Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[bolverk 29659]

5 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I think this is a reasonable take.  If a bunch of people are banging on my car and part ways for a big masked dude with an AK, I’m worried.  If Perry was out to harm, why didn’t he run over the protestors?  Not saying he wasn’t but why didn’t he?

Because he knew he needed a plausible self-defense claim. This sick fuck fantasized about killing protesters.

Quote

 

AUSTIN, Texas - Day two of witness testimony began Wednesday, March 29 in the murder trial of Daniel Perry.

In court, the jury was presented with messages posted and sent by Perry before the incident. Some messages sent by Perry included "No protesters go near me or my car" and "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters."

Perry is accused of killing Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster in 2020. 

One of the final witnesses of the day included Stephanie Dyess, an analyst with the District Attorney’s Office. She reviewed several of Perry’s Facebook messages and comments.

One Facebook message Perry sent on May 31, 2020, read, "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex". On June 1, 2020, Perry commented "glad someone finally did something" on a Facebook post of a YouTube video titled "Protesters Looters Get Shot San Antonio Texas."

Another witness called to the stand was Perry’s childhood friend Michael Holcomb. Perry messaged Holcomb twice, referring to two separate incidents where someone shot protesters and asked if those people were in the right. These messages were sent a month before the July 25, 2020, incident.

Witness Detective William Bursley with the Austin Police Department was brought on the stand to explain evidence he found extracting data from Perry’s cell phone. This included text messages and Safari searches made from the phone. Some of those searches were made before July 2020 and prompted results for "protest tonight," "protesters in Seattle gets shot," "riot shootouts" and "protests in Dallas live."

Earlier in the day, it was emotional for certain witnesses who took the stand. This included Foster’s quad-paraplegic wife, Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell says she met Foster when they were 17-years-old in high school.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perry-murder-garrett-foster-wife-friend

 

 

And his excuse for murdering Foster "I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me, ya know?" is in and of itself an admission that Foster wasn't pointing his gun at him. Listen to his fake crying.

 

And to get a glimpse of his state of mind:

Quote

On the trial's sixth day, before resting and allowing the defense to begin presenting witnesses, prosecutors played interviews recorded with Perry after his surrender to officers. In these, Perry cries, talks compulsively, and constantly repeats, "I'm sorry." He reacts with something like panic when he learns Foster has died, saying, "Oh my god, oh my god, he's dead, oh my god!" But after being told that he will be released he calms down. By the end of the interviews he's calm enough to attempt a joke, asking, "Do I get to keep the jumpsuit?"

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-04-07/might-have-to-kill-a-few-people/

 

[bolverk 29659]

Also, here's a pointed reminder we had some sick fucks posting in this thread during the protests, so you know that Perry's desire to kill protesters was apparently not that uncommon at the time.

 

[Sawbonz 27543]

On 4/8/2023 at 6:28 PM, Scheiss Meister said:

he has never promised to use his power of pardon to free a murderer from the consequences of his crime

*yet

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

5 hours ago, Gourmand said:

True or false? The decision by Perry's defense team to not have him testify was a mistake. 

False. Its almost never a good idea 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

On 4/7/2023 at 7:06 PM, mchookem said:

genuinely surprised at the verdict. will an appeal go to an overtly conservative court? if so... will not be surprised if it's overturned. but yeah...the actual evidence presented pretty much confirms what most reasonable people thought - this asshole was looking for trouble and he found it. idiot.

(applies to shooter and victim)

It's pretty hard to overturn a jury verdict unless there's some very novel question of law involved that perhaps involved the jury being instructed incorrectly.  The law on appeal of jury verdicts is pretty clear, the law on murder and self-defense is pretty clear.

In the Amber Guyger case, there was potentially a novel question of law, but the defense didn't set it up very well during the trial and the verdict was upheld.  The Dallas Court of Appeals (5th District) is fairly conservative, not the federal 5th Circuit, but even they'd have a tough time overturning this.

 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

On the pardon matter, straight from the Board of Pardons and Parole:

A pardon based on innocence exonerates a person of the crime and erases the conviction when there is evidence of actual innocence or a court has determined the person is innocent. In order to consider a pardon for innocence, the Board requires either evidence of actual innocence from at least two trial officials, or the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the district judge indicating actual innocence.

