domain:reddit.com
To what degree did the protestors' tactics of illegally barricading streets, widespread throughout the Floyd riots and a recurring prelude to tragedy, bear responsibility for the outcome?
Close to one hundred percent. The tactic is classic dilemma action, penning people into a position where they must either submit to the intimidation tactics of the mob or become violent against the mob. In either case, the mob organizers like the optics of the outcome - heads they have shut things down and flexed their might, tails and they're the poor innocent victims. No one should ever treat these tactics as "peaceful".
How should we interpret Perry's comments prior to the shooting, or Foster's for that matter?
As I wrote elsewhere:
Allow us, for a moment, to consider that everyone involved here is telling their truth to the best of their ability. Garrett Foster was a good and decent man that lovingly cared for his tragically quadriplegic fiancée. He was at these protests due to a deeply felt conviction that black people are oppressed by the police and was personally invested in the matter because the love of his life is a black woman. He carried a firearm at the protests because this is his constitutional right and he wanted to protect his ingroup from agitators. Daniel Perry was just an Uber driver trying to go about his business. He got confused because BLM protests occupy streets that one can normally drive down, he made a mistake in traffic, and found himself surrounded by protestors. The protestors were panicky because they're familiar with the widely broadcast Charlottesville story. Perry was frightened because many protests have turned violent. Foster attempted to defuse the situation and move Perry along.
If all of that were true (and I don't accept that it is, but let's run the thought experiment), this highlights why I was so goddamned angry at the people that allowed BLM riots to happen. The above all could be true and we would wind up with one good man's life ended and another good man's life ruined because these absolute donkeys running the show couldn't be bothered to stop BLM from rioting. Take away the riots and there's no need for Foster to arm up. Take away the riots and there is no plausible reason for Perry to be genuinely fearful. But no, we got tacit support from leftist mayors and governors around the country and a bunch of people died because of it. I am never, ever going to forgive these people.
Note - I don't really believe that this charitable view of the two men is accurate, but the point is that it could be and the same thing could have happened because of the context.
In explaining what I don't believe:
I don't buy that either man was basically an innocent bystander sucked into an unfortunate vortex. They could have been, but I doubt it. I think the evidence that Perry really, really hated protestors is compelling evidence that he embraced the confrontation. On the flip side, I have an extremely negative view of BLM and basically just don't believe anyone that says they're peaceful - I think all BLM marches are intimidation tactics and are only peaceful to the extent that people are effectively cowed into submission. Doing anything other than submitting will tend to result in very unpleasant outcomes. My model of these clashes is much more of communist-fascist streetfighting in the 1930s than it is sincere misunderstandings between well-meaning people. I think BLM rioters relish the fight and Perry enjoyed killing one of them.
Nonetheless, like I said, I think someone could take the maximally charitable view and have that be consistent with the known facts of this incident.
The answer to, "so now what" is to aggressively enforce laws for blocking streets, for false imprisonment, and so on. These aren't legitimate protest tactics and allowing them gets people killed. I don't care whether Perry was a cold-hearted murderer or an innocent victim of the system, the result was an entirely predictable consequence of BLM tactics that have little to do with the individuals in any specific altercation.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
55m ago
There is a narrative here where Rittenhouse was found not guilty (correctly) because he did not point his gun at someone and therefore was not threatening, and Foster also did not point his gun at someone so was not threatening and was thus murdered by Perry.
A "narrative" is all it is. It elides a bunch of significant detail in order to claim two things are far more similar than they are, and therefore make out defenders of both Rittenhouse and Perry as hypocrites.
SteveKirk
5m ago
Have any of the non-AR successor platforms taken off? Last news I heard was Germany (partially?) ditching their replacement to go AR. Did the IAR project for the Marines ever happen, or did it get shelved to buy them more anti-ship missiles?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14m ago
I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?
Yes. See here. As @Capitol_Room loves to quote, "what profits a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?" Tribalism may be an inescapable reality, but it is not the foundation of Justice, and Justice cannot be denied.
I'm not sure how much that's worth, and I'm not sure how much worth it will retain as things continue along the current trajectory.
Also, in before a million arguments with your hypothetical.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued a full pardon for U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry.
Perry was convicted last year of murder in the shooting death of Garrett Foster, a USAF veteran and BLM protestor. Foster had attended a downtown Austin protest armed with an AK-pattern rifle, and joined his fellow protestors in illegally barricading the street. Perry's car was halted by the barricade, Foster approached the driver's side door, rifle in hand, and Perry shot him four times from a range of roughly 18 inches, fatally wounding him. Police reported that Foster's rifle was recovered with an empty chamber and the safety on.
