(08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Actually it IS cut and dry. Either they claim as you say or they don't. An investigation was held. Where are the claims? How many? Why hasn't anyone SAID that the rifle was raised in defense of the lives of others?? Instead you began by saying there were conflicting reports as to whether or not the gun was even raised.
We know SHE didn't feel threatened. We know of NO report of anyone feeling threatened. I'm not speculating on anything, other than if they had the goods that they would say so. Just because someone felt threatened doesn't mean that a third party can act on their behalf. I mean seriously... you turn around and see a driver trying to get through a blocked intersection... and he's actively trying to push people out of the way with his car.... and you're allowed to KILL him as a result?? C'mon.
The much bigger speculation to me is that while this person didn't feel threatened, SOMEBODY else did, but that is never mentioned.... and that the charges of aggravated assault and deadly conduct must stem from this unarticulated fear, but not the shooting of a gun?? You're guessing about that and while not completely unlikely, its hardly self-evident.
I'd say that shooting a gun is certainly 'deadly conduct'. Aggravated assault doesn't by itself (to my knowledge) constitute risk of life.... which is required for the justification for the rifle.
MAYBE its all there... I just find it odd that NOBODY reporting on this story is saying what you are saying Lad, or supporting the DA here.
(08-12-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]ham, I think that was directed at me. And, I was incorrect in my assessment of the charges.
Okay, I thought I wrote it but perhaps I just relied on it.
Either way as you note, its a distinction without a difference.
The DA did exactly what Lad is dong. He's 'imagining' a scenario under which he can charge someone with a crime... the difference of course is that Lad is merely speculating while the DA is acting in bad faith.
Maybe the reason it wasn't mentioned before is that the investigation ruled it out? Yes, the DA charged it anyway, but that is precisely your complaint. I was unaware of the misconduct other than simply overcharging. It seems the DA agrees with me because that is precisely why he added that charge, even without the evidence.
Without the crowd fearing for their life, the escalation of force by the rifle holder that caused the driver to shoot him is not legal... but the drivers actions generally ARE.... so in order to get to 'murder', he has to do as I accused Lad of doing and assume facts not in evidence. I used the lack of charges as support, but also the lack of comments about that fear. The charges apparently are there, but so to is a direct REFUTATION of the fear required to justify a murder charge.
I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Unless you read the charging report, you have zero idea how many said this.
Given the history of the lead investigator, do you think he pulled the one comment out as the de facto answer on life, the universe, and everything? If the investigator's charging report only cited one witness, or if he talked to only one witness, my guess is that he wouldnt be the 25 year very well respected veteran that he is.
But that is the alternative you are now espousing. It could be what you espouse. Given the very public charge against the DA and his office from that same investigator, my stupid redneck spidey sense tells me that if that report was as paper thin as you question it might be, I would suggest that the shitbird prog DA would have turned that over (public document) to his fellow travelers at the American-Statesman so the clown level of detective work would then detract from accusations leveled.
So, given the background, what do your senses tell you? What the lack of that tells this ornery redneck is that isnt a viable avenue to attack the detective.
Your current 'what if' doesnt pass a real world smell test.
My guess is he cited one woman saying she wasn't threatened and others saying they were. And that maybe he leaned more heavily on what she said, but it's unlikely he ignored or did not include counter statements.
There were so many people on site, around the car, that I doubt that only one person was interviewed and offered an opinion on the threat.
But that is just a hunch.
I would say that would be piss poor detective work. I am glad you have deduced that about the 25 year experience, highly regarded detective.
Interesting that that hasnt come out in any resulting backlash from the DA. Given that the DA also ran on a very express anti-police platform, that would be somewhat unexpected. I would think Garza would have a serious hardon to pummel the detective (and the cops) for that at the outset --- even triply so after the accusation three weeks ago.
And if there were stories going equally one way or the other, the probable recommendation would be to arrest, grill, and dispose of the matter.
The no-charge recommendation tells me that it wasnt a coin flip at all in the detective's mind. And if there had been any hesitancy in the report, the shitbird Garza would have pounded that down the public's craw at this point.
(08-12-2021 02:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, I thought I wrote it but perhaps I just relied on it.
Either way as you note, its a distinction without a difference.
The DA did exactly what Lad is dong. He's 'imagining' a scenario under which he can charge someone with a crime... the difference of course is that Lad is merely speculating while the DA is acting in bad faith.
Maybe the reason it wasn't mentioned before is that the investigation ruled it out? Yes, the DA charged it anyway, but that is precisely your complaint. I was unaware of the misconduct other than simply overcharging. It seems the DA agrees with me because that is precisely why he added that charge, even without the evidence.
Without the crowd fearing for their life, the escalation of force by the rifle holder that caused the driver to shoot him is not legal... but the drivers actions generally ARE.... so in order to get to 'murder', he has to do as I accused Lad of doing and assume facts not in evidence. I used the lack of charges as support, but also the lack of comments about that fear. The charges apparently are there, but so to is a direct REFUTATION of the fear required to justify a murder charge.
