Texas Governor Pardons Convicted Murder

[Jarhyn]

Are we taking an over/under on how many people will be murdered this June for Pride in Texas?

Last I knew, gay, and especially trans people, are pretty heavily armed.

Maybe we should set up a betting pool to see what day is the day someone first shoots someone at a gay event in Texas, and maybe bonus points for guessing how long before the gays start shooting back?

This is no less than a clarion call for violence this summer.

 

[Gospel]

Not really, because they'd still be prosecuted; only people the government governor favors would get pardoned. Gay and Trans people would need to work on getting a friendly governor in office before declaring kill on site.

 

[SLD]

Open Season on African Americans in Texas. Disgusting.

I think you meant white people, right?

Racists generally do not accord any special privileges to whites who miscegnate.

Well I’m embarrassed. I thought the victim was African American. Still it’s an awful and indeed racist decision.

 

[bilby]

The 2nd amendment was based on giving slave holders the chance to shoot run away slaves. At least that's what I've read recently and I believe it. It was never, ever meant for self defense, but that's what happens when a county is run by nasty idiots, who love guns more than they love people or pets for that matter.

Well, it was also based on giving settlers a way to clear their farmland of any uppity injuns who might be treating the country like they owned it, or something.

 

[ZiprHead]

. I don't see how the governor's actions in pardoning him can be intended as anything other than an incitement to racialized violence in his state this June.

I try to avoid having firm opinions about such events, because it's too hard to get clear information. But, boy, that's sure what it looks like. Lots of politics, not much justice.
Tom

The party of responsibility strikes again.

 

[Derec]

Open Season on African Americans in Texas. Disgusting.

The African American:

 

[Derec]

I didn't follow this case, or really even remember it happening, but for those who did, what evidence of self defense is Broden talking about, and what evidence is being suppressed?

Foster came up to Perry armed with an AK47. Previously, he said that those opposed to him were "pussies" who would not do anything. I guess that's why he thought he could just confront the guy like that.

By the way, is bringing rifles to protests good now? Because y'all said it was bad when Ritt did it. What gives?

 

[Derec]

So Texas has strong Stand Your Ground protections, and despite that, he was still convicted.

It's Travis County, which went 71-26 for Biden, so that was hardly surprising. It has a left-wing DA and a left-leaning jury pool.

 

[Derec]

If you'd like to know more about Foster, who was also a veteran of the Air Force, I highly recommend this Rolling Stone interview with his widow:

'He Didn't Deserve It': Widow of Murdered BLM Protester Speaks Out

The man who killed Whitney Mitchell's longtime partner was convicted of murder. Now, Texas Governor Greg Abbott wants to pardon him.

www.google.com

This is a really sad story. First her illness, then the shooting, for which Foster was partially responsible himself, regardless of the legal outcome.

 

[Derec]

The 2nd amendment was based on giving slave holders the chance to shoot run away slaves. At least that's what I've read recently and I believe it.

There are a lot of claims like that being made on the far left. There is also the claim by police abolitionists that the origin of police are the "slave catchers" and that police are irredeemable for that reason. Also not true, but often repeated in certain circles.

It was never, ever meant for self defense, but that's what happens when a county is run by nasty idiots, who love guns more than they love people or pets for that matter.

Do you apply the same judgment to Foster himself? After all, he was armed and he confronted Perry holding an AK47.

 

[Derec]

only people the government governor favors would get pardoned.

That is the case for all executive clemencies.
It is not a coincidence that Bill Clinton commuted the sentence of communist terrorists who bombed the US Senate in the 1980s nor that Obama commuted the sentence of a left-wing Puerto-Rican terrorist who was involved in several deadly bombings in the 1970s.
Andrew Cuomo, then governor of New York, also commuted the sentence of at least one Weather Underground terrorist.
So again, executive clemency is always a political matter.

 

[southernhybrid]

The 2nd amendment was based on giving slave holders the chance to shoot run away slaves. At least that's what I've read recently and I believe it. It was never, ever meant for self defense, but that's what happens when a county is run by nasty idiots, who love guns more than they love people or pets for that matter.

Well, it was also based on giving settlers a way to clear their farmland of any uppity injuns who might be treating the country like they owned it, or something.

You're probably correct. It was all about being able to shoot minorities that were interfering with the colonists. It's too bad that most people don't realize it was never originally about self defense and our country would be so much better off without all the fucking guns. Too many people with them act irrationally. When I was younger people didn't shoot each other over road rage, or because someone knocked on your door who you didn't know etc. etc.