There are other things Abbott can attempt, such as commutation of his sentence, by leaning on the Board, but a pardon on the grounds of innocence likely is not one of them.  Or the Board will act ultra vires, beyond its statutory power.  And, I guess that might not surprise me that much these days.

Edited April 10, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31440]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Because he knew he needed a plausible self-defense claim. This sick fuck fantasized about killing protesters.

 

And his excuse for murdering Foster "I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me, ya know?" is in and of itself an admission that Foster wasn't pointing his gun at him. Listen to his fake crying.

 

And to get a glimpse of his state of mind:

 

I suppose it's hard to evaluate people's emotional reaction, but that sounds like crocodile tears to me, and the way he recovers instantly to answer questions doesn't change my opinion much.

Also, is this guy Kyle Rittenhouse in 15 years?  

[4th and 5 4914]

23 hours ago, Gourmand said:

True or false? The decision by Perry's defense team to not have him testify was a mistake. 

 

18 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

False. Its almost never a good idea 

D not testifying is the general rule, but in a self defense case, in many cases the D has to.

I've put my client on the stand before for self defense (NG)

His earlier statement seemed to not justify self defense, which would need to be cleaned up. Of course, cross would be ugly, given his social media / phone data. A little to gain and perhaps a lot to lose. I don't second guess his lawyers, they are good.

If I was the prosecutor, I would have hoped he did testify. Lots of ammo for cross.

[Gourmand 7774]

4 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

D not testifying is the general rule, but in a self defense case, in many cases the D has to.

I've put my client on the stand before for self defense (NG)

His earlier statement seemed to not justify self defense, which would need to be cleaned up. Of course, cross would be ugly, given his social media / phone data. A little to gain and perhaps a lot to lose. I don't second guess his lawyers, they are good.

If I was the prosecutor, I would have hoped he did testify. Lots of ammo for cross.

That's what I was thinking as well. Of course I understand why he didn't testify but the jury probably would have liked to hear his defense from his own mouth. I think he would have been destroyed on the stand when confronted with the evidence of his social media posts and text messages. 

[Gourmand 7774]

 

[Scheiss Meister 8407]

Abbott et al thinking that they can avoid the pardon if they can lean on the judge to throw the case out, or set a joke sentence?

[Gourmand 7774]

I think Abbott is posturing and trying to buy time until the right-wing lunatics move on the their next Big Mad White Aggrievement. 

In the event he actually follows through with this threat and interferes to free a convicted murderer, he may be lighting a powder keg in Austin.

[Gourmand 7774]

Garza's response to Abbott:

 

In a state that believes in upholding the importance of the rule of law, the Governor’s statement that he will intervene in the legal proceedings surrounding the death of Garrett Foster is deeply troubling. In this case, a jury of twelve listened to testimony for nearly two weeks, upending their lives to painstakingly evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both the State and the Defense. After hearing from civilian eyewitnesses and expert witnesses, and deliberating for over fifteen hours, they reached the unanimous decision that Daniel Perry did not kill Garrett Foster in self- defense and was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I thank them for their service and want them to know that their service and the service of every juror matters. In our legal system, a jury that gets to decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent – not the Governor. Make no mistake, without intervention from the Governor, the defendant’s conviction would be reviewed by both state and federal courts who will examine the record to ensure that no legal errors were made at this level and that the evidence supported the conviction. Our constitution has built in protections to ensure that no defendant is convicted when the law or evidence does not support it, and this is a central tenant of our legal system. I want to thank the Foster family. I want them to know that the Travis County District Attorney’s office will continue to fight for a justice system that treats everyone equally, including Garrett Foster. I know how long they have waited for justice for Garrett and their family. I can imagine that justice must feel so elusive for them and right now, and for that, I am more sorry than words can express. The proceedings in the case of the State of Texas v. Perry are not yet concluded. Tomorrow morning, Criminal District Judge Clifford Brown will set a date for the sentencing hearing. At that the sentencing hearing, the Judge will be able to consider and evaluate additional evidence before sentencing Mr. Perry for the crime he committed. As this process continues, the Travis County District Attorney’s office will continue to fight to uphold the rule of law and to hold accountable people who commit acts of gun violence in our community.