I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Unless you read the charging report, you have zero idea how many said this.
Given the history of the lead investigator, do you think he pulled the one comment out as the de facto answer on life, the universe, and everything? If the investigator's charging report only cited one witness, or if he talked to only one witness, my guess is that he wouldnt be the 25 year very well respected veteran that he is.
But that is the alternative you are now espousing. It could be what you espouse. Given the very public charge against the DA and his office from that same investigator, my stupid redneck spidey sense tells me that if that report was as paper thin as you question it might be, I would suggest that the shitbird prog DA would have turned that over (public document) to his fellow travelers at the American-Statesman so the clown level of detective work would then detract from accusations leveled.
So, given the background, what do your senses tell you? What the lack of that tells this ornery redneck is that isnt a viable avenue to attack the detective.
Your current 'what if' doesnt pass a real world smell test.
My guess is he cited one woman saying she wasn't threatened and others saying they were. And that maybe he leaned more heavily on what she said, but it's unlikely he ignored or did not include counter statements.
There were so many people on site, around the car, that I doubt that only one person was interviewed and offered an opinion on the threat.
But that is just a hunch.
I would say that would be piss poor detective work. I am glad you have deduced that about the 25 year experience, highly regarded detective.
Interesting that that hasnt come out in any resulting backlash from the DA. Given that the DA also ran on a very express anti-police platform, that would be somewhat unexpected. I would think Garza would have a serious hardon to pummel the detective (and the cops) for that at the outset --- even triply so after the accusation three weeks ago.
And if there were stories going equally one way or the other, the probable recommendation would be to arrest, grill, and dispose of the matter.
The no-charge recommendation tells me that it wasnt a coin flip at all in the detective's mind. And if there had been any hesitancy in the report, the shitbird Garza would have pounded that down the public's craw at this point.
The DA would publicly discuss details of what was presented behind a closed door grand jury hearing?
(08-12-2021 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Actually it IS cut and dry. Either they claim as you say or they don't. An investigation was held. Where are the claims? How many? Why hasn't anyone SAID that the rifle was raised in defense of the lives of others?? Instead you began by saying there were conflicting reports as to whether or not the gun was even raised.
We know SHE didn't feel threatened. We know of NO report of anyone feeling threatened. I'm not speculating on anything, other than if they had the goods that they would say so. Just because someone felt threatened doesn't mean that a third party can act on their behalf. I mean seriously... you turn around and see a driver trying to get through a blocked intersection... and he's actively trying to push people out of the way with his car.... and you're allowed to KILL him as a result?? C'mon.
The much bigger speculation to me is that while this person didn't feel threatened, SOMEBODY else did, but that is never mentioned.... and that the charges of aggravated assault and deadly conduct must stem from this unarticulated fear, but not the shooting of a gun?? You're guessing about that and while not completely unlikely, its hardly self-evident.
I'd say that shooting a gun is certainly 'deadly conduct'. Aggravated assault doesn't by itself (to my knowledge) constitute risk of life.... which is required for the justification for the rifle.
MAYBE its all there... I just find it odd that NOBODY reporting on this story is saying what you are saying Lad, or supporting the DA here.
It just came out of a grand jury trial where he was indicted on these charges…
But have we really seen NO reporting of people who felt threatened by the driver? How much reading have you done?
I googled another time and quickly found this:
Quote: Last year, two witnesses of the shooting told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry's behavior was threatening and intentional.
“He was driving into a crowd of protesters. No way that that was just like a traffic thing. There’s 100 people in front of you, you don’t drive into them,” said James Sasinowski, one of the protesters. “He intentionally, aggressively accelerated into a crowd of people.”
I have been speaking in hypotheticals because I know I don’t have all the facts, and I’ve been using those I do have (which includes viewing the video of the incident).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastr...ester/amp/
(08-12-2021 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Actually it IS cut and dry. Either they claim as you say or they don't. An investigation was held. Where are the claims? How many? Why hasn't anyone SAID that the rifle was raised in defense of the lives of others?? Instead you began by saying there were conflicting reports as to whether or not the gun was even raised.
We know SHE didn't feel threatened. We know of NO report of anyone feeling threatened. I'm not speculating on anything, other than if they had the goods that they would say so. Just because someone felt threatened doesn't mean that a third party can act on their behalf. I mean seriously... you turn around and see a driver trying to get through a blocked intersection... and he's actively trying to push people out of the way with his car.... and you're allowed to KILL him as a result?? C'mon.
The much bigger speculation to me is that while this person didn't feel threatened, SOMEBODY else did, but that is never mentioned.... and that the charges of aggravated assault and deadly conduct must stem from this unarticulated fear, but not the shooting of a gun?? You're guessing about that and while not completely unlikely, its hardly self-evident.
I'd say that shooting a gun is certainly 'deadly conduct'. Aggravated assault doesn't by itself (to my knowledge) constitute risk of life.... which is required for the justification for the rifle.
MAYBE its all there... I just find it odd that NOBODY reporting on this story is saying what you are saying Lad, or supporting the DA here.