 

[thebeave]

I didn't follow this case, or really even remember it happening, but for those who did, what evidence of self defense is Broden talking about, and what evidence is being suppressed?

Foster came up to Perry armed with an AK47. Previously, he said that those opposed to him were "pussies" who would not do anything. I guess that's why he thought he could just confront the guy like that.

By the way, is bringing rifles to protests good now? Because y'all said it was bad when Ritt did it. What gives?

Yeah, Rittenour popped into my mind as well, and the whole, "what kind of idiot brings an AR15 (or, AK47) to a protest" narrative that was so common with the Rittenour case. Not much (as in "zero") mention of that narrative here, and in fact, the article mentions it was his legal right to do so. There's also the implication that Perry, apparently a racist and white supremecist, came to the BLM protest armed with a gun and bad intentions, but ultimately ends up killing a white guy who also just happens to have a gun. My first thought is that it was just a couple of hot-headed, armed knuckleheads who ended up in a dick swinging contest, which one of them was bound to lose. The fact that Foster has a black wife has been mentioned as a reason for Perry to want to kill him, but its not clear that Perry would have known that.

I don't agree with the pardon, though. As was pointed out earlier, an appeal is the proper venue to resolve any real or perceived injustice in the verdict or sentence.

 

[Politesse]

My first thought is that it was just a couple of hot-headed, armed knuckleheads who ended up in a dick swinging contest, which one of them was bound to lose.

See, this is why other people read things before commenting on them. That does that not describe the situation accurately in the slightest. Perry tweeted that he was going to go kill some BLM protesters, then drove a car into a crowd of people, including Foster's wheelchair-bound wife, and Foster tried to stop him, so Perry shot him through the window. That is not a "dick swingIng contest" in which both parties are at fault. It was just a murder, simple and pre-meditated.

 

[thebeave]

My first thought is that it was just a couple of hot-headed, armed knuckleheads who ended up in a dick swinging contest, which one of them was bound to lose.

See, this is why other people read things before commenting on them. That does that not describe the situation accurately in the slightest. Perry tweeted that he was going to go kill some BLM protesters, then drove a car into a crowd of people, including Foster's wheelchair-bound wife, and Foster tried to stop him, so Perry shot him through the window. That is not a "dick swingIng contest" in which both parties are at fault. It was just a murder, simple and pre-meditated.

Not sure if serious. Even though the first linked article (Politico) in the OP says the two men were white (in the second paragraph), at least four people (two via a "thumbs up") in this short thread, so far, had assumed the victim was black. And I'm the one who supposedly doesn't "read things before commenting"? Nice try.

Secondly, the tweet that I believe you are referring to was with regard to BLM "looters", not BLM protesters and it was created in May whereas the murder took place in late July. On top of that, he referred to looters in Dallas, whereas this protest and murder took place in Austin. Your wording gives the impression he tweeted it shortly before he got in his car. But maybe you are referring to a different tweet sent that day, in which case... I'm all ears. Please clarify. One other point is that his purpose in going to the protest that day was to drop off a passenger there (he was an Uber driver apparently). Whether he simultaneously developed pre-meditated murderous intentions with that Uber trip is not clear, at least not from the info in the OP. Feel free to clarify, though.

Finally, I said it was "my first thought". It doesn't mean its my firm conclusion about the motives or the events that took place. It could be a completely wrong assessment, based on further review. So, you went a little overboard there in saying I "did not describe the situation accurately in the slightest". And since when did a "dick swinging contest" have to have both parties at fault? That's news to me. AFAIK, its just a slang term for two guys having a tussle regardless of which one (or both) is at fault.

 

[Politesse]

Not sure if serious. Even though the first linked article (Politico) in the OP says the two men were white (in the second paragraph), at least four people (two via a "thumbs up") in this short thread, so far, had assumed the victim was black. And I'm the one who supposedly doesn't "read things before commenting"? Nice try.

You're not the only one, no. But you are among those who post without reading, and often without thinking as near as I can tell. I imagine a lot of people assume, when they see that a protestor was shot at a BLM protest, would assume the victim was black. This does betray a bit of racial bias, but not in the way you're hoping to convey. This killing was most certainly racially motivated, and the skin color of the victim does not change that.

And since when did a "dick swinging contest" have to have both parties at fault? That's news to me. AFAIK, its just a slang term for two guys having a tussle regardless of which one (or both) is at fault.