Perry claimed that the shooting was self defense, that the protestors swarmed his vehicle, and that Foster advanced on him and pointed his rifle at him, presenting an immediate lethal threat. Foster's fellow protestors claimed that Foster did not point his rifle at Perry, and that the shooting was unprovoked. They pointed to posts made by Perry on social media, expressing hostility toward BLM protestors and discussing armed self-defense against them, and claimed that Perry intentionally crashed into the crowd of protestors to provoke an incident. For his part, Foster was interviewed just prior to the shooting, and likewise expressed hostility toward those opposed to the BLM cause and at least some desire to "use" his rifle.
This incident was one of a number of claimed self-defense shootings that occurred during the BLM riots, and we've previously discussed the clear tribal split in how that worked out for them, despite, in most cases, clear-cut video evidence for or against their claims. The case against Perry was actually better than most of the Reds, in that the video available was far less clear about what actually happened. As with the other Red cases, the state came down like a ton of bricks. An Austin jury found Perry guilty of murder, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison.
Unlike the other cases, this one happened in Texas, and before the trial had completed, support for Perry was strong and growing. That support resulted in Governor Abbott referring Perry's case to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. A year later, the board returned a unanimous recommendation for a pardon to be granted. Abbott has now granted that pardon, and Perry is a free man, with his full civil rights restored to him. He has spent a little more than a year in prison, and his military career has been destroyed, but he is no longer in jail and no longer a felon.
So, now what?
It seems to me that there's a lot of fruitful avenues of discussion here. Was the shooting legitimate self-defense? To what degree did the protestors' tactics of illegally barricading streets, widespread throughout the Floyd riots and a recurring prelude to tragedy, bear responsibility for the outcome? How should we interpret Perry's comments prior to the shooting, or Foster's for that matter?
Two points seem most salient to me.
First, this case is a good demonstration of how the Culture War only rewards escalation, and degrades all pretensions to impartiality. I do not believe that anyone, on either side, is actually looking at this case in isolation and attempting to apply the rules as written as straightforwardly as possible. For both Blues and Reds, narrative trumps any set of particular facts. No significant portion of Blues are ever going to accept Reds killing Blues as legitimate, no matter what the facts are. Whatever portion of Reds might be willing to agree that Reds killing Blues in self-defense might have been illegitimate appears to be trending downward.
Second, this does not seem to be an example of the process working as intended. If the goal of our justice system is to settle such issues, it seems to have failed here. Red Tribe did not accept Perry's conviction as legitimate, and Blue Tribe has not accepted his pardon as legitimate. From a rules-based perspective, the pardon and the conviction are equally valid, but the results in terms of perceived legitimacy are indistinguishable from "who, whom". As I've pointed out many times before, rules-based systems require trust that the rules are fair to operate. That trust is evidently gone.
This is what we refer to in the business as a "bad sign".
WhiningCoil
3hr ago
So, now what?
If I've learned anything, it's never, ever post your violent fantasies online. Not on Facebook, not on Twitter, not on Reddit, not on Discord, not even on Signal with people you trust with your life. Somehow the feds will get ahold of them the moment you protect yourself from their foot soldier, and then it's off to the rape cage with you.
It's probably off to the rape cage with you anyways, but being hoisted by your own petard in the media just adds insult to injury. Your very seriously injured colon.
IMHO the man who was menaced in his vehicle by armed protestors, and ran over several to escape at the Virginia Charlottesville riot was railroaded even harder, but I sincerely doubt any governor of ours will have the balls to pardon him. The state stripped him of his lawyer, introduced prejudicial social media posts, and recorded phone conversations with his mother, and then quietly sentenced him to life in prison.
The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun.
He was driving on the road legally at low speed. his car was blocked by protesters barricading the road illegally, who then mobbed his car, while one of their number, armed with a rifle, advanced on him with the rifle raised. In that situation, how does one disambiguate "seeing the chance and killing for fun" from "legitimately fearing for one's life"?
Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.
Why do you consider this "likely"? Protestors had been making a habit of attacking motorists for quite some time at this point, if memory serves. Vehicles had been fired upon, and motorists lawlessly threatened with lethal force.
In ordinary life when someone exposes themselves that you can do something bad to them and get away with it we usually choose not to do something bad to them.
This argument applies even better to Foster as well, doesn't it? Perry "exposed himself" by driving on the road; Foster's fellow protesters illegally detained and harassed him, and Foster threatened him with deadly force by pointing a rifle at him. Why should we not consider Perry shooting him in self-defense to not be Foster paying the "asshole tax"?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
44m ago
It's a minor thing, but I wonder about the coding of AK-pattern rifles (this case) versus AR types. I know right-leaning folks who own AK patterns, but every example of the right bringing guns to a protest seems to prefer ARs. I assume the American-designed AR is more 'patriotic' than a foreign platform? The AK specifically has all sorts of 'adversary' connotations.