It just came out of a grand jury trial where he was indicted on these charges…
But have we really seen NO reporting of people who felt threatened by the driver? How much reading have you done?
I googled another time and quickly found this:
Quote: Last year, two witnesses of the shooting told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry's behavior was threatening and intentional.
“He was driving into a crowd of protesters. No way that that was just like a traffic thing. There’s 100 people in front of you, you don’t drive into them,” said James Sasinowski, one of the protesters. “He intentionally, aggressively accelerated into a crowd of people.”
I have been speaking in hypotheticals because I know I don’t have all the facts, and I’ve been using those I do have (which includes viewing the video of the incident).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastr...ester/amp/
Broden said the prosecutors in the Travis County District Attorney's office refused to allow Perry's attorney to present written evidence to the jury.
“This refusal is unusual in Texas and begs the question of why the District Attorney’s Office would not allow this,” Broden said. “We understand the political motivations of the District Attorney, however, when this case is presented to a jury at trial and the jury gets to hear all the evidence instead of a one-sided presentation, we have every confidence that Sgt. Perry will be acquitted.”
The district attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment. District Attorney José Garza, who ran on a platform of police accountability during his campaign, told reporters Thursday the jury was presented with the
“most accurate possible set of facts.”
Say what? There are other sets of facts?
(08-12-2021 05:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Actually it IS cut and dry. Either they claim as you say or they don't. An investigation was held. Where are the claims? How many? Why hasn't anyone SAID that the rifle was raised in defense of the lives of others?? Instead you began by saying there were conflicting reports as to whether or not the gun was even raised.
We know SHE didn't feel threatened. We know of NO report of anyone feeling threatened. I'm not speculating on anything, other than if they had the goods that they would say so. Just because someone felt threatened doesn't mean that a third party can act on their behalf. I mean seriously... you turn around and see a driver trying to get through a blocked intersection... and he's actively trying to push people out of the way with his car.... and you're allowed to KILL him as a result?? C'mon.
The much bigger speculation to me is that while this person didn't feel threatened, SOMEBODY else did, but that is never mentioned.... and that the charges of aggravated assault and deadly conduct must stem from this unarticulated fear, but not the shooting of a gun?? You're guessing about that and while not completely unlikely, its hardly self-evident.
I'd say that shooting a gun is certainly 'deadly conduct'. Aggravated assault doesn't by itself (to my knowledge) constitute risk of life.... which is required for the justification for the rifle.
MAYBE its all there... I just find it odd that NOBODY reporting on this story is saying what you are saying Lad, or supporting the DA here.
It just came out of a grand jury trial where he was indicted on these charges…
But have we really seen NO reporting of people who felt threatened by the driver? How much reading have you done?
I googled another time and quickly found this:
Quote: Last year, two witnesses of the shooting told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry's behavior was threatening and intentional.
“He was driving into a crowd of protesters. No way that that was just like a traffic thing. There’s 100 people in front of you, you don’t drive into them,” said James Sasinowski, one of the protesters. “He intentionally, aggressively accelerated into a crowd of people.”
I have been speaking in hypotheticals because I know I don’t have all the facts, and I’ve been using those I do have (which includes viewing the video of the incident).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastr...ester/amp/
Broden said the prosecutors in the Travis County District Attorney's office refused to allow Perry's attorney to present written evidence to the jury.
“This refusal is unusual in Texas and begs the question of why the District Attorney’s Office would not allow this,” Broden said. “We understand the political motivations of the District Attorney, however, when this case is presented to a jury at trial and the jury gets to hear all the evidence instead of a one-sided presentation, we have every confidence that Sgt. Perry will be acquitted.”
The district attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment. District Attorney José Garza, who ran on a platform of police accountability during his campaign, told reporters Thursday the jury was presented with the “most accurate possible set of facts.”
Say what? There are other sets of facts?
Yeah, that is basically what Tanq has been talking about (and I have been agreeing with). Idk if the written evidence is the slide show that was edited or something different.
My understanding is that the judge is making the grand jury info available to the defense so they can see what was presented. This will help bring to light whether Garza is the skeezeball Tanq alleges. Given the seniority of the investigator, something seems amiss.
But I did post previously that there is real friction between the DAs office and Austin PD, so this could also be a manifestation of that.
Earlier today I had an experience of driving through a crowd of people - not 100's of unruly people, like this incident, but dozens of well behaved people. My technique was to edge forward until they moved aside. I guess somebody - anybody - could have considered it threatening. And certainly I could have gunned it at any moment. But the alternative was worse - trying to back out of the crowd. Same thing, but in reverse.
(08-12-2021 04:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it is a lot of speculation (the bolded).
Do we know there is no evidence of this? There was one woman who said she didn't feel threatened. Did other witnesses say they did feel threatened?
And this has gone to my initial point that the arrest/charge does not seem odd. This is clearly not a cut and dry case.
Unless you read the charging report, you have zero idea how many said this.