[fattyflattie 4639]

23 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

the defendant’s conviction would be reviewed by both state and federal courts who will examine the record to ensure that no legal errors were made at this level and that the evidence supported the conviction. Our constitution has built in protections to ensure that no defendant is convicted when the law or evidence does not support it, and this is a central tenant of our legal system.

Lawdawgs, any real world insight you can provide here?  @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @South Austin  @Dahobbs I know this isn’t each of your expertise, but each of you seem like good attorneys, and I’m curious on how often something gets overturned. Or I assume appealed from this review.  How thorough is the review, and it mostly for just procedural mistakes/gaffes?  
 

Obviously just having poor representation can be a factor in the outcome, but not likely overturnable unless negligent? Specifically interested in the part about “evidence supported the conviction”.    Idgaf in this instance, but let’s use it since it was slightly murky, and probably wouldn’t surprise had it gone either way.   Or if you have a better alliteration, by all means. 

[Brisketexan 105084]

Lawdawgs, any real world insight you can provide here?  [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention] [mention=248]TwiceHorn[/mention] [mention=185]South Austin[/mention]  [mention=803]Dahobbs[/mention] I know this isn’t each of your expertise, but each of you seem like good attorneys, and I’m curious on how often something gets overturned. Or I assume appealed from this review.  How thorough is the review, and it mostly for just procedural mistakes/gaffes?  
 
Obviously just having poor representation can be a factor in the outcome, but not likely overturnable unless negligent? Specifically interested in the part about “evidence supported the conviction”.    Idgaf in this instance, but let’s use it since it was slightly murky, and probably wouldn’t surprise had it gone either way.   Or if you have a better alliteration, by all means. 

The short story is that unless there was a material error in the charge to the jury (the document/questionnaire that tells them what the governor law is, and then gives them the questions to answer), reversing a criminal jury verdict is pretty rare. In layman’s terms, to reverse a jury verdict without there being an error in the law - that is, a finding that factually, they got it wrong - requires a finding that no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict. That’s a really high bar.
This case depended on how the finder of fact (the jury) decided the self defense question, which had dueling testimony/evidence. There was evidence sufficient to support a verdict either way, which means it won’t get reversed.
Caveat: I put nothing past the Ct of Criminal Appeals (our highest criminal court) these days. A political reversal is possible.

[Dahobbs 17529]

24 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Lawdawgs, any real world insight you can provide here?  @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @South Austin  @Dahobbs I know this isn’t each of your expertise, but each of you seem like good attorneys, and I’m curious on how often something gets overturned. Or I assume appealed from this review.  How thorough is the review, and it mostly for just procedural mistakes/gaffes?  
 

Obviously just having poor representation can be a factor in the outcome, but not likely overturnable unless negligent? Specifically interested in the part about “evidence supported the conviction”.    Idgaf in this instance, but let’s use it since it was slightly murky, and probably wouldn’t surprise had it gone either way.   Or if you have a better alliteration, by all means. 

As Brisket said, it is pretty tough to get a criminal conviction reversed on appeal.

What will almost never do it is saying that the jury just got it wrong. Appellate courts are going to defer to the jury's findings on facts unless the court finds that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict. 

What can do it is legal errors. For example:

• Did the judge let in evidence that shouldn't have been admitted in? And did that evidence likely influence the verdict? 
• Was the judge's charge to the jury incorrect? Did it improperly frame the law or the questions the jury was to consider?

Finally, since you mentioned it, a verdict can be overturned on appeal if the convicted had constitutionally "ineffective assistance of counsel." However, this is a very difficult to win. Practically speaking, the lawyer has to be so bad that it was as if the defendant wasn't represented at all. That isn't the technical legal standard, but it is my view of how the cases come out. 

[South Austin 52459]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Caveat: I put nothing past the Ct of Criminal Appeals (our highest criminal court) these days. A political reversal is possible.

