Shooting in Austin

[john armond]

Delete double.

[jsbhike]

Looks like some are not happy with the pardon.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...5ed3f54f5&ei=9

This article's description of the incident is a little jaded:

"The encounter leading up to the shooting began when Perry turned onto a street and into one of the demonstrations that swept the country after Minneapolis police killed of George Floyd.

In video that was streamed live on Facebook, a car can be heard honking amid the downtown crowd. Then, several shots ring out, and protesters begin screaming and scattering."

They also said the witnesses said the rifle was never raised and Perry could have simply driven away. If I remember correctly doesn't the video show people on all sides of the car and the guy raising the muzzle of his rifle with the butt near his shoulder/head area? Just because it wasn't fully raised to firing position doesn't mean it wasn't still a threat. I mean, as the article states "Foster was at least a foot away from Perry's car." so, no threat of a bullet fired from a rifle traveling at least a foot. And how was he supposed to just drive off with people all around.

Clown world.

Driving through the crowd would have empowered the decedent to shoot him, presumably without the DA opposing it.

[Alpha-17]

From that article:

“I just thought it was an egregious overreach of power,” Dowell said. “It's undermining due process. It's undermining democracy. I was upset, honestly.”

Man, they really like the danger/threat/undermining democracy talking point don't they. We've heard damn near every variation of it possible the last several years. Just waiting for them to go full clown and say "allowing multiple parties to run in elections is a threat to our democracy."

[rocsteady]

From that article:



Man, they really like the danger/threat/undermining democracy talking point don't they. We've heard damn near every variation of it possible the last several years. Just waiting for them to go full clown and say "allowing multiple parties to run in elections is a threat to our democracy."

What might be equally as dangerous is what they don’t see as a “threat to democracy”: angry mobs of lunatics protesting outside SCOTUS justices’ houses to influence decisions; angry mobs outside of courtroom of the Chauvin trial, daring those inside to make the “wrong” decision; the mass censorship of an opposing side of the political aisle running up to an election; flooding the country wilh an unknown number of ballots before an election, with no way to track the legitimacy of said vote; changing state voting laws, at the last minute, without going through the legal procedure set in place; wanting borders completely unsecured; electing officials whose sole campaign promise of note is to “get the other side’s guy” locked up; and even calling everything that doesn’t align with one very narrow and insane viewpoint “misinformation” or “a threat to our democracy.”

[rocsteady]

From that article:



Man, they really like the danger/threat/undermining democracy talking point don't they. We've heard damn near every variation of it possible the last several years. Just waiting for them to go full clown and say "allowing multiple parties to run in elections is a threat to our democracy."

What might be equally as dangerous is what they don’t see as a “threat to democracy”: angry mobs of lunatics protesting outside SCOTUS justices’ houses to influence decisions; angry mobs outside of courtroom of the Chauvin trial, daring those inside to make the “wrong” decision; the mass censorship of an opposing side of the political aisle running up to an election; flooding the country wilh an unknown number of ballots before an election, with no way to track the legitimacy of said vote; changing state voting laws, at the last minute, without going through the legal procedure set in place; wanting borders completely unsecured; electing officials whose sole campaign promise of note is to “get the other side’s guy” locked up; and even calling everything that doesn’t align with one very narrow and insane viewpoint “misinformation” or “a threat to our democracy.”