Given the history of the lead investigator, do you think he pulled the one comment out as the de facto answer on life, the universe, and everything? If the investigator's charging report only cited one witness, or if he talked to only one witness, my guess is that he wouldnt be the 25 year very well respected veteran that he is.
But that is the alternative you are now espousing. It could be what you espouse. Given the very public charge against the DA and his office from that same investigator, my stupid redneck spidey sense tells me that if that report was as paper thin as you question it might be, I would suggest that the shitbird prog DA would have turned that over (public document) to his fellow travelers at the American-Statesman so the clown level of detective work would then detract from accusations leveled.
So, given the background, what do your senses tell you? What the lack of that tells this ornery redneck is that isnt a viable avenue to attack the detective.
Your current 'what if' doesnt pass a real world smell test.
My guess is he cited one woman saying she wasn't threatened and others saying they were. And that maybe he leaned more heavily on what she said, but it's unlikely he ignored or did not include counter statements.
There were so many people on site, around the car, that I doubt that only one person was interviewed and offered an opinion on the threat.
But that is just a hunch.
I would say that would be piss poor detective work. I am glad you have deduced that about the 25 year experience, highly regarded detective.
Interesting that that hasnt come out in any resulting backlash from the DA. Given that the DA also ran on a very express anti-police platform, that would be somewhat unexpected. I would think Garza would have a serious hardon to pummel the detective (and the cops) for that at the outset --- even triply so after the accusation three weeks ago.
And if there were stories going equally one way or the other, the probable recommendation would be to arrest, grill, and dispose of the matter.
The no-charge recommendation tells me that it wasnt a coin flip at all in the detective's mind. And if there had been any hesitancy in the report, the shitbird Garza would have pounded that down the public's craw at this point.
The DA would publicly discuss details of what was presented behind a closed door grand jury hearing?
One can comment on items presented, but one cannot comment if or how they were presented. The investigative report is not sealed because it was presented at that grand jury, if it was so presented.
If the charging report that cleared Perry is as sparse and wafflely as you now purport, nothing precludes Garza from commenting on Fuggit's accusations and how horrible the charging report is.
Your avenue above is just perplexing.
(08-12-2021 07:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 04:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Unless you read the charging report, you have zero idea how many said this.
Given the history of the lead investigator, do you think he pulled the one comment out as the de facto answer on life, the universe, and everything? If the investigator's charging report only cited one witness, or if he talked to only one witness, my guess is that he wouldnt be the 25 year very well respected veteran that he is.
But that is the alternative you are now espousing. It could be what you espouse. Given the very public charge against the DA and his office from that same investigator, my stupid redneck spidey sense tells me that if that report was as paper thin as you question it might be, I would suggest that the shitbird prog DA would have turned that over (public document) to his fellow travelers at the American-Statesman so the clown level of detective work would then detract from accusations leveled.
So, given the background, what do your senses tell you? What the lack of that tells this ornery redneck is that isnt a viable avenue to attack the detective.
Your current 'what if' doesnt pass a real world smell test.
My guess is he cited one woman saying she wasn't threatened and others saying they were. And that maybe he leaned more heavily on what she said, but it's unlikely he ignored or did not include counter statements.
There were so many people on site, around the car, that I doubt that only one person was interviewed and offered an opinion on the threat.
But that is just a hunch.
I would say that would be piss poor detective work. I am glad you have deduced that about the 25 year experience, highly regarded detective.
Interesting that that hasnt come out in any resulting backlash from the DA. Given that the DA also ran on a very express anti-police platform, that would be somewhat unexpected. I would think Garza would have a serious hardon to pummel the detective (and the cops) for that at the outset --- even triply so after the accusation three weeks ago.
And if there were stories going equally one way or the other, the probable recommendation would be to arrest, grill, and dispose of the matter.
The no-charge recommendation tells me that it wasnt a coin flip at all in the detective's mind. And if there had been any hesitancy in the report, the shitbird Garza would have pounded that down the public's craw at this point.
The DA would publicly discuss details of what was presented behind a closed door grand jury hearing?
One can comment on items presented, but one cannot comment if or how they were presented. The investigative report is not sealed because it was presented at that grand jury, if it was so presented.
If the charging report that cleared Perry is as sparse and wafflely as you now purport, nothing precludes Garza from commenting on Fuggit's accusations and how horrible the charging report is.
Your avenue above is just perplexing.
Charging report? I thought we were talking about the 100+ slide power point deck that the detective presented? That was the item Garza told him to adjust and from which the detective was told to remove the alleged exculpatory evidence.
The good thing is the information will come out in the trial and this will be put to bed, one way or another.
What benefit does Garza have to address specifics prior to the trial anyway?
It seems silly to come down firmly on one side of this when the truth should come out. Perhaps Garza is the sleeve bag you say he is. Perhaps he isn’t. We’ll find out at the trial.
(08-12-2021 06:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Earlier today I had an experience of driving through a crowd of people - not 100's of unruly people, like this incident, but dozens of well behaved people. My technique was to edge forward until they moved aside. I guess somebody - anybody - could have considered it threatening. And certainly I could have gunned it at any moment. But the alternative was worse - trying to back out of the crowd. Same thing, but in reverse.
