Marxist Black Lives Matter

#8,901
#8,901
whodeycin85 said:
Nothing I can post or say is going to convince you....you literally saw a photo of Foster with with AK at his shoulder in ready fire position pointed at Perry in the car...and you refused to say he was ..there is nothing anyone could do to convince you....you still think Rittenhouse wasn't self defense to don't you?
Click to expand...

I will be convinced with convincing evidence. Otherwise, I have to default to my position on liberty and 2a and that you can't shoot people just because you are scared of a situation you created.

You have been convinced to go against those principles without proper evidence. The photo is ambiguous. It does not remotely prove Foster was pointing the gun at anyone. Let's be honest. It looks like he's pointing it at the back tire. Again, Perry initially indicated Foster wasn't pointing at him.

You will not convince me with the opinion of a pro-police expert (who by his own admission had incomplete work), and a photo that proves nothing. Must be nice to be able to convince yourself of whatever you want with such scant evidence.
 
#8,902
#8,902
n_huffhines said:
I will be convinced with convincing evidence. Otherwise, I have to default to my position on liberty and 2a and that you can't shoot people just because you are scared of a situation you created.

You have been convinced to go against those principles without proper evidence. The photo is ambiguous. It does not remotely prove Foster was pointing the gun at anyone. Let's be honest. It looks like he's pointing it at the back tire. Again, Perry initially indicated Foster wasn't pointing at him.

You will not convince me with the opinion of a pro-police expert (who by his own admission had incomplete work), and a photo that proves nothing. Must be nice to be able to convince yourself of whatever you want with such scant evidence.
Click to expand...

Curious to know what your take on Rittenhouse was.
 
#8,903
#8,903
n_huffhines said:
I will be convinced with convincing evidence. Otherwise, I have to default to my position on liberty and 2a and that you can't shoot people just because you are scared of a situation you created.

You have been convinced to go against those principles without proper evidence. The photo is ambiguous. It does not remotely prove Foster was pointing the gun at anyone. Let's be honest. It looks like he's pointing it at the back tire. Again, Perry initially indicated Foster wasn't pointing at him.

You will not convince me with the opinion of a pro-police expert (who by his own admission had incomplete work), and a photo that proves nothing. Must be nice to be able to convince yourself of whatever you want with such scant evidence.
Click to expand...
Can you explain the bold above?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#8,904
#8,904
n_huffhines said:
I will be convinced with convincing evidence. Otherwise, I have to default to my position on liberty and 2a and that you can't shoot people just because you are scared of a situation you created.

You have been convinced to go against those principles without proper evidence. The photo is ambiguous. It does not remotely prove Foster was pointing the gun at anyone. Let's be honest. It looks like he's pointing it at the back tire. Again, Perry initially indicated Foster wasn't pointing at him.

You will not convince me with the opinion of a pro-police expert (who by his own admission had incomplete work), and a photo that proves nothing. Must be nice to be able to convince yourself of whatever you want with such scant evidence.
Click to expand...

Oooooooookay!
 
#8,905
#8,905
#8,908
#8,908
n_huffhines said:
— According to multiple witnesses, Perry ran a red light, then accelerated directly toward a group of protesters. He could easily have driven around the protest. He did not.

— According to multiple witnesses, Perry’s car nearly struck Foster’s fiancée Whitney Mitchell and the man who was pushing her wheelchair.

The smearing of Garrett Foster
Click to expand...
That has about as much truth in it as the term "peaceful protesters." Lol. "According to multiple witnesses" has ZERO value considering the witnesses.

In case you need a reminder of what "According to multiple witnesses" were peaceful protests:

black-protesters-who-want-to-demonstrate-peaceful-2-488-1591116827-12_dblbig.jpgdownload (1).jpgdownload.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman, BreatheUT and 1 other person
#8,909
#8,909
n_huffhines said:
— According to multiple witnesses, Perry ran a red light, then accelerated directly toward a group of protesters. He could easily have driven around the protest. He did not.

— According to multiple witnesses, Perry’s car nearly struck Foster’s fiancée Whitney Mitchell and the man who was pushing her wheelchair.

The smearing of Garrett Foster
Click to expand...
Obviously, I wasn't there, but "could have driven around the protest" could mean any number of things. Also, "ran a red light, and accelerated toward a group of protesters" could be viewed the same. If I'm sitting at a red light and a group of protesters are marching towards me, I'm not going to sit around and become a victim given the history of those protests. Do we have any video footage of the quotes you posted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, whodeycin85 and BreatheUT
#8,912
#8,912
Tman44 said:
That has about as much truth in it as the term "peaceful protesters." Lol. "According to multiple witnesses" has ZERO value considering the witnesses.

In case you need a reminder of what "According to multiple witnesses" were peaceful protests:

View attachment 546265View attachment 546266View attachment 546267
Click to expand...

I didn't even say the words "peaceful protesters" and none of this has anything to do with the facts of the case. You guys are bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with the case because the actual details of the case don't favor your position.

Perry killed Foster. He has to prove the killing was justified and saying all the witnesses are liars does not begin to prove his case that he shouldn't be held accountable.
 
#8,913
#8,913
jp1 said:
Obviously, I wasn't there, but "could have driven around the protest" could mean any number of things. Also, "ran a red light, and accelerated toward a group of protesters" could be viewed the same. If I'm sitting at a red light and a group of protesters are marching towards me, I'm not going to sit around and become a victim given the history of those protests. Do we have any video footage of the quotes you posted?
Click to expand...

Is anybody disputing that he couldn't have gone around? Who and based on what?

Whodey's link that was supposed to convince us of Perry's innocence indicated that the footage shows the car accelerating, but the defense and pro-police witness addressed this by saying the angle of the footage can be misleading. So I think we can safely conclude the footage will not refute what I'm saying.
 