But I suspect there are some here far more familiar with the thinking.
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
59m ago
This is exactly why I think in the tactic of blockades must be made illegal and that law must be enforced. There’s a huge escalation in doing that, in taking over public roads because sitting in a vehicle puts people in a somewhat vulnerable position— escape is hindered by the need to first exit the vehicle, and that people naturally threatened when a crowd of people make moving their car or getting themselves out of their cars dangerous. And it’s hardly surprising that people who are trapped in a vehicle and have no way out are going to kill.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
7m ago
The AR is the American gun. Domestic design, often domestic manufacture. Long history as our service rifle. Strong competition for making both weapons and ammunition.
There’s also a “build your own” factor which gets more people into the ecosystem. This is exemplified by the common top rail, which makes it much cheaper and easier to mount all sorts of optics. But it extends to the stock, handguard, more or less every part. Combined with the hordes of manufacturers, and any gun show becomes a flood of garish polymer customizations and overpriced accessories. While such things are available for the AK, the market is much smaller.
As a mottizen put it, the AR-15 is the Wayne Gretzky of guns.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10m ago
Are you familiar with Brandon Herrera? I don't think there's any connotation there. AKs used to be the "cheap" option, now they're sorta exotic/cool and impractical, but still generally beloved. ARs are slowly pushing them toward extinction, along with all other species of automatic rifle.
sliders1234
4hr ago
U-Visas, or Visas for illegals who suffered violent crime in the U.S. has recently come into the news as a gang in Chicago did fake robberies to help illegals get U-Visas. The program was originally designed to help sex trafficking victims. But had already expanded.
https://cwbchicago.com/2024/05/chicago-fake-robbery-visa-scam.html
If I had to guess this gang was probably not the originator of these schemes. And there are immigrant attorneys and NGO’s spreading the loophole.
https://www.injusticewatch.org/project/u-visa/2022/chicago-police-u-visa-denials/
Leftist piece detailing two Chicago cops who were known for denying U-Visa claims. One case in particular caught my eye of an illegals son being murdered in Chicago and then using it to apply the entire family for U-Visas. Basically if you let the gangbanging families into the country eventually junior gets killed and everyone is legal. A lot of the cases sound like antisocial illegal behavior making them eligible for getting U-Visas.
What started out as a nice way to help sex-trafficking victims then turned into a whole institution for getting immigrants legal. And then it turned into let’s just fake the crimes.
Of course this is a prime example of perverse incentives and the cobra effect. Once you start measuring something people find a way to get the incentive in a way that does not accomplish your goal.
It’s also an indicator for why America is becoming a low trust society. As a Republican I see no reason to ever compromise with the left. If you try to do something reasonable like U-Visas or Asylum or money for terrorist attack victims (turning into massive student loan relief) the left will abuse your reasonableness.
It’s also why the right with some help from Trump was wise to shutdown the immigration bill. That which is written on paper isn’t important. It will be abused. Controlling the executive, beauraucracy, and the process is where the power lies.
But I do think reading the room would tell Perry that it was cosplay.
"The room" was a mob of protesters illegally blocking the road, swarming his vehicle and beating on the exterior while screaming at him, and then one of them advancing on him with a rifle raised in firing position. What part of that sounds like "cosplay"?
Do you have a source for vehicles being fired upon?
Armed "protesters" murdered a young black motorist and critically-injured his passenger under similar circumstances, roughly a month before this incident, and were allowed to escape without arrest or prosecution. Armed "protestors" in Georgia fired on a vehicle under similar circumstances a few weeks earlier, killing an eight-year-old black girl. Videos of protestors attacking motorists' vehicles and in some cases the motorists themselves were everywhere online. Likewise videos of protestors shooting up vehicles without hitting the occupants, or threatening motorists or counter-protestors with firearms.
I am referring to Foster as paying the asshole tax. You cosplay revolutionary, shit on the commons, and then probably actually pointed a gun at a person.
...Ah, I misunderstood.
100ProofTollBooth
1hr ago
Dude, chill. I went to Wikipedia to get the guys name so I could reference it with specificity here.
Was the shooting legitimate self-defense?
Yes. Foster had his rifle shouldered with both hands on it. While the barrel was pointed downward (not straight down, but at an angle), Perry in his car was actually below him... and in any case he could have raised the rifle and fired in an instant. Perry's car was also surrounded and being banged on by Foster's fellow travelers at the time. Perry was in reasonable fear for his life.
They pointed to posts made by Perry on social media, expressing hostility toward BLM protestors and discussing armed self-defense against them, and claimed that Perry intentionally crashed into the crowd of protestors to provoke an incident.