And people use guns around others daily.
What’s your point with this Avenue of posting? It clearly ignores any and all context.
(08-12-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 06:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Earlier today I had an experience of driving through a crowd of people - not 100's of unruly people, like this incident, but dozens of well behaved people. My technique was to edge forward until they moved aside. I guess somebody - anybody - could have considered it threatening. And certainly I could have gunned it at any moment. But the alternative was worse - trying to back out of the crowd. Same thing, but in reverse.
And people use guns around others daily.
What’s your point with this Avenue of posting? It clearly ignores any and all context.
If you have to ask my point, you have clearly missed it.
(08-12-2021 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 06:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Earlier today I had an experience of driving through a crowd of people - not 100's of unruly people, like this incident, but dozens of well behaved people. My technique was to edge forward until they moved aside. I guess somebody - anybody - could have considered it threatening. And certainly I could have gunned it at any moment. But the alternative was worse - trying to back out of the crowd. Same thing, but in reverse.
And people use guns around others daily.
What’s your point with this Avenue of posting? It clearly ignores any and all context.
If you have to ask my point, you have clearly missed it.
Oh, so it is as superficial and shallow as to ignore all context.
(08-12-2021 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It just came out of a grand jury trial where he was indicted on these charges…
You can indict a ham sandwich
Quote:But have we really seen NO reporting of people who felt threatened by the driver? How much reading have you done?
I googled another time and quickly found this:
Quote: Last year, two witnesses of the shooting told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry's behavior was threatening and intentional.
“He was driving into a crowd of protesters. No way that that was just like a traffic thing. There’s 100 people in front of you, you don’t drive into them,” said James Sasinowski, one of the protesters. “He intentionally, aggressively accelerated into a crowd of people.”
I have been speaking in hypotheticals because I know I don’t have all the facts, and I’ve been using those I do have (which includes viewing the video of the incident).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastr...ester/amp/
I've done NO reading.... other than what is here. I've asked you and you've not responded until now... and even here, all they seem to be saying is the same thing you are. Did YOU see him 'intentionally and aggressively accelerate into the crowd?? The sound as if they're speaking 'third party' and not 'first person'.
WHY THEN (once again, for the 4th or 5th time now) didn't you mention that when I suggested that he raised the gun in defense of them?? You initially claimed there were conflicting reports, and NOTHING about him 'protecting others'.
The reality here lad is that you've (intentionally or not) made it VERY clear that you don't believe that someone can be 'aggressive' (but not lethal) and then claim self-defense if someone else brings lethal force. That was your initial position and you've done nothing but tried to find ways to make the situation fit those facts. As to what the DA can argue, you just found a quote that a REPORTER could have added to ANY of the previously linked and quoted stories. I don't expect the DA to hold a press conference and lay out his case... but why is it that we know that the shooter is claiming self defense and what a witness said and what the investigator was told to do with some evidence, but we STILL don't know that the deceased was supposedly acting in defense of protesters, but instead that it is 'unclear if the gun was raised'??
(08-12-2021 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 04:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My guess is he cited one woman saying she wasn't threatened and others saying they were. And that maybe he leaned more heavily on what she said, but it's unlikely he ignored or did not include counter statements.
There were so many people on site, around the car, that I doubt that only one person was interviewed and offered an opinion on the threat.
But that is just a hunch.
I would say that would be piss poor detective work. I am glad you have deduced that about the 25 year experience, highly regarded detective.
Interesting that that hasnt come out in any resulting backlash from the DA. Given that the DA also ran on a very express anti-police platform, that would be somewhat unexpected. I would think Garza would have a serious hardon to pummel the detective (and the cops) for that at the outset --- even triply so after the accusation three weeks ago.
And if there were stories going equally one way or the other, the probable recommendation would be to arrest, grill, and dispose of the matter.
The no-charge recommendation tells me that it wasnt a coin flip at all in the detective's mind. And if there had been any hesitancy in the report, the shitbird Garza would have pounded that down the public's craw at this point.
The DA would publicly discuss details of what was presented behind a closed door grand jury hearing?
One can comment on items presented, but one cannot comment if or how they were presented. The investigative report is not sealed because it was presented at that grand jury, if it was so presented.
If the charging report that cleared Perry is as sparse and wafflely as you now purport, nothing precludes Garza from commenting on Fuggit's accusations and how horrible the charging report is.
Your avenue above is just perplexing.
Charging report? I thought we were talking about the 100+ slide power point deck that the detective presented? That was the item Garza told him to adjust and from which the detective was told to remove the alleged exculpatory evidence.
The good thing is the information will come out in the trial and this will be put to bed, one way or another.
What benefit does Garza have to address specifics prior to the trial anyway?
It seems silly to come down firmly on one side of this when the truth should come out. Perhaps Garza is the sleeve bag you say he is. Perhaps he isn’t. We’ll find out at the trial.
The charging report is not the presentation to the grand jury.