Same.  Like the Texas Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals is a political body, and I'm sure those judges would be very aware of the political pressure coming from Abbott and the electorate.

[C-Man 27200]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Lawdawgs, any real world insight you can provide here?  @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @South Austin  @Dahobbs I know this isn’t each of your expertise, but each of you seem like good attorneys, and I’m curious on how often something gets overturned. Or I assume appealed from this review.  How thorough is the review, and it mostly for just procedural mistakes/gaffes?  
 

Obviously just having poor representation can be a factor in the outcome, but not likely overturnable unless negligent? Specifically interested in the part about “evidence supported the conviction”.    Idgaf in this instance, but let’s use it since it was slightly murky, and probably wouldn’t surprise had it gone either way.   Or if you have a better alliteration, by all means. 

fatty is asking for, um, a "friend"

[fattyflattie 4639]

19 minutes ago, C-Man said:

fatty is asking for, um, a "friend"

Nah. My friends don’t take their guns to town.    Just curious if it was feel good boilerplate, or if there was actual teeth to it outside of an egregious mistake on the states part, specifically the evidence part. 

[YGIFS 19449]

It's a curious gambit.  I think they'll at least wait for sentencing, but then-it's all over the news right now and Abbott has to strike the right spot in the news cycle.  He can lean into the Court of Appeals and feel out if they think this gets dropped later down the road, but by then, it's old news.  It'd have to go through two appeal iterations and that can take months, if not into 2024.  Or he can pardon in a matter of weeks, if not days.  But a knock on that might be "let the process play itself out, we don't need judicial overreach from the Executive Branch."  The move itself will play well to the crazy base, but I don't know that this overstep plays as well with mainstream Republicans as he thinks it does.  Fuck, even Don Willett thinks this is a mistake.  

[ChickenNuggets 1623]

A shame the city didn't require protesters to have permits... police presence, barricaded streets, and none of this shit happens that night.

[Foosters 17843]

8 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

A shame the city didn't require protesters to have permits... police presence, barricaded streets, and none of this shit happens that night.

Sounds like regulating a fundamental right to me . . . .

[fattyflattie 4639]

22 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

The move itself will play well to the crazy base, but I don't know that this overstep plays as well with mainstream Republicans as he thinks it does.

It absolutely does with them, and absolutely does not with regulars.  I was discussing it with some friends the day before, and I wasn’t terribly surprised with the outcome. Fafo, after all. But they were giddy the next day when Abbott sent out his text.  I maintain that I am not a fan of pardons. 

[Brisketexan 105084]

Sounds like regulating a fundamental right to me . . . .

Well, they were libtards, so it’s ok. Rights are only for certain, umm, types.

[YGIFS 19449]

It is a weird precedent for a former Supreme Court Justice for Abbott to announce this so preemptively and vaguely.  I mean, the paper the jury instructions was still warm from the printer when he started in on this.  I don't know the details.  It's just a curious flex is all.  I know there's some precedence, but very little where a Governor or President pardons somebody before they've even been sentenced.  It's beyond less than 1%.  I mean, it's like Blackacre level law school hypothetical shit.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

42 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

It is a weird precedent for a former Supreme Court Justice for Abbott to announce this so preemptively and vaguely.  I mean, the paper the jury instructions was still warm from the printer when he started in on this.  I don't know the details.  It's just a curious flex is all.  I know there's some precedence, but very little where a Governor or President pardons somebody before they've even been sentenced.  It's beyond less than 1%.  I mean, it's like Blackacre level law school hypothetical shit.  

Saw someone on a thread said Tucker Carlson called him out on it on the previous nights broadcast?   I’ll join brisket if that’s what actually turned Abbott. 

[Captainant 27641]

20 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Saw someone on a thread said Tucker Carlson called him out on it on the previous nights broadcast?   I’ll join brisket if that’s what actually turned Abbott. 

We've been passing legislation and policy based on whatever new grievance he's come up with. Check your local school board. That force and it's intellectual cousins has been the sole animating factor for abbott and the legislature of our state. 

