That's the far Northeast heights, full of the real well-to-do people. Not a house out there under 3/4 mil, in a city where the median income is < $50k.
Fuck off. They’re pro-life. They would never do this.Today in "BOTH SIDES ARE TEH SAME":
Kushner's coronavirus team shied away from a national strategy, believing that the virus was hitting Democratic states hardest and that they could blame governors, report saysSome members of Kushner's COVID-19 team thought it was better to leave Democratic-voting areas to fend for themselves, a source told Vanity Fair.www.businessinsider.com
I thought Republicans were, in general, against death panels.
The president is pushing the coronavirus theories of a Houston doctor who also says sexual visitations by demons and alien DNA are at the root of Americans’ common health concerns.www.thedailybeast.com
So I read a bunch of them it's mostly nitpicky complaint letters.So, Ghislane Maxwell's (or however you spell her name) court documents were released in their redacted form as a PDF.
Unfortunately, someone fucked up and instead of actually redacting it, they just changed the font background color to black, so the background matched the font and you couldn't read anything. While you couldn't read anything, you can hit CTRL+A, CTRL+C, open a Word document, then hit CTRL+V and read the entire court document.
Holy social media mining.Oof
[SE=6]EXCLUSIVE: Man who shot dead BLM protester in Austin is revealed as a 33-year-old active duty Army sergeant and Trump supporter who posted about using 'deadly force' against 'the mobs' before the killing[/SZE]
[/SIZE]DailyMail.com can reveal the man who shot dead Garrrett Foster in Austin Texas is 33-year-old Daniel Perry, a U.S. Army sergeant and staunch Trump supporter.www.dailymail.co.uk
even if the decedent did raise his weapon, it could be argued that the driver attacked with a deadly weapon first (the vehicle) and the decedent was the one who was raising a weapon in self defense. I believe you don't get to claim self defense when you are the one who initiated the deadly force in the first place.FWIW that tabloid didn't "reveal" anything and in fact got some facts backwards as far as who shot how many times and when, etc. And of course left out any facts that don't jive with their sensational clickbait and didn't source anything they did claim.
What did happen is the guys lawyer sent a statement to the local news station dutifully painting his client as being in the right and everyone grabbed it from there.
There is no credible, proven new info aside from the guys ID. Cops are still gathering and going through video and witness statements and probably will be for some time.
As I said in the other thread it'll hinge on whether the now dead guy really raised his rifle towards the car or not.
There's so many cameras downtown plus people with smartphones something that can't lie or be biased will have caught both the cars and the dead guys behaviors. They just have to sift through, find it, and confirm it.
it will be some hotly contested litigation as to whether those posts are allowed into evidence in court (prejudicial vs probative). on a personal level, I think they absolutely go toward the mindset & intent, but I think in criminal trials, character evidence can only be entered by prosecution to directly rebut defense character evidence. in this case, I coul see defense possibly bringing up his military history to attempt to lean on that as good moral character, but it would open up prosecution to rebut with his posts, so they may not want to. idk. it's complicated and also to a degree at the whims of whoever is preciding (there's rules but the rules are interpreted differently in each case because they're not so much if A then B, A, so B, but more like if A then B, XYZ so ???)So let me get this straight.
- man rages on social media about protestors
- man describes on social media the 'correct' way to shoot protestors
- man shows up armed at protest, ends up shooting protestor. Huh, that's weird and unexpected.
You can't if you initiated the confrontation/violent action/whatever.even if the decedent did raise his weapon, it could be argued that the driver attacked with a deadly weapon first (the vehicle) and the decedent was the one who was raising a weapon in self defense. I believe you don't get to claim self defense when you are the one who initiated the deadly force in the first place.