The charging report is the official determination by the lead detective on whether they believe someone should be charged or not --- i.e. the official report of the team done by lead detective on their conclusion on whether arrest/charge being filed should occur. In this case the conclusion was that the shooting was justifiable.
I dont have a clue why you invoked talking about the grand jury proceedings in this.
Your conclusion is that the charging report is fundamentally wrong, and that it only contained a specious level of effort, from how I read what you think of it.
In the real world, if a charging report lays out a case of 'no charge', that will be the route that the DA follows. In the case of a 'no charge', that determination by the detective kind of shoots down any shot at 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Fairly obvious when you think about it.
I am really interested in your reliance on the indictment being a basis for a belief in everything being copacetic about this. There is a famous quote involving a ham sandwich on the subject.
Not to mention the charge that Garza refused to allow exculpatory evidence under his direction to the grand jury.
Not to mention the accusation that Fugitt noted about witness tampering relating to the requests made of him.
Not to mention the refusal to allow Perry's attorney the opportunity to present. I will note that the issue on allowing a defense attorney the opportunity to present isnt a requirement -- but extremely unusual.
Looking at just those issues, it seems readily apparent that the drive to indict was in fact politically motivated, and that Garza had a serious hard-on to bring Perry to trial notwithstanding the very major complication of having a charging report that concluded the act justifiable.
(08-12-2021 08:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It just came out of a grand jury trial where he was indicted on these charges…
You can indict a ham sandwich
Quote:But have we really seen NO reporting of people who felt threatened by the driver? How much reading have you done?
I googled another time and quickly found this:
Quote: Last year, two witnesses of the shooting told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry's behavior was threatening and intentional.
“He was driving into a crowd of protesters. No way that that was just like a traffic thing. There’s 100 people in front of you, you don’t drive into them,” said James Sasinowski, one of the protesters. “He intentionally, aggressively accelerated into a crowd of people.”
I have been speaking in hypotheticals because I know I don’t have all the facts, and I’ve been using those I do have (which includes viewing the video of the incident).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastr...ester/amp/
I've done NO reading.... other than what is here. I've asked you and you've not responded until now... and even here, all they seem to be saying is the same thing you are. Did YOU see him 'intentionally and aggressively accelerate into the crowd?? The sound as if they're speaking 'third party' and not 'first person'.
Yes… I posted there video from an angle that shows this and mentioned it before multiple times.
Sorry that my posts don’t include all information that has ever been written about this case - your responses often seem predicated on the idea that the only information out there is what is posted on this board. You have done far more than ask - you’ve explicitly stated things like “ I just find it odd that NOBODY reporting on this story is saying what you are saying Lad, or supporting the DA here.”
Quote:WHY THEN (once again, for the 4th or 5th time now) didn't you mention that when I suggested that he raised the gun in defense of them?? You initially claimed there were conflicting reports, and NOTHING about him 'protecting others'.
Why didn’t I mention what? These quotes? If so, because I literally just read them.
If something else, probably because this forum isn’t the best place to communicate nuanced and complicated things.
I’ve been posting primarily my thoughts on logical outcomes based on my viewing of the video of the incident and the articles I read at the time.
Quote:The reality here lad is that you've (intentionally or not) made it VERY clear that you don't believe that someone can be 'aggressive' (but not lethal) and then claim self-defense if someone else brings lethal force. That was your initial position and you've done nothing but tried to find ways to make the situation fit those facts. As to what the DA can argue, you just found a quote that a REPORTER could have added to ANY of the previously linked and quoted stories. I don't expect the DA to hold a press conference and lay out his case... but why is it that we know that the shooter is claiming self defense and what a witness said and what the investigator was told to do with some evidence, but we STILL don't know that the deceased was supposedly acting in defense of protesters, but instead that it is 'unclear if the gun was raised'??
Frankly, I think you believe I am set on an opinion and you’re having a hard time understanding that I am not. That I believe there is enough evidence to make a case for the shooter to be either guilty or innocent - but that there is enough evidence to indict him.
I’ve not tried to make the situation fit those facts - you’ve got that twisted. I’ve made an argument, from the start, that there is enough evidence - primarily from the video on Twitter - that the driver acted in a way that could have made the deceased believe he was under imminent danger.
But since it is only one angle, and there is more at play than just a driver speeding into a crowd, as he came to a stop rather quickly as well, it isn’t cut and dry (despite your statement to the contrary).
(08-12-2021 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 04:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 02:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I would say that would be piss poor detective work. I am glad you have deduced that about the 25 year experience, highly regarded detective.
Interesting that that hasnt come out in any resulting backlash from the DA. Given that the DA also ran on a very express anti-police platform, that would be somewhat unexpected. I would think Garza would have a serious hardon to pummel the detective (and the cops) for that at the outset --- even triply so after the accusation three weeks ago.
And if there were stories going equally one way or the other, the probable recommendation would be to arrest, grill, and dispose of the matter.
The no-charge recommendation tells me that it wasnt a coin flip at all in the detective's mind. And if there had been any hesitancy in the report, the shitbird Garza would have pounded that down the public's craw at this point.