 

Wake the fuck up my dude. There's a reason people have been so upset for so long

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wake the fuck up my dude. There's a reason people have been so upset for so long

I don’t watch Fox news, listen to the chucklefucks that replaced Rush, etc.  At most, I catch some Michael Berry in lieu of listening to aggy and NFL aggy talk in the AM.   And I’ll channel my inner Ana here, but for my adult life, all political parties have been upset about something at all times.  Sorry for not keeping up with the latest of late. 

[ChickenNuggets 1623]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, they were libtards, so it’s ok. Rights are only for certain, umm, types.

these kinds of posts are why we can't have nice things. or decent debates.

[ChickenNuggets 1623]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Sounds like regulating a fundamental right to me . . . .

explain?

[YGIFS 19449]

^

this.  Only time you worry about a political party is when they quit bitchin'.  However, this one is a curious standout to me for two reasons:

1.  This is a strange overreach of executive power.  Our governor, by constitutional design, can't directly pardon.  When he does, it's through the Pardon/parole (whatever the fuck its called) Commission.  He appoints them and they largely just hang out and pardon low level offenders for innocuous offenses as a show of good faith.  They typically wait until the appellate process has played out, and at the very least-until sentencing has taken place before the bench and prison time has begun to remove any appearance of contemplative bias.  And the whole thing is usually done quite privately so as to remove media bias from the process before the commission  hearings.  This is a weird overreach.  No CR, just an incredibly bizarre chain of events.  Not saying it is without precedent but pretty fucking rare.  

2.  Sets up a strange precedent in Texas caselaw for self-defense trials.  More on that later.

[Brisketexan 105084]

Saw someone on a thread said Tucker Carlson called him out on it on the previous nights broadcast?   I’ll join brisket if that’s what actually turned Abbott. 

That is exactly what happened. No hyperbole or exaggeration.

these kinds of posts are why we can't have nice things. or decent debates.

Oh. You think Abbott would take the same stance it it was a BLM protester who shot a cop apologist, flipping the exact situation? You’re adorable.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Lawdawgs, any real world insight you can provide here?  @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @South Austin  @Dahobbs I know this isn’t each of your expertise, but each of you seem like good attorneys, and I’m curious on how often something gets overturned. Or I assume appealed from this review.  How thorough is the review, and it mostly for just procedural mistakes/gaffes?  
 

Obviously just having poor representation can be a factor in the outcome, but not likely overturnable unless negligent? Specifically interested in the part about “evidence supported the conviction”.    Idgaf in this instance, but let’s use it since it was slightly murky, and probably wouldn’t surprise had it gone either way.   Or if you have a better alliteration, by all means. 

Objection, asked and answered, post 1555.

[ztejas 43414]

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Lawdawgs, any real world insight you can provide here?  @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @South Austin  @Dahobbs I know this isn’t each of your expertise, but each of you seem like good attorneys,

(jk)

[ultimaton 2966]

On 4/9/2023 at 11:34 AM, Handcruser said:

I think if you look at his posts and my posts regarding this one of us comes off as unstable and unhinged and it’s not me lol.

Carrying my Easter gun today - Glock 43 IWB - at a little brunch spot.

doxxed

[Gourmand 7774]

Saw someone on a thread said Tucker Carlson called him out on it on the previous nights broadcast?   I’ll join brisket if that’s what actually turned Abbott. 

Uhhhh my dude that's EXACTLY what happened.

[Neonmoon 38129]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Objection, asked and answered, post 1555.

Overruled. The witness is too dumb to read. 

[YGIFS 19449]

2 minutes ago, ultimaton said:

doxxed

That's the saddest Easter Brunch I've ever seen, and I had easter brunch in a CVS parking lot once.  I also like the "Special Forces" cap, because as we all know the first rule of JSOC is festive headwear.  I hope he draws with his left to answer his phone and accidentally shoots his dick off.  What kind of fucking taco place you going to you need to brunch heavy or not at all?  

[hornian 5210]

On 4/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, closetohumping said:

I think this is a reasonable take.  If a bunch of people are banging on my car and part ways for a big masked dude with an AK, I’m worried.  If Perry was out to harm, why didn’t he run over the protestors?  Not saying he wasn’t but why didn’t he?