That's exactly what it means, and why using the phrase, in a situation where one party is very obviously the aggressor, is painting a false equivalency. We also generally use that phrase in situations where the ego of the men involved is the primary issue, which is not true of either perpetrator or victim in this case as near as I can tell. One came to commit an act of violence, one was acting in defense of innocents. Neither of them was grandstanding just for show, or at least we have no reason to think they were. You're ignoring all the facts that make the murderer look like a murderer, and only focusing on those which might make it seem as though both men were complicit, and both in mortal danger.

 

[Politesse]

Secondly, the tweet that I believe you are referring to was with regard to BLM "looters", not BLM protesters and it was created in May whereas the murder took place in late July. On top of that, he referred to looters in Dallas, whereas this protest and murder took place in Austin. Your wording gives the impression he tweeted it shortly before he got in his car. But maybe you are referring to a different tweet sent that day, in which case... I'm all ears. Please clarify. One other point is that his purpose in going to the protest that day was to drop off a passenger there (he was an Uber driver apparently). Whether he simultaneously developed pre-meditated murderous intentions with that Uber trip is not clear, at least not from the info in the OP. Feel free to clarify, though.

Whether these tweets indicate mens rea may be a matter for lawyers to decide, and it will turn us into lawyers if we try to argue it. Can a person who intends to murder "BLM looters" at one time become a paragon of racial tolerance three months later? Technically, yes. Likely? Not on your life. But I'm sure you will retort that I don't know that's true. Who can really know the tortured soul of this poor misuenderstood murderer? No one but his gods I guess, but I'm certainly not convinced that Greg Abbott has the line in. Nor anyone who believes there is such a thing as a "BLM looter". Funny how you folks are so quick to assume the worst possible intentions of anyone with black skin on the scantest of evidence or guilt by association, but when the shooter is white, it takes a signed confession of racially motivated murder to convince you that they may have had ill intent.

his purpose in going to the protest that day was to drop off a passenger.

Even if it was the passenger who wanted to run over a bunch of people and shoot one of them, that doesn't get the driver off the hook for doing it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some videos with analysis of the incident. The third is actual testimony from the trial.

 

[southernhybrid]

only people the government governor favors would get pardoned.

That is the case for all executive clemencies.
It is not a coincidence that Bill Clinton commuted the sentence of communist terrorists who bombed the US Senate in the 1980s nor that Obama commuted the sentence of a left-wing Puerto-Rican terrorist who was involved in several deadly bombings in the 1970s.
Andrew Cuomo, then governor of New York, also commuted the sentence of at least one Weather Underground terrorist.
So again, executive clemency is always a political matter.

You forgot to mention that the two women who Clinton pardoned didn't kill anyone and they had already served over 25 years in prison. I read they left a bomb in the capital that did about 250K in damage but nobody was killed. That's hardly the same as killing someone. And, despite what the shooter said, several witnesses said that he was never threatened by the victim. I haven't looked up the other pardons you mentioned, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had already served a long prison term prior to their pardons. Sometimes a person is pardoned because a politician feels that they've already served a long sentence and they've shown remorse and they've been rehabilitated. I don't see that as a political matter. I see it more as a matter of being merciful to someone who has served a long prison sentence and is no longer a threat to society.

The guy who Obama pardoned had already served over 35 years in prison. Below is some info about him. He was also a Viet Nam Veteran who had won the Bronze star, so maybe the war fucked him up, but regardless, it's not like he didn't already serve a long sentence, He had been sentenced to 55 years and then more years. Why didn't you mentioned those things?

Celebrities, politicians and activists, ranging from Bernie Sanders to Hamiltoncreator Lin Manuel Miranda and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, are asking President Obama to grant clemency to a man who was part of a militant group that fought for Puerto Rican independence.

Oscar López Rivera has been in federal prison since 1981, convicted for "seditious conspiracy" to overthrow the the government of the United States, in relation to his membership in the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional, or FALN. Between 1974 and 1983, the FALN claimed responsibility for more than 70 bombings in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. The bombings caused millions in property damage, dozens of injuries and five deaths.

 

[southernhybrid]

And, let me add that the other guy who Derec mentioned was 76 years old when he was pardoned and had already served over 40 years in prison. Why didn't Derec mentioned all of that? Those pardons regardless if you agree with them or not, aren't the same as a murdered being pardoned after barely serving any time.

For his role in the heist, the 76-year-old has served four decades for felony murder and robbery. Boudin, who was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2019, grew up with both parents in jail. His mother was also involved in the heist and was imprisoned until 2003, despite having “identical culpability in the crime,” as the progressive prosecutor has described it.