The DA would publicly discuss details of what was presented behind a closed door grand jury hearing?
One can comment on items presented, but one cannot comment if or how they were presented. The investigative report is not sealed because it was presented at that grand jury, if it was so presented.
If the charging report that cleared Perry is as sparse and wafflely as you now purport, nothing precludes Garza from commenting on Fuggit's accusations and how horrible the charging report is.
Your avenue above is just perplexing.
Charging report? I thought we were talking about the 100+ slide power point deck that the detective presented? That was the item Garza told him to adjust and from which the detective was told to remove the alleged exculpatory evidence.
The good thing is the information will come out in the trial and this will be put to bed, one way or another.
What benefit does Garza have to address specifics prior to the trial anyway?
It seems silly to come down firmly on one side of this when the truth should come out. Perhaps Garza is the sleeve bag you say he is. Perhaps he isn’t. We’ll find out at the trial.
The charging report is not the presentation to the grand jury.
The charging report is the official determination by the lead detective on whether they believe someone should be charged or not --- i.e. the official report of the team done by lead detective on their conclusion on whether arrest/charge being filed should occur. In this case the conclusion was that the shooting was justifiable.
I dont have a clue why you invoked talking about the grand jury proceedings in this.
Your conclusion is that the charging report is fundamentally wrong, and that it only contained a specious level of effort, from how I read what you think of it.
In the real world, if a charging report lays out a case of 'no charge', that will be the route that the DA follows. In the case of a 'no charge', that determination by the detective kind of shoots down any shot at 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Fairly obvious when you think about it.
I am really interested in your reliance on the indictment being a basis for a belief in everything being copacetic about this. There is a famous quote involving a ham sandwich on the subject.
Not to mention the charge that Garza refused to allow exculpatory evidence under his direction to the grand jury.
Not to mention the accusation that Fugitt noted about witness tampering relating to the requests made of him.
Not to mention the refusal to allow Perry's attorney the opportunity to present. I will note that the issue on allowing a defense attorney the opportunity to present isnt a requirement -- but extremely unusual.
Looking at just those issues, it seems readily apparent that the drive to indict was in fact politically motivated, and that Garza had a serious hard-on to bring Perry to trial notwithstanding the very major complication of having a charging report that concluded the act justifiable.
How is my conclusion that the charging report is wrong when I have never read it or brought it up???
I also have said repeatedly that I’m not convinced everything is copacetic about the DA’s actions!
It’s like you can’t understand that someone doesn’t have a binary response to a situation - that one must pick a side and not concede or believe that the other side is probable. I’ve said the only thing I firmly believe in is that the video I saw made me believe the indictment and arrest were warranted.
Is there going to be enough evidence to find this guy guilty? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that answer was no, and I think that is fine (based on the cursory reading I’ve done).
(08-12-2021 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 04:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The DA would publicly discuss details of what was presented behind a closed door grand jury hearing?
One can comment on items presented, but one cannot comment if or how they were presented. The investigative report is not sealed because it was presented at that grand jury, if it was so presented.
If the charging report that cleared Perry is as sparse and wafflely as you now purport, nothing precludes Garza from commenting on Fuggit's accusations and how horrible the charging report is.
Your avenue above is just perplexing.
Charging report? I thought we were talking about the 100+ slide power point deck that the detective presented? That was the item Garza told him to adjust and from which the detective was told to remove the alleged exculpatory evidence.
The good thing is the information will come out in the trial and this will be put to bed, one way or another.
What benefit does Garza have to address specifics prior to the trial anyway?
It seems silly to come down firmly on one side of this when the truth should come out. Perhaps Garza is the sleeve bag you say he is. Perhaps he isn’t. We’ll find out at the trial.
The charging report is not the presentation to the grand jury.
The charging report is the official determination by the lead detective on whether they believe someone should be charged or not --- i.e. the official report of the team done by lead detective on their conclusion on whether arrest/charge being filed should occur. In this case the conclusion was that the shooting was justifiable.
I dont have a clue why you invoked talking about the grand jury proceedings in this.
Your conclusion is that the charging report is fundamentally wrong, and that it only contained a specious level of effort, from how I read what you think of it.
In the real world, if a charging report lays out a case of 'no charge', that will be the route that the DA follows. In the case of a 'no charge', that determination by the detective kind of shoots down any shot at 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Fairly obvious when you think about it.
I am really interested in your reliance on the indictment being a basis for a belief in everything being copacetic about this. There is a famous quote involving a ham sandwich on the subject.
Not to mention the charge that Garza refused to allow exculpatory evidence under his direction to the grand jury.
Not to mention the accusation that Fugitt noted about witness tampering relating to the requests made of him.
Not to mention the refusal to allow Perry's attorney the opportunity to present. I will note that the issue on allowing a defense attorney the opportunity to present isnt a requirement -- but extremely unusual.
Looking at just those issues, it seems readily apparent that the drive to indict was in fact politically motivated, and that Garza had a serious hard-on to bring Perry to trial notwithstanding the very major complication of having a charging report that concluded the act justifiable.
