(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).