If it was a reasonable take the jury, who heard nearly two weeks of evidence and deliberated for 2 days would have acquitted him. They didn’t. It’s not like there isn’t recent examples of juries doing just that (hello Rittenhouse).
 

So no, this isn’t a reasonable take. 

[Captainant 27641]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh. You think Abbott would take the same stance it it was a BLM protester who shot a cop apologist, flipping the exact situation? You’re adorable.

In contrast: our state jailed a black woman on voter fraud charges for casting a provisional ballot after she had cleared it with her parole officer and sentenced her to five years of PRISON.  But when it's political violence against the dreaded BLM, the governor rolls in before the judicial process has even rresolved itself!

[fattyflattie 4639]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Objection, asked and answered, post 1555.

Damn, I typically read every single post in threads I’m interested in, don’t know how I missed those two. Thanks for (mostly) answering me preemptively. 
 

22 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Overruled. The witness is too dumb to read. 

Lol. A realtor thinks this. New low for me I must admit. 

[dcar00 14159]

3 hours ago, Foosters said:

Sounds like regulating a fundamental right to me . . . .

like a background check to buy a firearm.

[aggie08 21492]

On 4/9/2023 at 9:34 AM, Handcruser said:

one of us comes off as unstable and unhinged and it’s not me lol.

Carrying my Easter gun today - Glock 43 IWB - at a little brunch spot.

Wow, the juxtaposition of these two comments back to back.

Again, I welcome your perspective on these discussions, and permitted concealed carry doesn't bug me in the slightest...

...but on fucking Easter, dude? That's just depressing.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

6 hours ago, South Austin said:

Same.  Like the Texas Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals is a political body, and I'm sure those judges would be very aware of the political pressure coming from Abbott and the electorate.

Here's the crazy thing, though.  The CCA would have to be reversing someone's conviction.  They bend over backward not to reverse convictions, no matter how legally necessary or deserving, lest they accidentally create a precedent that might result in overturning a second or third conviction, and God forbid a conviction of one a them colored fellas.

The CCA is so fundamentally against overturning convictions, I'm not sure they could find it in themselves to do this one.

[South Austin 52459]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the crazy thing, though.  The CCA would have to be reversing someone's conviction.  They bend over backward not to reverse convictions, no matter how legally necessary or deserving, lest they accidentally create a precedent that might result in overturning a second or third conviction, and God forbid a conviction of one a them colored fellas.

The CCA is so fundamentally against overturning convictions, I'm not sure they could find it in themselves to do this one.

Sure, but I'm guessing it's extremely rare for a conviction to have right-wing political implications behind it.  Usually, as far as the electorate is concerned, it's just a run of the mill convicted criminal who deserves to stay behind bars.  And I doubt the CCA would be concerned with precedent by taking a flier on this one. 

In any event, our fuckstick pandering political weather vane of a governor will grant a pardon before the end of the week, so discussing how the CCA might handle this one is a moo point.

Edited April 11, 2023 by South Austin
Lobo drinks his own pee

[Js1 85297]

10 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Wow, the juxtaposition of these two comments back to back.

Again, I welcome your perspective on these discussions, and permitted concealed carry doesn't bug me in the slightest...

...but on fucking Easter, dude? That's just depressing.

It's a disease.  Gotta carry muh holiday gun to brunch.  

[YGIFS 19449]

You said "weather" twice and then said "moo"  /seanconnery

It's weird that so many people spent so much time bitching about BLM and Antifa protests and still thought, "They're looting and burning and murdering...hey, let's take a drive down there."  I remember watching Ferguson riots unfold on TV and shaking my head in disgust.  It never occurred to me to call my mom or an uber and ride up there to fight the bad guys.  Oh right, right.......they were just helping out the police and EMS.  

[Steamboat1874 4052]

42 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's a disease.  Gotta carry muh holiday gun to brunch.  

Yes it is called "I am a pussy" disease and I need my gun.

[wildcat09 29348]

12 hours ago, ChickenNuggets said:

explain?

There's an amendment before the second that says something about speech. 

[Gourmand 7774]