#8,914
#8,914
n_huffhines said:
I didn't even say the words "peaceful protesters" and none of this has anything to do with the facts of the case. You guys are bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with the case because the actual details of the case don't favor your position.

Perry killed Foster. He has to prove the killing was justified and saying all the witnesses are liars does not begin to prove his case that he shouldn't be held accountable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely Not! This statement in itself shows how Marxist lie to support an unreasonable and illogical position. In the United States of America the State must prove you guilty due to the presumption of innocence in our legal systems. Only in totalitarian (including but not limited to Marxist) societies must one prove innocence!

You did not say 'peaceful protester"; however, that is just a single example of the gross dishonesty that comes from the left. By posting that he must prove his innocence was yet another example of intellectual bankruptcy of Marxist/Leftist. Thank you for proving my point!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, whodeycin85, Orangeburst and 3 others
#8,916
#8,916
n_huffhines said:
I didn't even say the words "peaceful protesters" and none of this has anything to do with the facts of the case. You guys are bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with the case because the actual details of the case don't favor your position.

Perry killed Foster. He has to prove the killing was justified and saying all the witnesses are liars does not begin to prove his case that he shouldn't be held accountable.
Click to expand...
The state must prove he committed a crime. He's innocent until proven guilty in a democracy. I know this is hard concept for those on the left to understand with all your Marxist and authoritarian ideals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman, SpaceCoastVol and 1 other person
#8,917
#8,917
n_huffhines said:
Is anybody disputing that he couldn't have gone around? Who and based on what?

Whodey's link that was supposed to convince us of Perry's innocence indicated that the footage shows the car accelerating, but the defense and pro-police witness addressed this by saying the angle of the footage can be misleading. So I think we can safely conclude the footage will not refute what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Actually what I read was the defenses expert said the car started off at 11.9mph and the speed decreased. He did say that different angles could produce different results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#8,918
#8,918
Tman44 said:
Absolutely Not! This statement in itself shows how Marxist lie to support an unreasonable and illogical position. In the United States of America the State must prove you guilty due to the presumption of innocence in our legal systems. Only in totalitarian (including but not limited to Marxist) societies must one prove innocence!

You did not say 'peaceful protester"; however, that is just a single example of the gross dishonesty that comes from the left. By posting that he must prove his innocence was yet another example of intellectual bankruptcy of Marxist/Leftist. Thank you for proving my point!
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. We know he killed him. We don't have to prove that. It's a given. You can't just shoot somebody and say it was "because I was scared, prove me wrong." especially when there are witnesses that refute your account, and you have refuted your own account.
 
#8,919
#8,919
jp1 said:
Actually what I read was the defenses expert said the car started off at 11.9mph and the speed decreased. He did say that different angles could produce different results.
Click to expand...

The defense literally asked him why it would appear in some videos like the car accelerated and he said it could be because of the angle. We don't have to speculate or argue about whether or not there is video that makes it look like the car is speeding up. The implication from the question and the response is that the footage exists, which was the point of my post.
 
#8,920
#8,920
n_huffhines said:
This makes no sense. We know he killed him. We don't have to prove that. It's a given. You can't just shoot somebody and say it was "because I was scared, prove me wrong." especially when there are witnesses that refute your account, and you have refuted your own account.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I watched video of the incident and I cannot find the path he could have taken to go around, they were in the road. I didn't see a red light being run but in that hectic scene I can only imagine what a driver trying to navigate it with armed people milling about would have thought. An armed man approaches your vehicle who is not a police officer, while your path is blocked. If you don't consider that threatening I question your sanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77 and 3 others
#8,921
#8,921
n_huffhines said:
The defense literally asked him why it would appear in some videos like the car accelerated and he said it could be because of the angle. We don't have to speculate or argue about whether or not there is video that makes it look like the car is speeding up. The implication from the question and the response is that the footage exists, which was the point of my post.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the reasonable actions of a person attempting to get away from a situation he found threatening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Orangeburst, Tman44 and 1 other person
#8,922
#8,922
n_huffhines said:
This makes no sense. We know he killed him. We don't have to prove that. It's a given. You can't just shoot somebody and say it was "because I was scared, prove me wrong." especially when there are witnesses that refute your account, and you have refuted your own account.
Click to expand...

What part of my post could you not comprehend? The part about calling you out being dishonest? I will be generous and use that word; however, it could also be an abject absence of any intelligence whatsoever. And then I love it how leftist copy arguments and project them on others. I challenge you to explain how I "refuted your own account." Please use words I said. Cut and paste will work just fine. As for your "witnesses" are concerned, please scroll up to see the pictures of the "peaceful protesters." To posit those "witnesses" are trustworthy is akin to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". lol. In case you forgot, another great lie from the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#8,923
#8,923
n_huffhines said:
— According to multiple witnesses, Perry ran a red light, then accelerated directly toward a group of protesters. He could easily have driven around the protest. He did not.

— According to multiple witnesses, Perry’s car nearly struck Foster’s fiancée Whitney Mitchell and the man who was pushing her wheelchair.

The smearing of Garrett Foster
Click to expand...

You mentioned "scant evidence" in your earlier post. What evidence from substack that convinced you of your position?
 
#8,925
#8,925
CobbVol said:
You mentioned "scant evidence" in your earlier post. What evidence from substack that convinced you of your position?
Click to expand...

Substack is not a publication. It's a platform. Radley Balko is the journalist, and I'll put his reputation over literally every journalist that exists. You just quoted a link that has enough convincing evidence to say that Perry created the danger and then escalated it from, at the most, minor property damage to homicide.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top