The Texas government can't pardon a decision made by a us Courtsmarshal, though, can it? I didn't think that a state governor can void a federal offense on a system of federal law, especially military law.US army sergeant found guilty of murdering BLM protester in Austin
Texas governor moves to pardon Daniel Perry, who was convicted of shooting Garrett Foster during rally in 2020www.theguardian.com
No, he couldn’t. He also can’t do anything if the Feds convict on civil rights violations.The Texas government can't pardon a decision made by a us Courtsmarshal, though, can it? I didn't think that a state governor can void a federal offense on a system of federal law, especially military law.US army sergeant found guilty of murdering BLM protester in Austin
Texas governor moves to pardon Daniel Perry, who was convicted of shooting Garrett Foster during rally in 2020
Perhaps this is the "virtue signal" kernel: they know they can make a meaningless gesture by pardoning the state crimes without having to deal with the fallout because the UCMJ will keep them locked up.
I was thinking of the discrepancy in how Foster is described by the left vs. how somebody like Rittenhouse was. The latter is still one of the most hated men by the fauxgressive left.
That is indeed a problem. Two people with weapons can easily genuinely and reasonably feel threatened by each other.
Not sure . It was the jury in Austin, hardly a "conservative" city, that did the judging here.
Agreed. Especially during a riot.
Perry was surrounded by an angry mob, and one of them (Foster) was visibly armed. His social media posts are worrying, but Foster also had extremist content. Seems like asshole on asshole shooting.
There was a lot of video evidence presented at that trial, and none of it showed Ritt behaving threateningly until he was himself attacked. That is despite the best efforts of that hipster prosecutor to make it seem that way. On the other hand, kid-fucker Rosenbaum was behaving angrily and threateningly even before he encountered Ritt.
If Foster was part of the mob that was surrounding Perry, I could see there being a treat. Perry also testified that Foster aimed the gun at him, which is threatening per se. Unfortunately there was no video showing the actual shooting.
RIttenhouse killed three people. Foster shot at zero and killed zero people. Is this the discrepancy you are speaking of?
He killed three people after inserting himself in a situation that was dangerous and he wasn't trained for... and has shown zero remorse. I have shown more remorse for accidentally cutting someone off on the highway than he showed in the shooting deaths of three people at a protest he shouldn't have been at (trying to keep the peace).
Firstly, I don't think there is evidence to suggest that Perry was "surrounded by an angry mob". There are questions as to whether he more accurately inserted him and his car in side the protestors.
That isn't remotely relevant. Really the relevant question is whether Foster aimed his gun at the Perry signifying a reasonable intent on his life. Or whether Perry legitimately felt fear for his life.
No video of the shooting, but you keep:
He did not. He shot three, and killed two, in self defense. Grosskreutz survived. He even testified at trial. It did not help the prosecution.
The discrepancy is how people at protests/riots armed with "assault weapons" are viewed.
Again, he defended himself from attack.
The three Antifas should not have been there. In fact, nobody should have been there.
#BLM mobs in Summer 2020 were invariably angry. What are you talking about?
For the question of self defense, yes. That is the relevant issue.
The videos that exist show a mob. So 1 is given. 2 is neither proven nor disproven. Benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.
I am just baffled at the amount of vilification 17 year old Ritt gets for showing up with an AR15 when a much older (who should have thus known better) Foster with an AK47 is not getting any criticism for showing up with his rifle.
Because Derec doesn’t like the ideas that Black Lives Matter.
Me llamo T-Bone, la araña discoteca
That'd be a derail. The only viable excuse for either man killing each other was the imminent threat to their life. Your obsession over gun wielding leftists is oddly out of line with your position on gun wielding alt-righters. For whatever reason, you want to make this about how liberals would have supported the murder of the man in the car. Which is just intolerably baseless.
Are we using a lighter term for mob... because if that was a mob, the guy in the car wouldn't have been able to drive off.
An underaged Rittenhouse showed up armed to police a protest. If memory serves, he tried to house in with some right-wing militia types but was booted out, likely because he didn't belong there.
If you lead that horse to water, you will find that at the root of all his complaints, is GUNS. He can’t seem to bring himself to realize that guns are what he’s complaining about, not BLMers or Lib’ruls. BLM and Leftists are just boogeyman placeholders for the GUNS that are the actual problem that keeps Derec awake.
It is incredible... gun wielding Rittenhouse shouldn't have been considered a threat by protestors... while gun wielding leftist protestor (who likely didn't need a ride from mommy to get to the protest) should have been considered a threat.
Yeah, personifying the threat provides some comfort to the insecure. You can kill lefties, but you can’t kill guns. So, which is the addressable problem? Why, lefties of course.
