?
Yeah still struggling to care. You are stuck on thinking anything you said is relevant with our broken system. It hasn’t been relevant in a decade and the normal people are waking up to the tribalism your sort have been up to. Again good luck.
He’ll keep talking as long as people keep responding.
That’s what trolls do.
If he’s truly irrelevant, ignore him.
Oh I just like reminding him after forcing him to defend his ranting. Also keeps me up to date on current commie talking points without having to spend hours reading through their nonsense. But yes if the one using that monkier is a troll farm poster now that would be one way compensation is calculated.
This from the guy who cheers the behavior of senile in chief whether he is sniffing someone else’s daughter or showering with his own.
“Actually, after hearing the testimony, examining the evidence and deliberating, the lawfully impaneled jury found that Sergeant Perry was NOT defending himself.”
Let me correct that for you Miner49er, with a little context.
A “lawfully impaneled jury” doesn’t mean anything, you see to think its significant. Wrongfully thinking and easily duped people are placed on a “lawfully impaneled jury” every day in this country.
The issue is ‘self-defense’. A subject you evidently do not understand as did this “lawfully impaneled jury” seemed to not understand either. It doesn’t matter if a ‘defending’ person (Perry in this case) made comments of any type be they racist or threats at any point days prior the ‘imminent’ incident…. the violent BLM left-wing loving ‘so called protestor’ person who attacked (e.g. by threatening actions with his rifle) could have not acted, could have walked away, could have not made the threat overtures he made (yes, suppressed and buried by prosecution). It doesn’t matter that ‘Perry’ may have made comments days before – in the moment, he legitimately defended himself against that violent left wing BLM ‘protestor’ – and all your “lawfully impaneled jury” focused on was Perry’s comments ‘days’ prior because the prosecution made sure to suppress and bury the imminent act of defense in the jury’s mind and use the ’emotional’ tactic of ‘outrage’.
The pardon board focused on the issue – the self-defense – and reached the correct decision as it was, in the moment, self-defense, the issue the prosecution ignored in favor of a prejudiced, biased, racist agenda.
“It is interesting to see so many folks on here defending a white supremacist and open racist. At last you folks are being honest about your bigotry and prejudice, bravo!”
No one here is doing any such thing, except you and you don’t even understand how you are doing that. Learn what context means Miner49er.
“A “lawfully impaneled jury” doesn’t mean anything, you see to think its significant“
Yes, it does. I’m not surprised that you would think the constitutionally mandated due process is “not significant”.
The point is, both the prosecution and the defense had the opportunity to challenge any prospective juror, that’s how that system works.
“this “lawfully impaneled jury” seemed to not understand“
Frankly, you didn’t hear the testimony, examine the evidence or have an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the defendant so you’re just talking out your ass, as usual.
“It doesn’t matter if a ‘defending’ person made comments of any type be they racist or threats at any point days prior“
Clearly, you don’t understand the meaning or impact of ‘premeditation’ or ‘mens rea’ so that’s just more rectum rap from you.
If there was any legal merit to your claims, they would’ve been brought forward during the appeal process.
Instead, the executive short-circuited due process and usurped the authority of the judicial branch of government.
So the conservatives trashed another constitutionally mandated concept, ‘separation of powers’.
‘Constitutionally mandated due process’ this coming from a man that openly supports human and civil rights restrictions.
Your only reason for being here is to try and stifle human and civil rights.
minor should be stifled, with a pillow or a rock
He may be racist. Or he may just be sick of the constant overblown threat of the dangers white extremism poses to our society as the carnage from urban street gangs and Mexican cartels piles up in our streets as many of our leaders turn a blind eye. The reality is, we need to go work to stop all crime, not just the ones that suit our partisan slant. While racism is reprehensible, it isn’t a crime, nor an aggravating factor in a crime where a white guy kills another white guy. That’s right, the dude he shot was white, not black. So he may be racist, but that doesn’t come into play here from a legal standpoint any more than black on black crime isn’t perceived as racist either, even though the tragic toll those crimes far outweighs any real threat idiot white supremacists pose to black Americans in today’s society.
Maine’s ‘Gun Safety Coalition’ Negligently Fires Musket During Gun Turn-In > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/06/07/maines-gun-safety-coalition-negligently-fires-musket-during-gun-turn-in/
Florida School Debunks Anti-Gun Lies About Armed Teachers in Schools > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/06/06/florida-school-debunks-anti-gun-lies-about-armed-teachers-in-schools/
Look at all the troubles silly talk on social media causes…however, you still shouldn’t point your klatch at people while rioting and not expect return fire, Mrs. Foster. Fine job raising an idiot, Ma’am…clearly the apple falls not far from the tree.
Garza will ask Biden’s DOJ to step in.
Abbot just needs to have the state of Texas charge DA Garza, with what? Doesnt matter just make sure to find a partisan Republican judge in the reddest county in Texas to hold the trial making sure that everyone on the jury hates Garza from day 1, give him a taste of his parties own medicine
Probably won’t need to go that far, just do a proper investigation based on probable cause and actually go for prosecution. If they riot just restore order. Rinse and repeat.
In a surprising discovery, we have learned that leftists have no emotional maturity or discipline.
Under what legal premise is a DA opposing the authority of a governor to issue a pardon?
Is there any legal limitation to the ability of a governor to issue a pardon for state crimes?
Truly asking. If anyone out there is legally trained and is willing to opine, I would like to know. It appears as if this is a publicity stunt. “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is a war room.” comes to mind.
Gov. Abbott should call the legislature into session and abolish Travis County, the Travis County DA’s Office and the City of Austin. The land area and any judicial offices can be absorbed by surrounding counties as well as the DA’s for those counties. Screw Garza and the left-wing establishment. Use raw naked power and legally destroy them at the base level.
I genuinely like this plan…Let’s call it the “nuclear option.” lol
@VNVET69
We served in the same place at the same time, so I have much respect for you. Welcome back, I’m glad you made it.
My take would be that it is OBVIOUS that this DA is denying our Sergeant his civil rights, and this FELONY is being committed under the guise of his “authority” (another felony). Taking over the function of the legal government is TREASON, another huge felony. And benefitting a foreign power (Hard not to) is particularly felonious.
Once he is convicted of multiple and grievous felonies, his sentences must be served one after the other. He would have to live 141 years to get out.
And I would call it the “Completely Legal DEMOCRAT Option”.
Seems to be the way the game is being play by the donkeys…
And that’s why Austin is called “The People’s Republic of Austin” …
Just another case of communists trying to destroy Texas.
Amazing how many people are willing to throw one of Western culture’s beneficial developments under the bus any time a jury convicts someone they sympathize with.
The jury could legitimately find Sgt. Perry guilty if the prosecution could show clear evidence that Mr. Foster did not wield his gun in a manner that would reasonably be considered threatening and/or that Sgt. Perry’s vehicle operation was sufficiently threatening that Mr. Foster was justified in brandishing his firearm in self defense. Jury unanimously believed that at least one of those conditions was met, but here a pack of commentors think they know the evidence and law better than the jury did.
Unironically yes, pardons also exist for a reason.
The jury is welcome to vote however they see fit. Hopefully, they voted according to the evidence and not the general political and social disdain for anything relating to self-defense in Austin, TX.
Likewise, the governor can pardon whomever he sees fit. That the whole idea behind the pardon. Over the years, many have been pardoned who probably should not have been. whether that would apply to Sgt. Perry, I can’t say for sure. From the reports I saw from a wide variety of sources, his actions should have been considered self defense.
The best punishment by far for these leftist scumbags is to make them live under their own policies and laws.
Comments are closed.