How is my conclusion that the charging report is wrong when I have never read it or brought it up???
I also have said repeatedly that I’m not convinced everything is copacetic about the DA’s actions!
It’s like you can’t understand that someone doesn’t have a binary response to a situation - that one must pick a side and not concede or believe that the other side is probable. I’ve said the only thing I firmly believe in is that the video I saw made me believe the indictment and arrest were warranted.
Is there going to be enough evidence to find this guy guilty? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that answer was no, and I think that is fine (based on the cursory reading I’ve done).
Color me wholly unsurprised. Glad to know your predisposition rests with the indictment as opposed to the charging report. Me? I think I will go with the 25 year experience of the lead detective in this one. Count me as an odd-bird on that....
Better make sure Officer lad isnt around when some gaggle of shitbirds closes off a street and anyone dares to even *move* a car even a smidgeon, I surmise.
By the way lad, when you bother to read, I have been referring to the charging report consistently during this time.
(08-12-2021 11:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2021 07:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]One can comment on items presented, but one cannot comment if or how they were presented. The investigative report is not sealed because it was presented at that grand jury, if it was so presented.
If the charging report that cleared Perry is as sparse and wafflely as you now purport, nothing precludes Garza from commenting on Fuggit's accusations and how horrible the charging report is.
Your avenue above is just perplexing.
Charging report? I thought we were talking about the 100+ slide power point deck that the detective presented? That was the item Garza told him to adjust and from which the detective was told to remove the alleged exculpatory evidence.
The good thing is the information will come out in the trial and this will be put to bed, one way or another.
What benefit does Garza have to address specifics prior to the trial anyway?
It seems silly to come down firmly on one side of this when the truth should come out. Perhaps Garza is the sleeve bag you say he is. Perhaps he isn’t. We’ll find out at the trial.
The charging report is not the presentation to the grand jury.
The charging report is the official determination by the lead detective on whether they believe someone should be charged or not --- i.e. the official report of the team done by lead detective on their conclusion on whether arrest/charge being filed should occur. In this case the conclusion was that the shooting was justifiable.
I dont have a clue why you invoked talking about the grand jury proceedings in this.
Your conclusion is that the charging report is fundamentally wrong, and that it only contained a specious level of effort, from how I read what you think of it.
In the real world, if a charging report lays out a case of 'no charge', that will be the route that the DA follows. In the case of a 'no charge', that determination by the detective kind of shoots down any shot at 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Fairly obvious when you think about it.
I am really interested in your reliance on the indictment being a basis for a belief in everything being copacetic about this. There is a famous quote involving a ham sandwich on the subject.
Not to mention the charge that Garza refused to allow exculpatory evidence under his direction to the grand jury.
Not to mention the accusation that Fugitt noted about witness tampering relating to the requests made of him.
Not to mention the refusal to allow Perry's attorney the opportunity to present. I will note that the issue on allowing a defense attorney the opportunity to present isnt a requirement -- but extremely unusual.
Looking at just those issues, it seems readily apparent that the drive to indict was in fact politically motivated, and that Garza had a serious hard-on to bring Perry to trial notwithstanding the very major complication of having a charging report that concluded the act justifiable.
How is my conclusion that the charging report is wrong when I have never read it or brought it up???
I also have said repeatedly that I’m not convinced everything is copacetic about the DA’s actions!
It’s like you can’t understand that someone doesn’t have a binary response to a situation - that one must pick a side and not concede or believe that the other side is probable. I’ve said the only thing I firmly believe in is that the video I saw made me believe the indictment and arrest were warranted.
Is there going to be enough evidence to find this guy guilty? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that answer was no, and I think that is fine (based on the cursory reading I’ve done).
Color me wholly unsurprised. Glad to know your predisposition rests with the indictment as opposed to the charging report. Me? I think I will go with the 25 year experience of the lead detective in this one. Count me as an odd-bird on that....
Better make sure Officer lad isnt around when some gaggle of shitbirds closes off a street and anyone dares to even *move* a car even a smidgeon, I surmise.
By the way lad, when you bother to read, I have been referring to the charging report consistently during this time.
I haven’t read the charging report - can you point me to it? My predisposition of whether there is enough evidence to charge the guy rests in a combination of the video I watched of the better angle and the results of the indictment. It doesn’t go past that and extend to guilty/not guilty. I thought you said you similarly were ok with the arrest and charges?
I’ve already told you that I too think the officer’s words hold a lot of weight. But given that the truth WILL come out, I don’t see a reason to plant my flag firmly on either side of the DA fight.
The first reference to it I remember seeing was when you brought it up regarding the inherent uncertainty in things, unless I’ve read it. Or were you relying on its content to inform your takes before that and I missed it?
So, gas prices have been rising like a bottle rocket in this administration. What does the administration do?
They have asked OPEC to raise their production.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/11/as-gas-p...utiny.html
These are the same tools that deep sixed the XL pipeline on a unilateral and after the fact basis, and have hampered domestic exploration, drilling and production activities.
You cant make this **** up.