The social media evidence (concerning Perry saying he wanted to kill some other set of BLM protestors) was prejudicial and never should have been admitted. Perry obviously hated them, but that doesn't make him a murderer. Social media evidence from Foster indicating he carried his rifle in order to intimidate, and that he'd blocked streets before, were not admitted.
The claim that Perry "crashed" into the crowd is contradicted by the evidence.
As I've pointed out many times before, rules-based systems require trust that the rules are fair to operate. That trust is evidently gone.
The left never had that trust. The claim that the system is rigged in favor of the Man is a standard leftist one. Now, at least Abbott has finally realized that he doesn't need to act as if institutions controlled by his enemies are trustworthy.
Edit: Apparently they can STILL get him. He still has to face a misdemeanor deadly conduct charge. You'd expect this would be double jeopardy (since the charges stem from the same act), but I think we'll find the courts decide that the pardon wipes away the original jeopardy.
KMC
2hr ago
Wikipedia (yes, I know)
If you knew, you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It wouldn't have even occurred to you to look there, and if you chose to look there anyway, you would have known that it was precisely backwards.
non_radical_centrist
9m ago
That sort of thing stood out to me too. But I think women with holding sex from fratty dudebros and being more aware those fratty dudebros won't make them happy, like this article advocates, would lead towards women looking for other types of men. To select less on looks and more on whether a man isn't douchey.
kiln
10m ago
This is a massive tangent. Is "Ay yo" a Bengali word or an English slang I am unaware of? Or are you using the South Indian Aiyyo? I've never heard a Bengali use the word in this context or any other.
non_radical_centrist
12m ago
That's not what I said. I think women should take more responsibility in general.
non_radical_centrist
12m ago
Rape's not that rare. Lots of men go to the trouble of putting date rape drugs in women's drinks to do precisely what the author claims that random dude did. I hardly think it's impossible that a guy would take advantage of an "opportunity" he stumbled upon that other men go out of their way to arrange.
non_radical_centrist
14m ago
If you can change that then sure, the black mark goes away... but that's a real big "if".
I don't think it's that big an if. We've been moving closer to it pretty much continously for about the past century.
non_radical_centrist
17m ago
Obviously not the parent poster, but one glaring thing about the whole essay is that she doesn't seem to waste a single word of reflection on what she, or the other women she talks about, could have done to avoid the bad outcomes they experienced.
I thought it was pretty clear. They should've more firmly said no to sex when they weren't interested, and they should've had their guard up more against men who just wanted to use them as cum rags.
non_radical_centrist
18m ago
She didn't have a complete solution, but I interpreted it as a fairly clear message that we as a culture should pressure women into casual sex less, and that that women should take the agency to refuse casual sex more.
non_radical_centrist
19m ago
It's fascinating, going through this bizarre, alternate reality hellscape of sexual relations. Absent is even a single person in a monogamous relationship. Not even a single one. How is that even possible? You don't know one single person in a relationship? You don't even know of one? This reads like some sort of speculative fiction where relationships have been outlawed.
It is a bit of an elephant in the room in the article, but at the same time, I don't think it'd be completely necessary to include. Most people agree that a loving monogamous relationship with good sex is the ideal. Saying that out loud again doesn't change anything. The point of this piece is just to push back against toxic sex positivity without back sliding into toxic purity. It's about nudging our current culture a little bit closer to a better equilibrium. It's not about describing the perfect equilibrium with lots of happy loyal relationships for everyone.
Maybe there really are just two breeds of men.
I think it's more of a spectrum, but there are definitely a lot of different male archetypes. Incel and red pill types are mocked for stuff like that video which went something like "Are you a Sigma Male? And is it better than Alpha?" for the weird categories they had, but I think there's a fair amount of truth to those categories.
Alamosa, Colorado - June 4. Alamosa Attorney Charged With Attempted Murder After Shooting Man Driving Through Protest (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/06/15/alamosa-attorney-james-marshall-attempted-murder-shooting-danny-pruit-protest/) Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WviznA_clis
Provo, Utah — Jun 30, 2020. Police arrest 2 after man shot during Provo protest. Gunman shot driver, then hid weapon and continued to protest, Provo police say (https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/30/21308526/gunman-shot-driver-then-hid-weapon-continued-protest-provo-police-say-blm) Video: https://streamable.com/e/2lpo4b Video (zoomed in and slowed): https://streamable.com/e/hsytix
Aurora, Colorado — July 25, 2020. Car drives through crowd, protester shot in Colorado (https://fox6now.com/2020/07/26/car-drives-through-crowd-protester-shot-in-colorado/) Video: https://streamable.com/e/1y8pbi
More options
Context Copy link